Is Google Search intentionally contributing to racism or are their algorithms doing so? And to what can this lead?

[Rowan Amore]

You're either a racist or you aren't.  No search engine in the world is going to MAKE you into one.  Sheesh.

[Bold Burner]

2 hours ago, Bold Burner said:

One could think it's algorithms but in my case I would like to think that is unlikely.
And also I don't know if google still remembers the algorithms created before and if they are still at work after clearing my browser cache. 

I searched for kissing people gifs before of all skin colour and  MM/MF/FF and so forth.
When I did that, specific keywords were used.
So one can then expect to find a mixed result when using basic keywords? Am I wrong to assume this.

 

6 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

The algorithms aren't doing anything you're not telling them to do. Your own searches and activities are biased, every human being has biases, realized, admitted, or otherwise. Algorithms aren't inherently racist unless they're specifically created to be so. While it may seem they are fully autonomous creations of their own ilk, they really aren't as autonomous as people may believe. They are still, at their base, programs, created by human beings, biases and all.

Please read quote before this one as I feel you missed reflecting on this part in your reply. I sense that correctly? 

I'm aware that we all have biases. 

 

7 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

Perhaps some personal introspection on your part, as to why you're searching for racism where it does not exist, why you're calling it racism in the first place, why your search results garner you what they do when you're actually expecting something completely different, and how you can change all of this.

I'm not searching.. I'm concluding that there is a significant lower amount of coloured people showing up in results at times even though my searches are that of a variety of colour and preferences. 

And.. YES personal introspection is obviously always healthy and it's something I do a lot. And I'm also very open to the insight of others. As this helps me grow and develop and expand knowledge. 

2 hours ago, Bold Burner said:

And also I don't know if google still remembers the algorithms created before and if they are still at work after clearing my browser cache. 

I quote myself here. As I'm not sure how it works and if it might possible affect it. 
 

 

17 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Algorithms are not inherently racist, again, unless they are programmed or told to be so.  So, these results you get, which will likely not match the results anyone else gets, are more a reflection of your own racist tendencies and biases, if you want to attach the term racist to anything here at all.

What I mean with this is how do the results of imagines showing up affect our self belief, our ideology, our acceptance of others? 
For example when you're a new kid to this world and you use a computer for the first time.  Is it okay that the kid is exposed to algorithms (and with it instantly build a self fulfilling prophecy (steered by peers, parents and other external influences)? 



I'm very welcoming your responds. Thank you. 

[Bold Burner]

6 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

You're either a racist or you aren't.  No search engine in the world is going to MAKE you into one.  Sheesh.

I have to address first. that I'm specifically referring to image results.  Images that are instantly going to the brain. I feel, but have not researched it, that more and more people search for image results rather than text/webpage results. Images hit home. Are we then not exposed to possible indoctrination of our own searches or is possibly steered? And is this okay or could this lead to a difficult time where it's getting harder and harder to build bridges between people... or is it actually the opposite? (given an article that speaks of a decline in racism from generations born in the internet era).

https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/01/11/implicit-bias-gay-black-weight

Thank you for your input.

[Rowan Amore]

Although being a gay black man is more accepted by the general population, I'd have to say, in my experience, that isn't always the case within black families.  Perhaps there aren't as many black gay men in the pictures because they are still afraid to be out and god forbid, someone seeing them on the internet.  You're only seeing public pictures.  Could be, they like to keep things more private.

Grandma would NOT be happy, just sayin'.  

[Moondira]

16 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Although being a gay black man is more accepted by the general population, I'd have to say, in my experience, that isn't always the case within black families.  Perhaps there aren't as many black gay men in the pictures because they are still afraid to be out and god forbid, someone seeing them on the internet.  You're only seeing public pictures.  Could be, they like to keep things more private.

Grandma would NOT be happy, just sayin'.  

I had sort of come to that conclusion too, that less photos of black gays and lesbians are simply out there.

For the longest time we wouldn't see gays and lesbians represented on film or TV. If you don't see yourself represented in the stories a culture tells about themselves you get the impression you are not important or don't even exist in the mainstream eyes. After all, you don't see yourself anywhere.

