[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8teen / asmr / fur / kpop / newbrit / polk / tot / vore ]

/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Politics, news, happenings, current events

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


INTERNET PEOPLE NEED HOTPOCKETS AND A HOLOCAUST

File: 6e5138a20d37dd4⋯.png (274.15 KB, 976x1659, 976:1659, google censorship of men1.PNG)

File: 6b5cb9f9bc12435⋯.png (267.92 KB, 959x1611, 959:1611, google censorship of men2.PNG)

File: 661f5f2d49e7d70⋯.png (10.9 KB, 774x295, 774:295, google censorship of men3.PNG)

File: abb257f75b52e22⋯.png (248.26 KB, 988x1742, 38:67, google censorship of men4.PNG)

File: e87d05b73bb4b84⋯.png (622.1 KB, 964x1694, 482:847, google censorship of men5.PNG)

8e2f66 No.9764269

So 8/pol/, we all know that there has been a major censorship campaign going on in the mass media that has been pouring out in the real life, as universities start marking people down if they don't use gender neutral nouns in their essays, and companies start trying to introduce gender-neutral pronouns (it's an introductory paragraph you fucking faggot I won't post sauce, google it if you want some).

But how do you feel about the fact that even your internet has been attacked, and it has been done stealthily? Google now officially censors the word "man" or "men", and replaces it with "people". The mechanics of this stealth replacement isn't currently known (do they actually hide the results with that word, place them lower in google rankings, or is it just a result of most websites deciding to switch from "men" to "people"), but having tested it out a bit with some friends, we found it was blatant censorship.

At first, we tried toying around on Google searching for influential "men" or "women" in gaming, because we thought it would be funny to see the ridiculous disparity between articles and the narrative being pushed, but we never expected to find what we did, aka that one narrative was completely blocked from the search engine. Then, when we extended our search to other less controversial subjects, we found out that even subjects such as "computing", get censored into showing "people" instead of "men", while the search for "women" still gives gendered results.

We wanted to make sure it wasn't just about the GamerGate incident, so we tried mixing it with war, army and military subjects. While this time we did happen to have SOME men-gendered results (only when using quotation marks, mind you), it was an extremely low amount of results compared to a pushed narrative of "people" that were influential. Google even goes out of its way to give results that aren't even related to war so that they can plug "people" instead of "men" in the page results.

Let me share with you some pictures of our experiments, which we tried using the usual search method normies would use when researching a subject (typing words directly), trying to add quotation marks to make sure the word is in the title, and even going for an advanced search excluding the words "people" and "women", but still getting the same retarded results.

How do you feel about the fact that your gender is officially now non-existent, and "people" fought in the world wars, not "men", as SJWs effectively re-write history and eliminate toxic masculinity from it? I would talk about how this forces a narrative down people's throat, muh 1984, muh Farenheit 451, muh dystopian future, but you all know the drill and how dangerous censorship is, so well fuck it, no point in circle-jerking.

General discussion thread about this issue, and please feel free to test it out for yourself and post results here. I had great hopes this was a mistake of mine, but I tried different browsers, IPs, useragents, and even search engines, but the results were the same, for me and for the friends I was testing it with. I'm calling upon your weapon-grade autism to find out how exactly this is done and what it entails.

_______

>tl;dr - search engines now don't show results for "men"-related searches and shows "people" instead, while keeping "women"-related searches intact

>they don't only do it for gaming, but for most fields

>idk if they actually give lower "google ranking" for certain fields, but they're definitively pushing a narrative

>this is the world you live in now, do you feel in charge?

>pics related

4a5570 No.9764378

File: 02d41b50be4f804⋯.png (111.76 KB, 821x508, 821:508, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

File: 93e95c874d20454⋯.png (113.81 KB, 824x505, 824:505, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

File: 2a9bde16cf7ef2b⋯.png (97.18 KB, 869x474, 11:6, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

Lel it’s real. Limited at the moment, but no doubt will expand to cover a wider range of language. See first image, try and force it deliver male results and it ignores the search term totally and delivers “woman”.

“Influential men” delivers “persons” (image two), “Top men” delivers accurate results (image three). Hmm…. Interesting find OP, I look forward to seeing where this thread goes.


0d2e44 No.9764417

>>9764269

Kill every single fucking jew on the face of the planet.


1cf6ad No.9764420

Can always do as I do and just Bing it.


3fc325 No.9764423

File: 78fef75ad38cff1⋯.jpg (43.22 KB, 500x368, 125:92, go fuck urself.jpg)

>>9764269

These are always good for red pilling new recruits to our cause anon. Love when a bluepilled faggot always discounts the sage words of anon and go off to prove its wrong. Its beautiful when reality is at their fingertips and easy as fuck for a lazy bitch to get a babies first redpill shoved up their ass.

>off to the batcave to spread the news!


8e2f66 No.9764427

File: dd9a83be56566aa⋯.png (173.28 KB, 659x1199, 659:1199, Influential men in war.png)

File: 1b76aef723ff43d⋯.png (188.42 KB, 643x1255, 643:1255, Influential -men- in war.png)

File: 4682a3e4cc8a49f⋯.png (280.94 KB, 687x1637, 687:1637, Influential women in war.png)

File: d2e9a2f57edd81b⋯.jpg (57.94 KB, 960x399, 320:133, women victims of war.jpg)

Here are some war-related results. This one really grinds my gear because we know for a fact that people, especially children, will only search the easy way they're taught, aka directly typing the words in the search bar.

Although, if they do so, they will be misled into believing that both men and women fought in the World Wars, which is literally starting to falsify history to push their narrative.

>inb4 women are the primary victims of war maymay


5e0da9 No.9764452

Funny i typed in most dangerous men poped right up

Nothing to see here goy all is well


4a5570 No.9764461

File: c0294f6cd73dc3b⋯.png (15.82 KB, 677x150, 677:150, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

File: 8b0f514610f96f2⋯.png (17.68 KB, 675x145, 135:29, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

"men" is no longer a recognised word according to Google?


4a5570 No.9764511

File: b820281b050518f⋯.png (237.28 KB, 914x608, 457:304, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

File: 416d6f389020ccf⋯.png (205.02 KB, 782x592, 391:296, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

Oh I am laffin.


1c5094 No.9764528

>>9764417

/thread tbh

only sterilize the kids though because awwwww

bump for quality and interest


4a5570 No.9764529

File: a4fcef49313af1a⋯.png (132.3 KB, 824x561, 824:561, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

File: 7f8787ceb8b401b⋯.png (129.75 KB, 860x568, 215:142, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

It seems they are yet to perfect things.


8b1da8 No.9764539

>>9764269

>leaves all women related searches intacted

Problem?


a44378 No.9764556

File: 20dd33234536a9e⋯.png (120.02 KB, 786x792, 131:132, 2017-04-20_22.46.06_786x79….png)

This is what happens when you try to force "men" and subtract "people"


8e2f66 No.9764569

File: e24994e52499974⋯.mp4 (2.23 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Feminism is cancer.mp4)

>>9764378

>>9764461

>>9764511

So what are your opinions on this.

A) They block the word and stealth-replace it with people, so instead the results that have "people" or gender-neutral words are showed up instead

B) They actually take into consideration the "man" word when rating websites, and have a lower rating for websites that use that word

C) They give higher ratings based on "tolerance" and "gender-neutral" words/ideologies that is put on top

Tbh I feel like B) would be the less damaging to the people as it would be possible to actually find decent information, such as statistics on men, or men's issues, so long as you search specifically for it, while a solution like A) would actually end up simply hiding these results.

Although, it definitely gives a worrying edge in the information war, as anytime you would be looking up for a "controversial" subject such as rapes on women vs rapes on men, you would inevitably end up getting the pro-feminist results first.

Is there even a way to verify this?

Also, I remembered that this isn't actually the first time that we discover Google bias in its search results. Remember some years ago when we were looking for "white men" images, and black men were randomly showing up for no reason at all? Obviously now it's going a step further, since at that time it could be explained by articles talking about both whites and blacks, or articles written by SJWs about whites, but still, we were warned and we just let it slide ;__;


98b62d No.9764572

File: b9324807f8b1199⋯.jpg (265.19 KB, 1294x946, 647:473, jews2.jpg)

File: 60f398fa0f02c01⋯.jpg (779.22 KB, 806x1600, 403:800, jews1.jpg)

Use Yandex.

Here's a comparison.


98b62d No.9764599

File: ed0cb9efdd0bf71⋯.jpg (226.03 KB, 858x937, 858:937, wp1.jpg)

File: 8035e3aa6c4cb52⋯.jpg (208.19 KB, 781x938, 781:938, wp2.jpg)

Another comparison


1fbe3a No.9764648

File: 6c6f2555a109a5d⋯.jpg (52.4 KB, 550x550, 1:1, 1416259330873.jpg)

>>9764269

Well….OP. Holy shit. This is just. Damn. This is the kind of thread I still come to 8/pol/ for. Thanks for the good work.