I remember an elderly lesbian gleefully describing how much it meant for her to see a movie where lesbians were part of the storyline, as in her time growing up there were almost none, and if they did exist they portrayed the lesbian as a very sick or evil character. She was so surprised at the increasing lesbian movies to choose from in more recent years, and joked about how in the beginning of lesbian-themed cinema they'd be thrilled even to view a poorly-made lesbian movie, and seldom commented on its low-quality, as it was more important to just have a movie where they were visible and in a positive manner no matter how poorly made.

I can remember when gay people started showing up in commercials in recent years, and feeling amazed as I had never seen this type of person in a commercial advertising anything! And this has progressed to the point where many hardly notice if the commercial shows a gay or lesbian couple buying a house, a car, or whatever.

And of course the above applies to people of color as well.

So I'm imagining it's this lack of representation in Search that has the OP concerned that something prejudicial might be going on, related to Blacks not showing up as much as Whites do. I have no idea myself what's happening in this specific case, as I know nothing about how internet searches operate, but I do understand the concern when a marginalized group shows less numbers on any media platform than they should when population numbers are taken into account and there is a significant disparity.

My first guess is that less gay and lesbian people of color actually post photos of themselves online, and perhaps this should be the avenue to investigate the reason for seeing less of them in searches.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Moondira

[Qie Niangao]

Are we expecting the search engine to reflect the corpus of content on the internet, or to weight its results to reflect a more balanced view of (current) partitions* of that content?

Leaving aside any user-specific ranking factors (assuming "incognito" mode), there's not only the weight of content, but also that of which content has been searched and viewed most frequently. That's all "algorithm" too, but based on pretty sterile statistics to artificially adjust, presumably in the interest of a social goal. Not saying it's impossible nor even that it shouldn't happen, but it would be an intrusive adjustment the should be considered carefully.

It's not like nefarious users explicitly teaching Tay to be a racist monster. But it might be a bit like the facial recognition algorithms biased by the sample sets to which they're exposed, where here the samples are all the gay kissing images on the internet and their history of being viewed.

_______________
*Specifically such partitions as "race"—a construct of dubious biological validity, but enormous societal impact.

[Rowan Amore]

20 minutes ago, Moondira said:

I had sort of come to that conclusion too, that less photos of black gays and lesbians are simply out there.

For the longest time we wouldn't see gays and lesbians represented on film or TV. If you don't see yourself represented in the stories a culture tells about themselves you get the impression you are not important or don't even exist in the mainstream eyes. After all, you don't see yourself anywhere.

I remember an elderly lesbian gleefully describing how much it meant for her to see a movie where lesbians were part of the storyline, as in her time growing up there were almost none, and if they did exist they portrayed the lesbian as a very sick or evil character. She was so surprised at the increasing lesbian movies to choose from in more recent years, and joked about how in the beginning of lesbian-themed cinema they'd be thrilled even to view a poorly-made lesbian movie, and seldom commented on its low-quality, as it was more important to just have a movie where they were visible and in a positive manner no matter how poorly made.

I can remember when gay people started showing up in commercials in recent years, and feeling amazed as I had never seen this type of person in a commercial advertising anything! And this has progressed to the point where many hardly notice if the commercial shows a gay or lesbian couple buying a house, a car, or whatever.

And of course the above applies to people of color as well.

So I'm imagining it's this lack of representation in Search that has the OP concerned that something prejudicial might be going on, related to Blacks not showing up as much as Whites do. I have no idea myself what's happening in this specific case, as I know nothing about how internet searches operate, but I do understand the concern when a marginalized group shows less numbers on any media platform than they should when population numbers are taken into account and there is a significant disparity.

My first guess is that less gay and lesbian people of color actually post photos of themselves online, and perhaps this should be the avenue to investigate the reason for seeing less of them in searches.

My husband has an aunt who is a lesbian.  She has never said so explicitly but she has lived with the same woman for over 30 years.  She's well into her 80s and obviously, came from a time when no one spoke about that "funny" family member.  Everyone knew but no one spoke about it.  It's still somewhat the same in some black families.  Not all, of course.  If my son or step daughter were gay, it wouldn't bother me in the least.  I can't say the same for my in laws.  There are definitely cultural differences in how it is accepted and why it might not be as prevalent in any search.

Just my perspective.

ETA.  Please don't take offense at "funny".  It's how my family referred to the gay family member and isn't meant to be derogatory in any way.