If this is actually true. This could be a huge breaking story for alternative media.


8e2f66 No.9764720

File: 9effcd87ee25db7⋯.png (1.4 MB, 1281x1113, 61:53, women logic.png)

>>9764599

>>9764572

Thanks for the comparison, but I think the main problem here is related to the fact that we obviously know Google is the main, default search engine for most people, especially children.

We know how/where to look for info and dig if need be, but it's the propaganda to the mainstream population that actually is the problem I wanted to discuss, we can't just change everyone's habits, and Google knows it.

They try to act neutral, but similarily to Facebook controlling (((fake news))), they are trying to push a narrative now. This is one step further from bias in mass media the way I see it, because a search engines literally is supposed to give out pages related to your search in an automated robot-like way (inb4 r9k b& left n rite). In comparison, mass media could always try and falsely pretend like when they report on a story it's usually natural to pick a side (even though it was false, they still had some kind of excuse). For a search engine, though, there is literally no excuse.

>>9764648

Sieg Heil my friend, pray for a purge soon #DeusVult


b5573b No.9764737


4a5570 No.9764765

>>9764648

We know they all browse here for stories, I expect this to gain traction by the weekend. Today OP was not a faggot.


d14e40 No.9764770

>>9764511

>anne frank

top kek, nobody really even knows who she is outside of a synagogue or /pol/


b5573b No.9764771

>>9764765

>namefag

>not a faggot

no


d14e40 No.9764790

File: 1765811fccc273c⋯.gif (1.1 MB, 339x500, 339:500, 3d alex grey.gif)

>>9764569

>>9764269

Infowars just went thorugh this.

Google hires (((contractors))) to rate website and search results. If they get caught, google just fires them and hires another.

These contractors are probably packed with SJW's


bb7b3f No.9764801

>>9764790

>with SJW's

You can say kikes here. We all know who is behind this.


1fbe3a No.9764817

File: 59be3968681b328⋯.png (201.97 KB, 1891x968, 1891:968, meninsports.png)

File: 0064f075618c810⋯.png (451.83 KB, 1284x968, 321:242, meninsports2.png)

File: 4fb4b1d8c88e81e⋯.png (54.69 KB, 937x427, 937:427, meninsports3.png)

>>9764765

Check this one out dude. Holy shit. OP is

CONFIRMED not a faggot. This is some straight outta 1984 in real life kinda shit man. I wasn't even going to drink tonight. But I think I need at least a beer or three before I go to bed tonight. This is straight up spoopy.

Search "men" in sports.

pics related were the first page results


4a5570 No.9764866

File: d23eda29fab8155⋯.png (106.15 KB, 858x501, 286:167, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

>>9764569

It looks like some form of A in my opinion. It appears as if they are simply automatically replacing the male search terms with gender-neutral terms and thus the results don’t match the input search criteria. If you try and force relevant results by excluding gender-neutral keywords from the search criteria it simply delivers irrelevant results (as in image), if they had simply lowered the ratings of the websites that were relevant to the “male” search then I imagine we could force them by excluding higher ranking sites.

They appear to have effectively crippled the function of their key product. Gender politics is cute and all (not really, its heinous) but what if someone actually wants to know about influential male figures?

>>9764790

This is likely just a means of giving themselves plausible deniability when trying out things that could have them sued. Would Google actually give random contractors the ability to fuck around with the fundamental mechanics of their products without any oversight?

>>9764817

It’s pretty damming. I wonder how long this has been active for.


1fbe3a No.9764885

File: 0099894ca6a9f3b⋯.png (132.8 KB, 1082x769, 1082:769, womeninsports.png)

File: 24a6da129685edf⋯.png (223.84 KB, 1005x977, 1005:977, womeninsports2.png)

File: b612ee45465823b⋯.png (86.64 KB, 993x598, 993:598, womeninsports3.png)

>>9764817

ok. here's the same search except for

"women" in sports


46bfd2 No.9764891

Holy shit. This is big.

Spread this all over twitter and let the "neutrals" decide who to side with.


235ff1 No.9764895

>>9764269

>waaaah men are oppressed

Only jewish men complain, aryan men man up and endure.


09522f No.9764905

File: 026cc2f2516988b⋯.jpg (10.55 KB, 420x444, 35:37, 026cc2f2516988b19726df21ff….jpg)

>>9764420

Bing is great for porn but ixquick is better for everything else


b5573b No.9764906

>>9764895

>namefagging

>>>/cuckchan/

b8

Don't care.


4a5570 No.9764907

We need some form of techfag/s to get in here and give us ideas as to how this is being achieved at Google’s end.


b5573b No.9764916

>>9764905

>the semen jew

Anon you really ought not to.


98b1e3 No.9764917

>>9764417

/thread.


98b1e3 No.9764925

>>9764461

Apparently men, OF ALL RACES, do not exist anymore.

We're simply women with extra nobs.

If this shit continues there will be blood. I hope google realizes this.


ac116d No.9764931

>>9764452

they were all those dangerous, NRA white men, too, no doubt

hand wringing intensifies


98b1e3 No.9764934

>>9764420

does bing have the same issues?

I know they data mine, but if they're as good as google but without the obscene SJW filtering…

Google might be biting the bullet here.


4a5570 No.9764943

File: 028ad9da2dff087⋯.png (109.29 KB, 793x600, 793:600, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

>tfw you want to write men out of the history books but you also want to appease Islam


1fbe3a No.9764950

File: 57309fc7e097ba6⋯.png (169.96 KB, 984x964, 246:241, meninbowling.png)

File: 0bb84f8860a5e5f⋯.png (423.53 KB, 1002x967, 1002:967, meninbowing2.png)

File: 6bed31b3db8beeb⋯.png (77.08 KB, 1187x462, 1187:462, meninbowling3.png)

File: 986ef84361758fb⋯.png (292.7 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, womeninbowling.png)

File: 6758d64880a1085⋯.png (199.23 KB, 946x959, 946:959, womeninbowling2.png)

Ok. This one was pretty interesting and is more evidence for the *people* word theory.

Famous men in bowling.

Contrasted with famous women in bowling.

Thing I found odd on this one is there was no link list at the bottom for related searches on the return for the mens search.


98b1e3 No.9764963

File: 33fed0a4a22936d⋯.jpg (27.32 KB, 1219x359, 1219:359, white shirt for men.JPG)

Odd..


1fbe3a No.9764979

>>9764963

The first 4 autoresults for black are

blackboard

black tap

black mirror

blackboard cuny

So i don't really see anything strange there.


d4dba1 No.9765030

File: 00a6dfbff20f17e⋯.png (544.1 KB, 600x1240, 15:31, fullinsane.png)

>>9764943

>Muhammad more famous than Isaac Newton and FUCKING JESUS CHRIST

This is blatantly false and no Mudslimes chimping out is going to change it. These kikes are rewritting history in our eyes and they expect to get off scot-free. The audacity of these fucking kikes.


98b1e3 No.9765046

>>9764979

Why is "for men" still there. That means men is still there, but harder to get as a result.


1fbe3a No.9765059

>>9765046

Well its different with shopping related searches I'm sure. Even google isn't going to have people that search for things like shoes *for men* hats *for men* and come back with results for *people* or for *women*. They wouldn't mess around with gender related shopping.


7e2b0c No.9765072

File: 7522280167d0ced⋯.jpg (61.82 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Cwyk0rJUoAArmWk.jpg)

FUCK THIS SHIT


1fbe3a No.9765090

>>9765059

Like. Imagine some random man that knows nothing about politics did a search for mens pants and it came back with cute summer dresses. Lel. Even that dude would be like….uh what the hell?


e8fccf No.9765130

>angry post

>angry post

>inane comment

>LARP

>"gee I hope the jews burn soon heh"

>not a single post suggesting we do something about it

seriously?


3375ca No.9765141

>>9764269

>current year + 2

>still using a search engine that censors based on lefty feelings


7e2b0c No.9765158

>>9765130

I suggest we let google continue crippling their search results to appease the feelings of leftists until anyone who isn't a sodomite is aware that the results cannot be trusted.


0bdc47 No.9765215

>>9764737

Yeah I figured from his lingo and his namefagging OP wasn't around here…but you know what, fuck you buddy. I am dissapoint if you're a real anon and not a shill. Here comes OP with some legendary bread which you could be toasting in, instead you choke and spit like a bitch And you decide to contribute nothing but negativity. I'd have been fine with you calling him out on namefagging if you'd maybe been cool like these big guys:

>>9764378

>>9764461

But no, you're a weak piece of shit mentally and probably contribute nothing to our cause, the truth. I seriously hope you're a shill….because if not the reality is you belong on leddit more then op


7088ad No.9765240

File: e305851eca5c32e⋯.jpg (202.98 KB, 750x1293, 250:431, IMG_7636.JPG)

Guys, please read OP's post carefully.

He clearly says that he found it across multiple search engines. This is not exclusive to Google. So far the only one I've found that wasn't pozzed was Yandex.

Hell even CuckCuckGo got popped.

Bing was even worse. Searching for "Most influential men in computing" scored me the wiki page for most influencial women in computing. And it HIGHLIGHTED Woman as if that was one of my direct search terms


c43744 No.9765248

The plot to Harrison Bergeron is coming true more and more every day.


b5573b No.9765252

>>9765215

Quit being a whiny nigger why the fuck do you think I dropped a polite sage for off topic. In the last four threads I opened there was at least one namefag> And quit acting like this place is TRS.


91d820 No.9765265

File: 1255fd726fc4c20⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 230.35 KB, 300x297, 100:99, 1479849881025.png)


4a5570 No.9765267

File: 1d8f8b4b92417cb⋯.png (205.42 KB, 1214x604, 607:302, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

File: 4c190b80c2d87e6⋯.png (115.6 KB, 675x562, 675:562, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

File: ee2e6b2593ea4de⋯.png (120.7 KB, 666x556, 333:278, Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at ….png)

>>9765240

CuckCuckGO delivers its results from Google, same as StartPage (first image) so it makes sense that their results would be the same.

Odd that Bing should be in on the game but as image two and three illustrate it appears they are.


7088ad No.9765271

File: 43890b8a7c63226⋯.jpg (251.3 KB, 750x1295, 150:259, IMG_7638.JPG)

>>9765240

Here's the Bing result I mentioned.

How was this achieved acrosss multiple companies seemingly at the same time?

So far the only correlation I've found is that all search engines based out of America have the filter. While non-US ones like Baidu and Yandex still display male results.


000000 No.9765291

>>9765240

Does it work only on English search engines? Since Yandex isn't affected, assumed that non-English ones does not have the obscuring engine as well. And I only know one language.


c8f1f2 No.9765293

>>9764907

generic search/replace of string "men" with "people", "man" with "person" etc. based on some kind of algorithm which decides whether they can get away with it.

this looks like what's happening, since "people" is a highlighted word, suggesting it was swapped in as the search term.


98b62d No.9765294

>>9765240

Yandex is god-tier and doesn't sell you data (it's co-funded by the Russian government).


46bfd2 No.9765302

>>9765294

Proof?


4a5570 No.9765304

>>9765271

>How was this achieved acrosss multiple companies seemingly at the same time?

This is indeed an odd revelation; I expect it of Google and I’m not all that surprised at Microsoft but for them to act in collusion on this makes it a much bigger deal.

Did they have a sit-down and plot this? It can’t be a coincidence can it! Both corporations actively reprogrammed their search engines to act in this way.

>>9765293

I presumed as much, it really does appear to be this simple.


1fbe3a No.9765315

>>9765294

Yeah. Yandex is the Russian version of Google. They decided they needed a competitor and yah. The government helped them get off the ground but they are a private company.


0bdc47 No.9765316

>>9765252

Dude, that's my whole point, you're the one that is being a whiny nigger. Stop running mental gymnastics and think for a minute…this place will never be as it was before the election, you'd have to be retarded to think so. So…..instead of being a whiny nigger muh secrit club rules my suggestion was you contribute instead of helping divide. I'm so fucking tired of seeing us fight each other over slight differences. You think the kike shills don't laugh when they see their tactics work and anons attack anons?


98b62d No.9765324

>>9765271

>So far the only correlation I've found is that all search engines based out of America have the filter

Nah, the German Lycos is pozzed too. I think the Jew slaves have their results censored.

>>9765302

The owner and the CEO are now in the government. The company is tied with FSB and the company servers according to the Russian law are all based in Russia. I don't think FSB would care if you engaged in wrongthink or right-wing erxtremism.


1fbe3a No.9765341

>>9765324

Similiar situation as Google really. Except Google didn't need government help to get off the ground. But now Google has tons of ties to the U.S government. I remember an article a while back that they were the most frequent visitor to the Obama Whitehouse or something like that.


99f9c5 No.9765349

>>9764427

The bold propaganda text in image #3 is honestly more creepy than frustrating to me.


98b62d No.9765361

>>9765341

>Similiar situation as Google really

Nah, Yandex is pretty straightforward about it. Google pretends to a be a private company while having ties to the shadiest kikes of pentagon, CIA and Homeland Security and 80% of ex-government people on their board of directors.


7088ad No.9765372

>>9765324

Ah okay good find.

I found that Korea's favorite search engine wasn't filtering it as well but looks like we have an anomoly now with that German one.

Maybe it's…..NATO countries?

So far unaffected ones I've found are

- Yandex

- Baidu

- Daum

- Naver


1fbe3a No.9765392

>>9765372

Looks like its a European *((()))search engine problem. Gee…who could've guessed it? Le sarcasm face.


b5573b No.9765398

>>9765316

>anon attacks anon

>for correcting namefag

>tells anons not to attack anons

>slathers his post with no u

Do you know why namefags are unwanted at best?

>fight each other over slight differences

/pol/ tends to be pretty unified unless you're a milquetoast faggot or a TRSodomite.

And in case you hadn't noticed, I did contribute. I told this anon >>9764905 to give up the porn jew.


41213c No.9765411

File: 889bab3fd9d0049⋯.jpg (771.22 KB, 2592x1456, 162:91, encyc.jpg)

>>9764569

Oh, I often set off the "are you sure this fake news is kosher, goy?" filter on FB and then am probably shadowbanned anyway.

Well, back to pic related I suppose.


1fbe3a No.9765415

>>9765372

If we decide to push this out to some of the alt-lighters over the next week. We could get maybe several million people men to stop using Google and Bing. I hate to help out foreign companies but hey. There's really no European competitors that I'm aware of.


98b62d No.9765419

File: 08ef599b9da27e4⋯.jpg (306.39 KB, 1184x933, 1184:933, spage.jpg)

>>9765372

Dutch Startpage cucked too.

It really looks like the Jewed countries vs unjewed countries.


1fbe3a No.9765433

>>9765419

startpage just uses google results. But makes you anonymous. Because Google saves every search you ever make by IP address. I think ixquick mixes in results from both Google and Bing.


78c00c No.9765437

>>9765240

So wait, what if this is some outside actor influencing the search giants like that recent silicon valley start up that was going to rank diversity and leftism? This seems like too much of a coincidental timing for all of the big ones to be the exact same.


9cbd73 No.9765439

>>9764511

anne franks ugly lying kike mug bitch is dumber than hellen keller


1fbe3a No.9765444

>>9765437

Well. We just now found out about it. We don't know how long its been going on yet.


78c00c No.9765450

>>9764737

>>9764906

>>9765398

>TRSodomite

Notice how some of the worst shills and shitposters seem to be the ones using this term? This is actually a good thread, and yet again someone using the term "TRSodomite" is shitting it up.


b5573b No.9765468

File: 65bbe3d245c3883⋯.jpg (9.52 KB, 237x212, 237:212, too easy.jpg)

>>9765450

>showing how asshurt you are about your site getting fucked over

wew


98b62d No.9765475

File: 118acb3843923a7⋯.jpg (796.67 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, yand1.jpg)

File: 39c0cbd7820e51e⋯.jpg (124.89 KB, 702x717, 234:239, yand2.jpg)

Wait wait. How come Yandex results look like fucking /pol/? If you search "jews", "black crime" etc you get AWM cartoons and redpill infographics.

Is Yandex biased or are these things really so popular?


22e3a2 No.9765480

>>9764950

Are we sure this isn't an issue similar to when people start including the word "white" in their searches? As in when searching sports, the "men", is implied and more the word "men" appear more in webpages when they're talking about them in relation to women and women's sports? Like if you wanted to search the greatest men who were bowlers, you would search "greatest bowlers all time" or something.


1fbe3a No.9765481

File: a1fa90af01679c0⋯.jpg (221.33 KB, 700x525, 4:3, 1438102548375.jpg)

>>9765450

Don't try defending TRS on 8/pol/ anon. We are the ones who destroyed all their credibility. Remember. Where do you think you are?

Now lets all stop shitting up this fine thread with yet more TRS shitflinging. Shall we?


356143 No.9765487

File: 4be3605e03f1cc6⋯.png (103.94 KB, 264x315, 88:105, 0e47f20b38ca53a8fc825e045c….png)

>>9765481

>destroyed all their credibility


22e3a2 No.9765490

>>9765480

*the world "men" appears more on webpages when they're talking about men in relation to women and women's sports

I seemed to have stroked out there for a moment.


b5573b No.9765494

>>9765481

As this anon says >>9765487, they never had any credibility to begin with.