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Rowan Amore

[Madelaine McMasters]

37 minutes ago, Moondira said:

My first guess is that less gay and lesbian people of color actually post photos of themselves online, and perhaps this should be the avenue to investigate the reason for seeing less of them in searches.

Based on Doris' claim that African-Americans take a dimmer view of homosexuality than the public at large, that would have been my first guess too, Moondira.

But I wondered, so I just added some more data to my post containing the racial breakdown of lesbian households...

I surely don't know enough about US black culture to know if homophobia is more prevalent there than in US white culture, but the presentation of race in same-sex households seems roughly consistent with the presentation of race in the general population. Your first guess might still be valid, as black homosexuals might be less likely to publicize it, outside of anonymous surveys.

Shifting a bit, Hidden Brain (yes, I'm a fan-girl) delved into the rapid cultural shift towards gay acceptance in this podcast...

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/709567750

Gay bias is rapidly waning.
Racial and gender bias, not as quickly.
Age bias, not at all.

Something to look forward to as I...

...age, dammit.

 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

You're either a racist or you aren't.

Until you open the box to find out, I'm both!

[cunomar]

Search engine is set to tailor results to your porn history maybe 🤣

[Finite]

2 hours ago, Orwar said:

   You'll have to excuse the ignorance of a heterosexual, white man - but how is 'there aren't enough pictures of guys of colours kissing each other on the Internets' racism, exactly?

That's essentially what the OP is asking but not how is it, but is it or is it contributing.

What is Gamora? Who is Gamora? Why is Gamora?

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

6 hours ago, Bold Burner said:

The image results were only white caucasian males kissing and an occasional caucasian lesbian kiss.
 

What was your threshold for determining Caucasian-ness? The reason I asked is when I ran the search a lot of the results I came up with were monochrome, and with the nature of a kiss, one or both of the kissers' faces were often partially obscured. Even so, running the same search (Firefox/Duck Duck Go)* I saw a few definite African diaspora/East Asian faces.

 

*And it always amuses me when people say, "Google is Ebil! I know that because a Google search told me so!"

Edited July 25, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson

[Tari Landar]

3 hours ago, Bold Burner said:

Please read quote before this one as I feel you missed reflecting on this part in your reply. I sense that correctly? 

I'm aware that we all have biases. 

Nope, you sensed that incorrectly. I read your entire post multiple times, and all subsequent ones after it before my reply. I stand by what I said.

If you are aware of biases, then why are you not attributing them to part of the reason for your potential and actual search returns? 

3 hours ago, Bold Burner said:

I'm not searching.. I'm concluding that there is a significant lower amount of coloured people showing up in results at times even though my searches are that of a variety of colour and preferences.

You did a search, and came to the conclusion that because your results are not what you determine they should be, that you should apply a trait, an act, that is very human oriented to a program which is not. You went on to ask if those search results, google specifically, are contributing to racism, as that was your conclusion. You were wrong in your conclusion, because your results are as skewed as mine, or the next person's, due primarily to biases based on our existing activities.

I did not get the results you did. Others have said they did not get the results you did. This means whatever activities participate online, sometimes specifically google related, are going to influence your outcome (as they do mine, and everyone else's). It's not racism, in the least. 

3 hours ago, Bold Burner said:

What I mean with this is how do the results of imagines showing up affect our self belief, our ideology, our acceptance of others? 
For example when you're a new kid to this world and you use a computer for the first time.  Is it okay that the kid is exposed to algorithms (and with it instantly build a self fulfilling prophecy (steered by peers, parents and other external influences)? 

That is an individual thing, how we let other people, places, experiences, outcomes, etc.. affect us, on any level. How you let yours affect your acceptance of others is not going to be the same as how I do. 

If you use technology, you're being exposed to algorithms in some form, there's no way around that. The results one gets from a google image search are no more responsible for the effect than simply talking with another person about their opinion on any given subject.

You skewed your entire post towards racism, as I said, and applied it to a non-human entity as if the entity was itself capable of such. It's not, only humans are, willingly more often than not, but  sometimes even without realizing it. Your premise was that your particular search results seem to be the end all of what others also experience, but it's not. Like I said, I got completely different search results than you. My search results show roughly 1/3 white, 1/3 clearly black or of mixed race with some black heritage in there and 1/3 other race which I may not be able to determine from a mere photo (or would rather not guess, as that would be a rather asinine generalization on my part). But the results were relatively equal.....no racism, implied or otherwise. My image search also does not offer me any further bias or influence on how I see, treat, or accept others. Others' mileage may vary on that, but I think direct exposure (or lack thereof) to other ethnicities, races, lifestyles, etc.. has far more of an impact than a google search ever could. 

Edited July 25, 2021 by Tari Landar

[Tari Landar]

I'm beginning to wonder if this is for some kind of assignment, lol.

(I had an assignment almost identical to this topic, informational biases (with the use of technology) and racism,  a few years ago)

Edited July 25, 2021 by Tari Landar

[Bold Burner]

23 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

Nope, you sensed that incorrectly. I read your entire post multiple times, and all subsequent ones after it before my reply. I stand by what I said.

If you are aware of biases, then why are you not attributing them to part of the reason for your potential and actual search returns? 

You did a search, and came to the conclusion that because your results are not what you determine they should be, that you should apply a trait, an act, that is very human oriented to a program which is not. You went on to ask if those search results, google specifically, are contributing to racism, as that was your conclusion. You were wrong in your conclusion, because your results are as skewed as mine, or the next person's, due primarily to biases based on our existing activities.

I did not get the results you did. Others have said they did not get the results you did. This means whatever activities participate online, sometimes specifically google related, are going to influence your outcome (as they do mine, and everyone else's). It's not racism, in the least. 

That is an individual thing, how we let other people, places, experiences, outcomes, etc.. affect us, on any level. How you let yours affect your acceptance of others is not going to be the same as how I do. 

If you use technology, you're being exposed to algorithms in some form, there's no way around that. The results one gets from a google image search are no more responsible for the effect than simply talking with another person about their opinion on any given subject.

You skewed your entire post towards racism, as I said, and applied it to a non-human entity as if the entity was itself capable of such. It's not, only humans are, willingly more often than not, but  sometimes even without realizing it. Your premise was that your particular search results seem to be the end all of what others also experience, but it's not. Like I said, I got completely different search results than you. My search results show roughly 1/3 white, 1/3 clearly black or of mixed race with some black heritage in there and 1/3 other race which I may not be able to determine from a mere photo (or would rather not guess, as that would be a rather asinine generalization on my part). But the results were relatively equal.....no racism, implied or otherwise. My image search also does not offer me any further bias or influence on how I see, treat, or accept others. Others' mileage may vary on that, but I think direct exposure (or lack thereof) to other ethnicities, races, lifestyles, etc.. has far more of an impact than a google search ever could. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-interferes-with-its-search-algorithms-and-changes-your-results-11573823753

and that being shared.. in your responses I still don't feel you understand where I come from and in it you also make it personal where I am actually addressing a concern to get a better grip on the matter... for the sake of general discussion...and as you said you read all the post you would have noticed I'm not alone in my experience.. so instead of waving the whole topic away to a personal search matter.. give it truly some thought and research.. and remain open the idea that there is a potential 'danger' towards the current algorithms and it's affect long term. And that his is a point of valid concern.. I'm not here to entertain personal attacks.. I'm here to give us all room for thought and space for thinking about topics that actually do matter, as you can sense from other people's posts.. I feel that you only read the posts that justify/confirm your beliefs... correct me if I misinterpret. 

it's best to keep an open mind... and allow yourself room in the brain to learn, to be educated and expand current knowledge. "sticking to your point of view" or 'standing by it" is doing yourself short.. and with it doing others short. 
No one is GOD... no one holds eternal truth...In my opinion we are here to evolve into better understandings. The only way to reach this is to be able to let go of old beliefs/opinions. And please give it a thought that making things personal never leads to a positive outcome. It strays away from the general question/concern that is raised. 





I thank you for your input.

[Arielle Popstar]

Significant difference in hits between the Safe Search settings. On Strict mode there were few PoC whereas on Off there was a greater percentage of PoC.