But you're right, I've had my fill of their whinging for the day, enough is enough.


356143 No.9765505

File: 662b98026159a42⋯.png (201.09 KB, 360x360, 1:1, 662b98026159a42cbfb6ca6e08….png)

>>9765494

>they never had any credibility to begin with

Next you fags will be pretending they never existed.


1fbe3a No.9765512

>>9765480

It's possible. But I did a "men" in wrestling search and it actually comes back fairly normal. What you might hope for. Except for two glaring anomolies. The 5th result is

>PHOTOS: Straight Men In Singlets Wrestle And “Let Off Steam” / Queerty

https://www.queerty.com/photos-straight-men-in-singlets-wrestle-and-let-off-steam-20

May 11, 2014 - Scroll down to see pictures of men mounting one another wrestling, and let us know what you think in the comments section below: Are these …

Which seems strange..why would some random gay forum show up as the fifth search result for that? And the last search result on the first page is this

>Women in Wrestling: Stereotypes, Gender Bias and Inequality Jessica …

www.csus.edu/wac/journal/2013/castellon_and_nasir_final_draft.pdf

This study examined how ringside commentary in professional wrestling matches …. Diva women's wrestling, while the other five focused on WWF/WWE men's …

Yet more social justice academia shit.

People searching for men in wrestling? Hardly any people searching for that would want this to be in the results on the first page.


1fbe3a No.9765516

>>9765511

Just let it go dude. This thread isn't about that. Argue about it in one of the TRS threads if you want to defend them so badly.


b5573b No.9765531

File: b99aaf03603c5db⋯.jpg (54.12 KB, 638x540, 319:270, smdhtbhfam.jpg)

>>9765505

Still too easy.

>>9765516

>>9765521

Alright last time. Sware on me mum.


1fbe3a No.9765535

>>9765521

The golden rule of /pol/. If you don't like a thread. Ignore it. You even have the option of hiding said thread if you can't stand looking at it. And always remember. There are couple hundred threads in the catalog at any given time.


7e2b0c No.9765541

Can we just build our own internet already? Break all links to the outside, REEEE!


1fbe3a No.9765548

>>9765541

I thought that link would break. My bad. I didn't mean to not break it.


22e3a2 No.9765554

>>9765512

Well, I think the issue is amplified by the fact that google generally gives more "search weight" to pozzed websites, rather than specifically targeting the word "men". Both your examples lend credence to my theory, the first includes the word "men" because for a gay website article, highlighting "straight men" is relevant to fag interests. Similarly in the second, "men" are being mentioned in relation to "women". Again, do people search for "men in wrestling" vs "wrestlers"?


1fbe3a No.9765565

>>9765554

You might be right. I did the same wrestling search on Yandex and on this one it actually came back with worse results then Google.


356143 No.9765567

>>9765531

Are you the color of her hair or her hoodie?


22e3a2 No.9765579

File: c032f506c49b608⋯.png (79.23 KB, 615x671, 615:671, greatmen_search2.PNG)

File: a0cef3eef78f2fd⋯.png (213.62 KB, 795x995, 159:199, greatmen_search1.PNG)

>>9765554

Here, I've done a search simply for "great men". I think the results are interesting. I think it is important to remember that these cultmarxists tend to focus of these sort of ideas and since ideas and writing is a primary transmitter of ideas. Just as we've semi-seriously joked about gaming google search algos for images, don't forget that our enemies do the same thing, both intentionally as a means to spread their idealogy and unintentionally because there so damn many of them doing the same thing.


7778dc No.9765586

>>9764269

This just means women aren't people. I'm ok with it.


1fbe3a No.9765592

>>9765579

So it could be a cultural progressive thing and not an intentional google thing? Thats almost even worse in a way lel.


ac3ff1 No.9765612

>>9764569

Variant of C) Certain websites get favored, those websites tend to be pozzed.

Or D) Lists of top individuals in some category tend to be either formatted as all people or just women. A list of exclusively men is unnecessary, because men make up the overwhelming majority of high achievers in almost every field and dominate the lists when sex isn't specified. This parallels the way we handle sports. Lots of sports that we think of as men's are technically open to women (every once in a while you'll see a woman try to get into the NFL as a kicker), they just can't ever compete.

There's clear evidence that in some cases "men" is just being wordfiltered to "people" when you search it (google could be treating it as a synonym rather than fully replacing it, not clear), but I think the majority of the effect is coming from the causes I stated. I'm not sure there are all that many articles about "influential men in computing" to find, because the list of "influential people in computing" is overwhelmingly male anyway.


f986ca No.9765614

File: 7a4a695e02c71f2⋯.jpg (374.62 KB, 900x900, 1:1, 1491530943369.jpg)

File: a0f14b10e476878⋯.jpg (55.44 KB, 600x612, 50:51, a0f14b10e47687889ee7fca2cb….jpg)


9d32fb No.9765621

File: 9b12a6696df89ce⋯.jpg (200.73 KB, 819x1593, 91:177, 51aa04b69d825fb66c927e0416….jpg)

>Searches for influential male figures

>Shows related searches for influential female figures


1fbe3a No.9765629

File: 5035f0275f73ba4⋯.png (115.26 KB, 266x273, 38:39, 1438110891796.png)

>>9765621

alright yeah. some of it can be explained away. But something ain't right here.


b36648 No.9765648

>>9764569

Feminism, as a branch of Judaism, is the ideology that a woman dying is better than a woman being raped.


1fbe3a No.9765650

>>9765621

I searched Greatest Men In History. And it actually turned up good results.


ac3ff1 No.9765655

>>9765621

My results are completely different from those. They're all "people" or similar, not "women". Also, the images and related searches on that screenshot outright say that the original search was for "influential female figures".


34800d No.9765664

File: 5447c065709f90b⋯.jpg (87.19 KB, 806x905, 806:905, fuck off.jpg)

And this thread just had to remind me that Michael H. Hast put Mohammed as the most influential figure in all human history. And that shit still pops up first in Google searches.


cb9afd No.9765666

File: 6cd48d7062bd819⋯.png (133.06 KB, 627x217, 627:217, deported.png)

I did my duty.


1fbe3a No.9765669

>>9765655

Yep. You're right. That anon is trolling us….


f986ca No.9765670

>>9765666

Thanks Satan


f986ca No.9765680


b36648 No.9765681

>>9765666

Ah, good…?… Reporting the image of black women who are being institutionally oppressed into White sports/rules/dress.

Soon the world will look back on history and see pictures like that and think how oppressed those black women were, being forced to take on _white_ behavior. It's good that Google will listen to separating blacks from this racist situation.


10b561 No.9765692

File: 6c005b9f87d6577⋯.jpg (22.39 KB, 500x375, 4:3, ConsiderTheFollowing2.jpg)

>>9764269

Shouldn't we get this trending on twitter?

Get it out to right-aligned celebs and journos?

We have to keep chipping away at Googles (non-existent) credibility.

The bigger the shitstorm, the more their stock will feel it.


ac3ff1 No.9765697

>>9765664

>And this thread just had to remind me that Michael H. Hast put Mohammed as the most influential figure in all human history.

Not completely crazy. He turned a backwater shitheap into a metastatic cancer that's still fucking up the whole world 1400 years later. Hard to beat that.

>>9765666

Can't tell for sure from that thumbnail, and I can't replicate those results, but if that's Serena Williams jewgle got it right.


b2dffb No.9765709

File: 1fd0b79fb017b85⋯.png (61.61 KB, 1288x711, 1288:711, whatswrong.png)

Yeah, only remove men from good good viewpoints. Remove women from the bad ones.


1fbe3a No.9765714

>>9765709

The thing is. I'm not sure if this is a Google thing or just a culture thing. It's still inciteful either way I guess.


b2dffb No.9765716

File: 1f42c9fd38833bc⋯.png (29.93 KB, 675x705, 45:47, whatswrong2.png)

and for comparison


51b899 No.9765783

I hate political correctness. Couldn't they at least me consistent about it? Shouldn't google replace "women" with "people" as well? Just goes to show how they don't care about consistency of viewpoints, they just want to do what they want to push their agenda.


2fc1fe No.9765881

This is 1984-level shit. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit all suppressing viewpoints that don't support (((the narrative))). The real trouble is that these organisations are essentially monopolies, and it's almost impossible to get normies to switch from Facebook and Google especially because they're locked in by friends, apps and linked accounts.

I really don't know what the answer is? Maybe they should be broken up, or punished by law against suppressing free speech? The only other option is if we created some kind of newspaper and spread it ourselves.


98b62d No.9765907

>>9765881

I though it was always pretty obvious. Ever tried finding NatSoc stuff on google? Even "controversial" historic videos on youtube don't show up in search.


b51987 No.9766128

File: 55a286a8afbd547⋯.png (564.15 KB, 1821x1360, 1821:1360, anime argument.png)

File: 715348083ce72d8⋯.jpg (453.19 KB, 1879x1966, 1879:1966, animecancer.jpg)

>>9765468

Stop posting cartoons.


eb9653 No.9766171

Just searched 'men who fought in wars' and got nothing much. A couple of articles talking about muslims. "Women who fought in wars" gave me a litany of pages with appropriate titles.

It's not that surprising, though - given that videogames like Battlefield are attempting to 'blackwash' World War I to make it seem like the majority of the fighting was done by black people.

What needs to be asked is what can we do to avoid (as much as possible) allowing google ad revenue.

A boycott of such companies isn't particularly far-fetched, and I believe that as they become more conspicuously deranged, a great number of people will be interested in alternatives.


9ed9c3 No.9766186

File: a371b8fe62419f3⋯.jpg (72.56 KB, 623x626, 623:626, 01 - DgTTKu_t.jpg)

>>9766128

Reminder that this is bait.

If they want to derail a thread they'll post either:

>anime is shit

or

>if you don't like anime, you're cancer

Both are bait.


9c86bd No.9766244

File: 3937934e32938e1⋯.jpg (203.55 KB, 1089x751, 1089:751, startpage-men_result.jpg)

File: 303f22393ea4343⋯.jpg (198.08 KB, 1000x764, 250:191, startpage-women_result.jpg)

File: b09a9dcaca43562⋯.jpg (200.21 KB, 1087x755, 1087:755, searxme-men_result.jpg)

File: 0097501ceca8623⋯.jpg (210.78 KB, 1080x759, 360:253, searxme-women_result.jpg)

File: bc3e109e0f6787b⋯.jpg (214.29 KB, 1094x815, 1094:815, searxme-quote influential ….jpg)

I did a few searches on Startpage (google proxy) and Searx.me (search engine aggrigator). What I found was rather unsettling.

At first, on startpage, it went as expected. Men got filtered to people and women was left untouched.

Moving to searx, I got a few articles for influential men but only two, and it also added women as well (it has "men" in the title after all). Women went as expected; I got only the queries for influential women.

HOWEVER

I was curious to see what would happen if I typed "influential men" in gaming (thus eliminating the women results, or so I thought) instead EVERY ARTICLE RELATING TO INFLUENTIAL MEN WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE FIRST RESULTS PAGE! With only one result being the article relating to google's censorship.

While Searx's defaults are mostly big-tech related (google, yahoo, etc) it does pull in some obscure search engines as well. So this last result is particularly alarming.

I only did a quick evalutation as editing images in linux is a bitch and a half without GIMP (or even with it) so I limited myself both to the immediately visable search results as well as only the most obvious search queries. Confirmation would be helpful at this point.


9c86bd No.9766254

>>9766244

excuse me. I missed the "influential men in youtube" result. I just want to clarify that a total of two results on men appeared in the "influential men" in gaming search.


12c389 No.9766268

I knew google was fucked up. The company is too big, and any /tech/ie should know that. Avoid their products whenever you can.


e0617b No.9766272

>>9764269

I noticed this when my D&D group was searching for avatars for their characters.

Type in "Paladin", "Blonde Knight", "Male Aasimar", or anything that typically represents your white, blonde, blue eyed kinght, and you get pictures of female warriors and nigger knights. Not even kidding.


12c389 No.9766280

File: 955340f368e252e⋯.png (3.12 MB, 1895x954, 1895:954, BlondeMaleKnight.PNG)

>>9766272

Worked mostly fine for me in incognito. Other than the weeb trash and male models kek.


a8719f No.9766305

>>9764529

>Search for male criminals

>You get male criminals

>ergo men are likely to be criminals

Why would they change that?


62c217 No.9766317

>>9766305

They got to be impartial brah.


c4584c No.9766319

I don't give a fuck about google, facebook, twitter, Microsoft, Red Hat, etc. If people want to use that shit, it's their problem. Don't come to me when you have problems. I won't cry for you, and I won't even care enough to say "I told you so."


32bf44 No.9766325

>>9764417

Kill all the hooknoses.

/thread


000000 No.9766326

>>9766319

Then why are you doing it right now?


1770e6 No.9766332

Not trying to say that Google isn't a very shady organization, but couldn't this also be exlained by Google's algorithm just trying to give the people what they want?

Thousands of retards churn out articles about how women actually have contributed to fields, and hundreds of thousands of retards search for important women to prove that women actually do contribute to some fields.

There's no need for articles about men, or for men to search for these kinds of things, because men are assumed to basically do everything important.

Finally, NLP isn't that great yet, so when Google gets a search with the terms "influential", "in", "{field}", it will give you what most people are searching for when they look for something like that, which is bullshit feminist articles, or just general articles about influential people.

Honestly, I doubt people in this thread could find a decent article about the top 20 Men in gaming that explicitly excluded women, so why expect Google to be able to? That kind of thing just doesn't exist, because it's retarded.


63f79d No.9766333

File: df0cfeda8866f52⋯.jpg (17.91 KB, 810x126, 45:7, muslism are.JPG)

File: 0eae18a0e3a8b69⋯.jpg (15.62 KB, 800x114, 400:57, jews are.JPG)

File: 8fbf0abef52ec06⋯.jpg (15.05 KB, 792x112, 99:14, christians are.JPG)

If I'm remember correctly, you used to get no suggestion when you typed these in, now its just stupid.

I'm sorry I ruined your MRA party.


e80c3d No.9766344

File: b29c42826dce30c⋯.jpg (20.82 KB, 300x450, 2:3, b29c42826dce30ca9b14aa5865….jpg)

>>9764427

>women cant vote or do much because no rights and shit

>they can go to war

It's pretty weird seeing how I was taught there were no women in WW2. Now we're seeing women in WW2. inb4 we were at war with Russia not Germany.


c4584c No.9766351

>>9766326

I'm not. I'm telling you what I'm doing. I don't care what you do, and I won't lift a finger to help. You're on your own, pal.


6c4baf No.9766397

>>9765252

We're actually getting work done here. Even Goebbels warned about complainers.


2b35d6 No.9766405

>>9766333 (checked)

Goto goolge and type:

Muslims in my

And wait, you'll be redirected to, Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, automatically.


6c4baf No.9766411

>>9766405

What's the difference between Myanmar and Burma?


f3a33e No.9766414

>>9764269

>"men" becomes "people"

But Anon, "men" means both male and female. That's why "mankind" is the same as "humankind". :^)


f3a33e No.9766417

File: 0695889ad43c91b⋯.png (1.19 MB, 1128x1012, 282:253, 0695889ad43c91b3653d0f60b8….png)

>>9766411

>What's the difference between Myanmar and Burma?

They are the same thing: really, in the Burmese language, they are the same word, expressed slightly differently. The military government at some point decided to change the English name from one to the other, for the usual reason that change is always good.


2b35d6 No.9766420

File: c8ea31664dfbbc0⋯.jpg (822.3 KB, 3508x1372, 877:343, fucking kikes.jpg)

>>9766280

Wow I just made this from Bing, is it a coincidence?


6c4baf No.9766427

>>9766417

Most black countries didn't bother to change their names upon independence.


c2771d No.9766432

File: 96b665af39eec68⋯.png (1.41 MB, 1344x631, 1344:631, we wuz yurop.png)

Don't forget about this.

WE WUZ KANGZ AN SHIET


f3a33e No.9766439

File: 491751a22ad5b05⋯.jpg (136.9 KB, 900x1200, 3:4, 1e3b705b96dcdfbb1dc925f432….jpg)

>>9766333

As if trips weren't enough, I confirmed myself. What the hell goes on in the Google offices, anyway? Is there a department just for this shit?


178c69 No.9766453

Only passing on to confirm it begins to impact other languages, as French Google results are corrupted the same way.

Now, take it to other threads in 8ch, I'm pretty sure certain groups will enjoy this.


0f4c32 No.9766469

>>9764528

>only sterilize the kids

What, so they can grow up to be even better victims? Have you learned nothing?


6c4baf No.9766471

>>9766469

This.

I knew a jewish kid in elementary school. He stole my pencil all the time


0f4c32 No.9766487

>>9766332

Considering how hard it is to find non-left-leaning results on various topics, I wouldn't put it past them to be manipulating this stuff, but you are right - there's other factors to consider.


69a493 No.9766490

>>9766471

Knew a Jewish kid in college. He tried to get all the white kids he didn't like expelled by accusing them of being nazis trying to shoah him. No, I'm not joking.


0f4c32 No.9766506

>>9766490

IDid he try that on you? Did you shoah him the door (to the gas chamber)?