[Mollymews]

my result

using firefox incognito google image search on keywords: gay kissing

first page shows:
 
28 pics not counting the drawing
31 couples
15 clearly identifiable black people

[Tari Landar]

45 minutes ago, Bold Burner said:

and that being shared.. in your responses I still don't feel you understand where I come from and in it you also make it personal where I am actually addressing a concern to get a better grip on the matter... for the sake of general discussion...and as you said you read all the post you would have noticed I'm not alone in my experience.. so instead of waving the whole topic away to a personal search matter.. give it truly some thought and research.. and remain open the idea that there is a potential 'danger' towards the current algorithms and it's affect long term. And that his is a point of valid concern.. I'm not here to entertain personal attacks.. I'm here to give us all room for thought and space for thinking about topics that actually do matter, as you can sense from other people's posts.. I feel that you only read the posts that justify/confirm your beliefs... correct me if I misinterpret. 

So you want personal opinions, but don't want them personal...and you want everyone else to be open minded, but you don't want to be open minded.

I read almost every single post that gets put on these forums, I have for many years now. To insinuate I do not, without even knowing, makes you personally biased against anything I say that might not coincide with how you feel. That's not being open minded on your part. I was merely explaining that the algorithm, as it is created, is not racist and does not, itself, contribute to racism. It simply doesn't, and no amount of suggesting it does, will change that. Being racist is a human thing, a human trait, a human act. So, only humans can be, and nearly all of us (probably all, but I'll stick to the safe side with nearly all) have biases in this realm, for, against, accepting, judgmental, etc.. we just do. Those biases, themselves, have an effect on us (including how we interact with technology, ie. an image search), but a search algorithm, itself, cannot and does not. 

It's not a personal attack, it's literally me explaining that other things affect how we perceive, interact with, accept, etc.. others, far more than an image search can. THAT is a more valid discussion, imo, how other things affect us in that area. I don't think a discussion about an algorithm which is specifically designed to utilize our personal biases is going to garner you the answers you seek. So, take the image search part out of the equation and you have a more important discussion about information biases, especially when they're related to something as important as racism. I personally take racism and all discussions about it seriously. I don't take people who assume google search is a racist, as seriously as they might like me to. It may sound like a personal attack, but really it's just trying to avoid the ridiculous part of the equation (tacking a human trait/act on to a non-human entity) so that the actual important values are presented. 

I don't need to justify my beliefs, I actually think we believe similar things, I just won't be ridiculous enough to blame a google image search, which I understand very well, for the very biased results I know it's going to give me. If I make multiple searches for blue butterflies over a period of time, and then suddenly just search butterfly as a more generic term, I am very likely to get a lot more blue butterfly results than others might. This is because my activities, my interactions with this technology, are now colored (heh, pun totally intended) by the bias created by prior searches. That doesn't mean I inherently feel differently towards butterflies of other colors, though. There is a distinction, and I find it quite important. 

56 minutes ago, Bold Burner said:

it's best to keep an open mind... and allow yourself room in the brain to learn, to be educated and expand current knowledge. "sticking to your point of view" or 'standing by it" is doing yourself short.. and with it doing others short. 

And now you can go back and read your reply to me with your advice under belt  

You assume I read nothing, when most here can probably tell you quite the opposite of me. You went into replying to me with a very closed mind, merely because I did not agree with your conclusion, because it was not the same as mine (and as you said to me, others have had results more similar to mine, than yours, as well...it goes both ways, really, lol). You are sticking by your own point, are you not? There is nothing wrong with standing by what we say, staying steadfast to our knowledge and experiences. That doesn't always mean we are close minded on every subject. I am quite far from it. If you want to discuss different biases, as I said above, I'll be glad to. I just don't entertain the silly notion that google search is a racist. It takes value away from the fact that humans very much are. 

 

 

[Jordyn McGregor]

I am so tired of everything being racist, -phobic or whatever the trending Lefty "let's be offended by this" term is of the moment.

Sheesh whatever happened to live and let live?

[Rowan Amore]

Just now, Jordan Whitt said:

I am so tired of everything being racist, -phobic or whatever the trending Lefty "let's be offended by this" term is of the moment.

Sheesh whatever happened to live and let live?

Because...

[Rowan Amore]

6 hours ago, Bold Burner said:

coloured people

I wasn't offended nor do I feel the OP is racist just because he called us coloured people.  

Psst...it's People of Color.

[Madelaine McMasters]

5 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

6 hours ago, Moondira said:

I had sort of come to that conclusion too, that less photos of black gays and lesbians are simply out there.

For the longest time we wouldn't see gays and lesbians represented on film or TV. If you don't see yourself represented in the stories a culture tells about themselves you get the impression you are not important or don't even exist in the mainstream eyes. After all, you don't see yourself anywhere.

I remember an elderly lesbian gleefully describing how much it meant for her to see a movie where lesbians were part of the storyline, as in her time growing up there were almost none, and if they did exist they portrayed the lesbian as a very sick or evil character. She was so surprised at the increasing lesbian movies to choose from in more recent years, and joked about how in the beginning of lesbian-themed cinema they'd be thrilled even to view a poorly-made lesbian movie, and seldom commented on its low-quality, as it was more important to just have a movie where they were visible and in a positive manner no matter how poorly made.

I can remember when gay people started showing up in commercials in recent years, and feeling amazed as I had never seen this type of person in a commercial advertising anything! And this has progressed to the point where many hardly notice if the commercial shows a gay or lesbian couple buying a house, a car, or whatever.

And of course the above applies to people of color as well.

So I'm imagining it's this lack of representation in Search that has the OP concerned that something prejudicial might be going on, related to Blacks not showing up as much as Whites do. I have no idea myself what's happening in this specific case, as I know nothing about how internet searches operate, but I do understand the concern when a marginalized group shows less numbers on any media platform than they should when population numbers are taken into account and there is a significant disparity.

My first guess is that less gay and lesbian people of color actually post photos of themselves online, and perhaps this should be the avenue to investigate the reason for seeing less of them in searches.

Expand  

My husband has an aunt who is a lesbian.  She has never said so explicitly but she has lived with the same woman for over 30 years.  She's well into her 80s and obviously, came from a time when no one spoke about that "funny" family member.  Everyone knew but no one spoke about it.  It's still somewhat the same in some black families.  Not all, of course.  If my son or step daughter were gay, it wouldn't bother me in the least.  I can't say the same for my in laws.  There are definitely cultural differences in how it is accepted and why it might not be as prevalent in any search.

Just my perspective.

ETA.  Please don't take offense at "funny".  It's how my family referred to the gay family member and isn't meant to be derogatory in any way.

When I was young, a lesbian couple lived across the road from us. I had no idea there was anything unusual about them because my parents didn't act as if there was. My father adored Betty and my mother and Pat were besties. Betty had a wicked, fast sense of humor and loved to banter with Dad, and eventually me. Mom and Pat loved to cook, and where awful at it.

One winter Dad and I built a snowman at the end of their driveway that was so big (we used our tractor w/front end loader) they couldn't get in, and had to park in ours. Betty "broke" into our barn, "stole" the front end loader, and moved the snowman (well, what was left of it ) across the road to our side.

I was sad to see them move away. I don't really know when I figured out they were lesbian, but they'd made such an indelible impression that, when homosexuality finally became something my friends talked about, I was firmly accepting of it. I'd seen in in action and recognized it for exactly what it was. Two people loving each other.

My SL partner knows how to drive a real front end loader and so do I. She and I are currently touring the world in our imaginations, via Discord... in a front end loader.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

I did a search for Really Hawt Guys..

It was a variety pack.. There was even some anime guys, And even an emo guy..0o

The terrible thing was, They were not all HAWT! \o/

Something is amiss I tell you!! Something has totally messed up my  Really Hawt Men searches..

Now it's personal!! \o/

[Amanda Crisp]

I think this would be hard to answer without knowing Google’s parameters.

Also *if* large search aggregators are building a “fingerprint” of people who use their service (thats “if” as I have no way to know for sure) in order to better serve them targeted ads, how might that be influencing search results? Might a “digitally fingerprinted” Asian Female be served search results based towards her own genotypical demographic ?

Again, I have no way of knowing for sure and I am making no statement that this sort of thing happens….…..

……but Google is out to sell ads and make money.  This underlying objective managing to influence Code is “probable” IMO.

Personally, I make my search strings as specific as possible 🙂

Edited July 26, 2021 by Amanda Crisp

[Coffee Pancake]

I'm thinking the OP fundamentally misunderstands how tailored search engine algorithms work (and assumes that google forgets who you are the moment a different browser or incognito tab is used).