24cab8 No.9766519

>>9764269

Well

>1. Does content mentioning explicitly "men" exist, and is it actually unlisted on Google?

Yes it definitely exists, but no it's not unlisted and can be found. My own results show this on page 1: gq-magazine….co….uk/article/most-influential-men-in-britain-2013

Searching for "men" results in duckduckgo and searching then again with more accurate terms in Google does show those results.

>2. Does Google kindly adds terms to broaden your search?

Certainly, and "men" isn't the only one. A search for the "biggest nation" yields results for the "biggest countries": google….com/search?q=biggest+nation

>3. Is newer content more and more gender-neutral?

Very much so, which explains why most results are "people", because the most recently indexed pages are.

>4. Does "man" have several meanings?

Yes, as in a broader meaning, "man" is used as a gender neutral name for humanity as a whole, while "woman" isn't.

The consequences of it are definitely here, and clearly many searches are impacted. But I wouldn't put the blame too fast on a malicious intent to hit the patriarchy.

Though if we consider other searches, such as "European people history" showing a whole lot bunch of niggers, if that's not a malicious intent, I don't fucking know what it is.


ee94c3 No.9766564

Googles search results for basically everything have been getting shittier and shittier for years. Every fucking thing I type in seems to lead to the same five websites and is also interpreted as me trying to buy something. You literally can no longer use generic terms when searching for things. You have be as specific as possible and use as many quotation marks and minus signs as you can, to get even close to the kind of results you would get ten years ago.


01d30c No.9766597

>>9764378

It's the gender netural bullshit. They replace men with people.


1e3408 No.9766615

File: 3a7bd18b038475c⋯.png (30.42 KB, 1864x283, 1864:283, google_homme.png)

just passing by and interested in the topic I'll let you know that french google results for "homme" (it could be translated to "human", even though there's a word for this - "humain") are quite spoopy

>homme enceinte = pregnant man


1e3408 No.9766623

File: 6929c2bef3f1be7⋯.png (29.72 KB, 1888x234, 944:117, google_femme.png)

>>9766615

oh and the "femme" (woman) display result for macron, candidate for the French election, and not Marine…


1770e6 No.9766655

>>9766564

dumb normies have normified their algorithm


c584c4 No.9766658

>>9766344

Haven't you heard the outrage over lack of female models in BF1?

The SJW are in fact claiming that women fought in the trenches alongside men.

https://archive.fo/oAfn0


4229ef No.9766717

File: 9208dc6ddf6e9b0⋯.png (1.14 MB, 1577x718, 1577:718, google.png)

> Cohenspiracy

I'm pretty sure Google is just retarded.


8e2f66 No.9766749

File: 5645b93805a4cd3⋯.png (9.43 KB, 649x99, 59:9, Famous men in bowling auto….png)

>>9766453

Thanks, that's the kind of useful confirmations that were needed, that it's a global thing. If you could take pictures in your languages, that would help actually gather data about the problem.

>>9766519

Thanks for the very helpful post, that's the kind of thing I was trying to figure out in the first place. While I tried to attribute this only to the websites being gender-neutral and all, we must remember that the internet is big, ridiculously big, and especially in the recent days, people have been relying on alternative media, a damn lot of people, to get their news. These kind of alternative media don't usually tend to rely on gender-neutral nouns to describe their content. Meanwhile, though, alt-left content (more feminazi type) doesn't seem to take a negative hit at all, on the contrary you can get blatantly hard-left results pretty easily when looking up the results. Please refer to the war-related posts to actually find what truly is wrong with these searches. There is NO way in hell that the "general military community" just had a consensus to ban the word "man" from the wars, hence why I tried diversifying the searches.

Also, while I do get your point in gaming, which is a place where internal social pressure within these websites could explain the results, as most of the most popular news organisation push that narrative, and therefore influence Google's results, the post-GamerGate movement actually shot back at this, and we know for a fact that such news, articles and webpages not only exist, but are WIDELY popular amongst the "classic" gaming/internet community, and should logically therefore have a better rank.

Also, please refer to another blatant exemple in bowling community. >>9764950 There's no excuse for this one, I know for a fact that there ARE "men-only" bowling associations (don't ask how), and you SHOULD be able to find them, but only if you actually look for them directly, while you immediately get the women's bowling association by typing in their gender. While this could be related to popularity and self-censorship, pic related makes me highly suspect that Google is doing it on purpose, most of the time without us knowing.

I do think that a good portion of this is caused by news agencies and websites themselves self-censoring, but Google definitely has a part to play when it purposely hides a gender from the results, and purposely switches the word you're looking for to another one, like in gaming, where you simply aren't allowed to ask for "men" even while excluding women or people.

Although, I would tend to agree on that point regarding computing. It is a field highly populated with weak weebs (sorry but you know it's right so tough up faggots) that most likely just bowed down to the feminist agenda and purposely censored itself after they pushed for the word control, it would make sense. Yet, it would still show up a big problem, aka the fact that they ARE winning the word war in most fields, and slowly erasing our gender and our masculinity in their political correctness. Next thing you know (and it's probably already happening behind the scenes), they will ask for "top people" lists to include parity in men/women cause otherwise it's sexism, and will advocate for a woman to be on top of the list otherwise you're sexist.

What would be your reaction if your kid ended up searching for the best war heros, and ended up with half a list being women that basically didn't do shit in war, but it was forced down his throat anyway? And he was doing that research for school? He would HAVE to use the "official" Google results or he would be marked down because his "sources" wouldn't be "accurate". Think about how big this thing is for a minute, even when unintentional.

(1/?)


8e2f66 No.9766750

>>9766749 (cont)

>>9765240

I actually coordinated searches to Bing, Yahoo and Startpage as well as Google and got similar results, but couldn't be bothered to actually gather evidence and all.

>>9765293

This is a reason why I don't believe in the "websites are self-censoring" narrative, however much I would prefer that idea, since it would be fixable by simply making more websites like MGTOW or about men's issues, but I know these websites exist and are quite popular, yet they don't show up somehow.

Another BIG problem that no one seems to have mentioned is the fact that Google has an ENORMOUS power to influence people's searching habits. By pushing on top pro-feminist narratives, or gender-neutral pages, they indirectly boost these pages' stats and THEN end up legitimizing their first-page because of their trafic. It's absolutely ingenious if you ask me, and I feel like they tested it out in 2015 with GamerGate and game related pages/articles, found out that it worked well, and now are trying to skew the searches for men all around the interwebz slowly. Just adding a few points to the leftist ideologies make them appear higher up, make them get more clicks, and then it works by itself.

Also, when analyzing this situation, please always place yourself in the skin of a kid/normie that is just casually browsing the web, not someone redpilled like a /pol/ack.

>>9765480

Please refer to above

>>9765541

pls make this happen ;__;

>>9765586

lel 10/10

>>9765592

If it is, I would be so less worried. Google is supposed to be a search engine, and is supposed to just look for the term you're looking for, see if the website has a lot of trafic, if it's reliable and such, and all the criteria related to "SEO" (Search Engine Optimization). Reminder that this is a whole subject on its own which is written about in great length all over the net, and people actually base their careers on that. So now, men-related results can affect your SEO score and put you lower, or these words are simply blacklisted from the pool of topics. For those of you that have worked building websites, you'll know how annoying it is to always add the good meta and tags in your pages to make sure SEO robots catches them up and places you in a good place, and how to write everything, and all the plugins/tools that exist to help you towards that goal. The thing is, if there IS censorship, any "men's issues" website, no matter the amount of money pooled into SEO, couldn't ever get a decent demarkation compared to women's rights, or gendered rights, or possibly even while searching "men's issues" (here they would be countered by leftist propaganda).

(2/?)


8e2f66 No.9766751

>>9766750 (cont)

>>9765621

nice maymay friend ;^)))))

>>9765666 see >>9765681

>>9765692

I'm already posting these on my fake feminist accounts (idk if you people still have these from like 2012-2014, but I kept mine and kept it half-active), but by all means get that shit in the open, it's your job and one of the reasons I posted it here, can't do that alone.

>>9765709

THIS I would have to say has nothing to do with Google actual search engine. This would simply be related to the narrative pushed by mainstream media on that regard. It would be too hard for them to analyze in-depth the articles and actually give them an SEO rating based on that, because it's not a job that could be computized, they would have to actually hire people for that. To be very honest, I don't think that this one is Google's doing, but more the society we live in. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't change, but we must limit our efforts/attention to the REAL problematic issue.

____

Also, I wanted to ask you guys something. It seems to me that if you actually just input the gender, it has more chances of spewing out gendered-related results, mostly because you often get specific subjects and/or actual merchandise targetted at a certain gender (daily reminder that feminists are also trying to ban this with gender-neutral everything). Although, as soon as you add adjectives before/after the subject to try researching a subject in a more general/broad way, the censorship truly begins. Thoughts?


78c00c No.9766753

>>9765481

>>9765516

I'm not defending TRS, I'm pointing out that there are people (ID: b5573b, check out his posts) using our inside terminology and enemies to shit up threads and act like they are us when TRS has nothing to do with the thread. I can't be the only one to notice this right? They come into shitloads of threads throw around terms to people that clearly are not TRS (like the OP), but use terms like "TRSodomite" to shit up good threads that are completely separate from the topic.

I'm almost convinced that this is a serious /pol/ blindspot. All a shill needs to do is come into threads that are productive, invoke TRS, and anyone that attacks the shitposting outsider is then seen as defending TRS. Thus the shill wins. It's like you retards can't see you are being played.


af462a No.9766767

OP you retarded nigger. Have you ever thought that maybe nobody has made an article that says "Top Men in X Industry" in the title?


8e2f66 No.9766798

File: dd9a83be56566aa⋯.png (173.28 KB, 659x1199, 659:1199, Influential men in war.png)

File: 1b76aef723ff43d⋯.png (188.42 KB, 643x1255, 643:1255, Influential -men- in war.png)

File: 4682a3e4cc8a49f⋯.png (280.94 KB, 687x1637, 687:1637, Influential women in war.png)

File: ca083388aa44249⋯.png (195.24 KB, 653x1243, 653:1243, World war 1 men.png)

File: b5d63c02e62c54a⋯.png (197.76 KB, 642x1293, 214:431, World war 1 women.png)

>>9766171

Most classics although still refer to men. I can't and won't believe in such a quick culture switch, and hell even such a quick word switch in historical documents and classic litterature talking about the subject. This heavy word-policing only came into effect some years ago at best, so the war-related searches are what is heavily tipping me in the direction of censorship.

Look at pics related, this can't be an unconcious global internet movement, the art of manliness and all the books I ever read specifically refer to "men", and any classic does as well, while here we are just "feminazi-washing" all that stuff away.

>>9766244

Yup, good find anon, this is exactly what I was referring to. With efforts and on certain subjects only, you can actually force the search engine to show these results, even though in some subjects they are simply banned, but otherwise and if you don't know the issue, you get the same idea behind "shadowbanning", and you feel like you're the only one talking/thinking about said subject, which tells a lot about the current state of the internet.

Men's issues currently is okay, but when will they actually switch the narrative behind this one as well, and add SEO points to people talking about women, and remove SEO points for people soloely focusing on men? Are they already doing it? When will the first page of men's issue be full of people denying all the men's problems, and won't show up the men's help centers that are struggling and fighting to defend their own right to exist? This is where this is DIRECTLY headed, and it is what worries me currently. They are stealthily pushing it and trying to get away with it.

>>9766333

Men also doesn't get recognized as a word anymore when you put an adjective in front of it.

>>9766767

You haven't ever searched war-related subjects in the past, have you? First 3 are reposts, but the other 2 are new searches, I have studied and researched this in the past, some years ago, and most people do use "men", especially in the military. There are proofs of actual censorship and replacing words by the search engine, the hard part is trying to put the line between what Google does, what the people actually do (through their searches and their interests), and what the websites in themselves do (such as using gender-neutral nouns).

You don't seem to have a very good memory either, because just half a decade ago or a decade ago, no one talked about "people", ever. Then, when women pushed for segregation in their highly progressive ideas, we started seeing "men" lists and "women" lists for pretty much any and every subject. It's only very recently that they started pushing for "men" to stop existing all-together.


8c3fd8 No.9766861

Okay, key here:

How to make this information digestible and easily reproducible for widespread dissemination. Something like that Justfuckinggoogleit site but not on a separate platform so normies aren't like "they rigged muh results amg da nazis are breaking my google reeee" we need a completely obvious and clear way to show that this is REAL and that this is HAPPENING and if at all possible (((who))) is behind it.

Great work finding this by the way OP, kek smiles upon you this day.


1e3408 No.9766869

File: 4235f7c77d5cfed⋯.png (119.36 KB, 848x883, 848:883, google_guy.png)

>>9766798

Hey OP, I tried to change "man" to "guy" and it's the same results, switching guy/man to people. also :

>Is Mohammad really the most influential guy in history? - Quora


6588ff No.9766906

>>9766861

A short tism free video narrating the finding over a screen recording of the searches being performed would probably suffice. In terms of spreading the information our best bet would be to tip the information to alternative news sources. Filterman has a bee in his bonnet about Google after they caught attempting to delist him earlier this week, he would likely bang on his desk over this if aware. I’d wager than several content creators who browse here for stories are already working on getting this information as we speak. Having said that it wouldn’t harm to send it to Supplimentwars/ Jerusalembart etc. via their tip lines.


fef208 No.9767469

Anyone decent in SEO? Maybe Google gives rankings based on things such as "growing popularity" or "recent pages" over older ones, which would be why only modern-day websites all talk about gender neutral shits and women?

An expert would be good if one is available…


b2c5f2 No.9767486

How many non-pozzed search engines are there? I just use ixquick and know about searx.me. The internet needs to be careful not to keep all its eggs in one basket. You've got Google, Bing, top-level poz sites like that but they're essentially all the same on a long timeline. What can stand up to them?


8e2f66 No.9769490

File: 10b2a757f59e18a⋯.png (258.55 KB, 994x1423, 994:1423, Men in war books1.png)

File: d068611b0688cca⋯.png (247.79 KB, 978x1359, 326:453, Men in war books2.png)

File: 723183db073c3a1⋯.png (246.52 KB, 984x1339, 984:1339, Men in war books3.png)

File: 379276be20bc714⋯.png (776.56 KB, 1081x1720, 1081:1720, Men in war books4.png)

File: 427f2d9e756c98b⋯.png (326.65 KB, 1143x1346, 1143:1346, Men in war books5.png)

shameless bump, also adjectives seem to be triggering it


b2dffb No.9770098

>>9766751

>not google

Then why are the DuckDuckGo results i posted after so different, and actually contain negative statements about women?


f99020 No.9770300

File: 8c3873eeda116e9⋯.jpg (120 KB, 640x496, 40:31, get a load of this guy.jpg)

>>9766333

>google also spreads the whole gamut of boilerplate insane self-contradictory leftist schlock

>therefore they aren't actually True(tm) Feminists, and anyone complaining is a mysoginerd


6c4c8b No.9772281

File: 01859f153b83a21⋯.png (4.57 KB, 239x143, 239:143, captcha.png)

>>9764461

can confirm from google.au

The escalation of censorship is well underway.

/pol/ predicted "oy vey shutitdown"

I hate being right all the time. Fuck you pol

At least my good old bigoted friend captcha isn't turning on me


6c4c8b No.9772302

File: 41fed8b175e7fb0⋯.png (294.47 KB, 1030x665, 206:133, White 1.png)

>>9764269

It's been expanded into racism too.

Power+Privelige?


3ac9a1 No.9772313

>>9764950

Famous men seems to be treated as a synonym for celebrity by google, if you search famous bowling men you get something more reasonable


6c4c8b No.9772352

>>9772313

If that was where it ended we wouldn't have a problem. "He" has been so ubiquitous as a pronoun for so long that it can be treated as almost unimportant because we are expendable.


6c4c8b No.9772381

File: 398090d57a5b54b⋯.png (306.56 KB, 1029x661, 1029:661, Asian 1.png)

File: 7dc0e3a7f95e32e⋯.png (81.83 KB, 1205x661, 1205:661, Black 1.png)

File: 5930b4e8a07e237⋯.png (59.53 KB, 641x657, 641:657, Jewish 1.png)

File: 3e8cea8857a3fde⋯.png (235.51 KB, 775x658, 775:658, Latino 1.png)

please google


6c4c8b No.9772386

File: bc95d71f69f03a2⋯.png (114.03 KB, 1199x659, 1199:659, Caucasian 1.png)

>>9772381

neo-nazis eternally btfo


c0de9d No.9772485

File: b426105e899b3ac⋯.png (196.58 KB, 1050x1361, 1050:1361, influential_men_in_gaming_….png)

Yahoo is a scattershot as usual but at least it's not pushing a narrative.


effc4f No.9773120

It's probably also because it is now trendy to write "top woman in male field" articles. Also it is kinda obvious that people in male fields are male.

When I google best men in teaching the word men does not get censored.

It's a combination of the lying media and jewgle pushing the agenda that men and women are exactly the same (even though thy are not). These Marxists really believe that erasing all differences such as race gender and religion will erase all conflict from the world. This is because they don't want to accept the fact that humans by their very nature need and want conflict.


305c92 No.9773301

>>9764269

I think i've found an attack vector against this social engineering. If you attach men to a negative search term you end up with some funny results.

Male serial killers and bad leaders end up becoming non-gendered terms. Implicitly tossing women in with evil men.

If somebody had a good SJW sock puppet they could spread this into the leftist camp and get them to attack google for us.

pics related, most top terms end up becoming lists of "people".

pretty sure some stupid bitches would get all defensive at having to share blame for mens actions. >>9764269


305c92 No.9773304

File: 5313c94285c73ee⋯.png (181.4 KB, 1889x1080, 1889:1080, dumb women.png)

File: 3348ca7d2b2de7a⋯.png (111.41 KB, 1889x1080, 1889:1080, evil people 2.png)

File: 7cb2d1d7a8b6bf8⋯.png (155.57 KB, 1889x1080, 1889:1080, evil women.png)

File: 2ee4997af6b240f⋯.png (86.83 KB, 1889x1080, 1889:1080, serial killers.png)

File: 547350590bb717f⋯.png (168.81 KB, 1889x1080, 1889:1080, stupid men.png)

>>9773301

forgot pics


a27afe No.9773343

>>9764511

>cunt kike and nigger kike have american flags

>Trump has a black background

really makes you think


0571b8 No.9773352

File: d5bd8d08cfeb07d⋯.png (6.22 KB, 557x152, 557:152, Untitled.png)

>lol men are SO 1950s


aa4356 No.9773363

Google "white man white woman" and click images and you'll almost exclusively get pictures of Aryan QTs with dindus.


a27afe No.9773370

>>9765090

>implying you wouldn't buy the cute dress to be the little girl


a25c75 No.9773387

>>9765240

If I do a search on Yandex for the exact same thing it comes up with the wiki for women in computing as well. We need to think more critically on how the search engine works, clearly there is something going on here for a while but a lot of this could also be down to popularity and trends. Definitley something is up, but I have seen this on all the supposed non-compromised websites as well, I am not seeing much of a jump between duckduckgo and Yandex tbh and even Yandex still shows the same thing as google. I haven't tried Baidu Daum or Naver, but if you are applying the same standards to all sites either Yandex is fucked as well or the search results are being based on something deeper than conscious implementation of propaganda (once agin I am not denying that exists before you all start screaming shill) but lets get to the bottom of it.


a27afe No.9773388

If any of you ever do have problems with a search engine giving a term lower weight though, just use a search operation like title:men or men AROUND "computing" and what not

Actually, everyone including normalfags should learn how to actually use a search engine. Beyond avoiding kike filters like this, it's always pretty useful to know these operations offhand


8e2f66 No.9773397

>>9773388

Please try with gaming and computing and post results, if it works.


a27afe No.9773462

File: 74011871124ccfa⋯.png (196.68 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, ScreenShot095.png)

>>9773397

startpage because I refuse to use google

Use the same operation in Google and see what you get


8e2f66 No.9773484

File: 8d69aecf8ce5078⋯.png (222.01 KB, 659x1554, 659:1554, title - men in computer sc….png)

>>9773462

hahahaha holy shit what am i even reading, please tell me i did something wrong


a27afe No.9773492

>>9773484

!

conclusive proof that nobody should use google to serach for shit anymore, I guess lel


0571b8 No.9773530

>>9773492

It's pretty shocking how fucking awful google search has become in just the last few months. It's not just this gender stuff. I have extreme issues finding anything at all using google, when before I could easily locate information on it. It's like they took those two trash "sponsored results" and made the first two or three pages "sponsored results" instead. Shit totally unrelated to what I'm searching for comes up at the top of the list all the time.

What search engines don't use google's broken algorithms at all? I only know of Bing, and maybe Yahoo. Most of the ones like searx are basically just middle-men for google.


a27afe No.9773555

>>9773530

Back a few years ago when I finally decided to ask 4chan/g/ what to use it was either startpage or duckduckgo and there was some controversy with ddg about a jew or something what started it. I've stuck with startpage because I've never had an issue with theri results, but you should look further into it if you really care about privacy and stuff.


0571b8 No.9773566

>>9773555

It's not about privacy, it's about the core search functionality being broken now. Startpage is the same as ixquick and searx, they still use Google, only they route it through their middle-man server like a little VPN microservice to "protect your privacy". I think DuckDuckGo is also the same. Some of them aggregate multiple search engines, but I still think that using Google at all is poisoning the water.


a27afe No.9773587

>>9773566

Yeah fuck if I know mang. Startpage claims to proxy your search through jewgle but the results posted in

>>9773462

>>9773484

seem to be much better so ???

I'd recommend them at least until you find a seperate engine, though. Like I've said, I've never noticed an issue with what startpage turns up.


8e2f66 No.9773595

>>9773555

>>9773566

/g/ recommends startpage and searx still


22eac4 No.9773652

File: 20519d59327ef46⋯.png (265.58 KB, 954x951, 318:317, jewgle.png)

>>9764269

This bullshit is in spanish too, I searched for "men in videogame industry" or "men in automotive industry" and I only got results about inequality and sexism.


a740bc No.9777047

File: 440041dedc59052⋯.gif (2.8 MB, 800x800, 1:1, 1428954410039.gif)

This is such redpilling material that I am so indecisive on how to hand this off to people. It's so ripe for exploiting. I've actually got too many ideas.


fe333c No.9777119

File: e0f37bc5086a7c3⋯.jpg (34.07 KB, 450x311, 450:311, fe615a32e3ef1d6b8f64749534….jpg)

Same behavior in Qwant. Maybe this is the reason


0b923c No.9777149

>>9764269

imagine yourself hating men so much that you legitimately have to edit your search engine just to please your hate boner.


a740bc No.9777177

>>9777149

Ever notice that Numales behave a lot like women who are feeling outdressed or insecure in the presence of sexier women? Real men see a guy who looks better and bigger than them and will feel the need to improve themselves and often compliment that guy for his accomplishments. Typical women see a woman who looks better and sexier than them and will feel insecurity and often plot a way to be passively-aggressive towards that woman.

Numales are so feminized that they themselves adopt the behavioral traits of typical women. I bet anyone the shekels in my back pocket that this was a move made by numales rather than a neon-haired dyke at jewgle. The fact that this is spread across multiple search engines means we're missing the full picture on how each of them are related. It can't just be as simple as the case with startpage where it is literally a proxy to google search. Or even searx.me that pools some of its results from google. There is probably a network between some of the search engines out there that established this change beforehand.

All of this can lead to something big. Normalfags do rely on google search for just about everything. But normalfags hate being inconvenienced even more and if they see google search as a faulty search engine that doesn't give them honest results, they will look elsewhere.


ee410b No.9777487

File: b39e7e31acf8926⋯.png (329.8 KB, 471x467, 471:467, b39e7e31acf8926ac656ab8f73….png)

>>9764269

I have a formula for this thread.

>select X, an occupation or hobby

>search for "most influential men in X"

>act surprised when there are no hits

>even though nobody would ever make a webpage called "most influential men in X"

There are some good posts, though, such as >>9766333


01f280 No.9777588

>>9764511

Honestly, I'd say Hitler is the most famous person in the world, maybe beaten only by Jesus, then Mohammed. But Obama? Wtf. Guy has only been known by the public for about a decade. Even Trump has been in the spotlight for many decades.

But Hitler now, he's had dozens, if not hundreds of movies, video games, books based around him and his mark on the world. Even if you hate him, can't deny he is a famous goy.


01f280 No.9777613

File: 9753fea54d17f9e⋯.png (27.03 KB, 1154x597, 1154:597, Hitler.png)

File: 944d72548744c98⋯.png (29.72 KB, 1154x600, 577:300, Obama.png)

>>9764511

>>9777588

Well would you look at that? Even Google's own data says Hitler is searched more then Obama.

Google BTFO by their own analytics


e59a8b No.9778180

File: 512bb03244d6c6b⋯.png (29.42 KB, 1147x365, 1147:365, hitler-vs-obama.png)

>>9777613

>not knowing each graph is normalized to go from 0 to 100


deea7c No.9778266

>>9778180

I assumed the numbers were based on absolute millions, not just a relative scale. I'm the fool for thinking Google would use any kind of scale without relativism. Still, my first post stand, Obama hasn't touched Hitler's level of famous.


8dfff9 No.9778846

>>9778180

That slight Hitler lead within the past month


61732a No.9787336

File: 605a1553106328b⋯.jpg (186.5 KB, 706x909, 706:909, googlefuckery.jpg)

File: ce1fdf37f6847af⋯.jpg (175.36 KB, 674x923, 674:923, googlefuckery2.jpg)

>>9764269

This one is fucking absurd. All I did as ask for "famous white men" and "famous white women," and we get race-mixing being pushed this blatantly.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8teen / asmr / fur / kpop / newbrit / polk / tot / vore ]