This would be ideal, and classes like this are a step in the right direction, as are the guest lectures often provided by university librarians in entry level courses. Sadly though it is simply not a realistic goal, at least not at present, with so many other hurdles to overcome. But, maybe something like the tutorials that new programs and apps take you through, there could be a sort of introduction to search engines whenever one is used/set up on a new device? Although if it is not in the company's best interest to have the public understand how they are being lead by the nose...it is not likely they will make that change.

Cue me going on a side search about how a decimal system we all probably grew up using could be a vehicle of racism and misrepresentation my little book-nerd mind is not ready

I found these results particularly interesting, as there is a scientific standard for beauty and recognizing beauty that can be seen across, race, gender, ethnicity, etc. ( you can find some articles related to that here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15085778/). Considering that you might think the algorithm or 'science' of the search engine would reflect that phenomenon.

This portion here reminds me of a show on Netflix , Coded Bias, where in one particular episode a black developer is working on creating a facial recognition A.I. and was struggling to make it work, until she realized the program could only accurately identify white faces, due to the database for facial recognition for most part uses mostly white faces. She discovered that wearing a white mask would make her program work, but it would not recognize her own face. This I think helps support the idea presented in this article that programs themselves can be made racist with racial bias, regardless of the users interacting and creating with them.

Black fetishization is often toted as black acceptance, and is a big part of what makes me fear this new wave of acceptance is temporary and conditional to a certain type of black. African Americans with the correct combination of 'blackisms' are genuinely trending across many internet platforms, and I would like to hope that its a doorway to true acceptance, but its still a controversial space to exsist in

This line particularly hit me, as a 'black girl' I have been googling this most of my life. At least anecdotally, I have seen a relative evolution of this search and have felt some of its impact. My family and I were often the only black people in the towns we grew up in, and I used the internet a lot to try and find out what people thought of me. I saw a lot of really negative opinions and did everything I could to reject the 'black stereotype' people always expected of me because I didn't want to be hated or thought of as 'that kind of black'. Now I know the internet, and google in particular, brings up a lot more positivity when it comes to black women, but it feels like whiplash. The kind of content that comes up, though more positive makes me fear the change is due to a marketing trend and not a true social change

Okay this sort of metadata seems inherently useful to me in ways that other types don't. If someone who is trying to get into photography and is just learning or self taught could see the settings and cameras used to create images that they admire by other photographers it could give them a starting point to gaining a better understanding, if they don't just have that innate sense that some photographers seem to be gifted with.

Even though it is saying the same thing, this is way less daunting than opening some of the files for Dublin Core and trying to make sense of the tables and tables of info. Even though it is put as plainly as possible in most cases it still seemed like it could easily become overwhelming

This reminds me of the front and back of house concept. Where data makes up the front of house, and metadata the back. So depending on which end you work, dictates the data you see or work with first. for example say the data is a photo, a viewer would access the data first (most likely) and could then move towards metadata if they so chose. The photographer however would be most familiar with the files, editing, location etc, that is all related to the meta data first. This idea sort of helps me structure the two in my mind better. Maybe the idea might help a few others to wrap their brains around the idea of data/metadata

This actually shocked me a bit. When I think spread sheeets I think excel, and Excel has always been one of my biggest struggles with the Microsoft Office Suite programs. I sort of subconsciously assumed a program set up to organize and create raw data, would have a decent amount of meta data attached to it as well. That being the opposite of the truth makes me think I need to restructure my perspective on the relationship between data and meta data.

I feel like I always thought of this type of information listing as a standard practice to fill out a screen, I never really looked at information as basic as this as data. I think some of my classmates would agree as well, based on some of there previous annotations on this article. I think that highlights how closed minded peoples perspective of what qualifies as data, and what data can be, really is. Data can be super complex, but its nice to see it presented in a simple form like this, to sort of concretize what data and metadata really means without having to analyze code

I didn't want to highlight this entire paragraph, but wow. This sort of academia is what I was hoping to find in Gender Studies at UNBC (which I attended 3-4 classes of before the Professor's internalized transphobia became a part of the curriculum and I dropped out, disappointed both in the course and the professor). I don't really have anything academic or at least intelligent to add here. I just love being able to see Black Feminist views represented in my own schooling. Diversity is so incredibly important.

This is not a term I have seen in my own activism but it's one I want to start using. Capitalism does function to increase profits by any means necessary - and the oppression of people of colour - and particularly Black Americans - is very profitable. First slavery, of course - but now the porn industry as mentioned in this chapter, among other things.

It's incredible to see determination and activism included in this chapter. Even just reading it makes me feel a little hopeless; like activists are always fighting uphill - or up a cliff. I'm glad the author is so determined. It brings me hope for future activism, both in academia and out.

And outside of technology! Feminism as a movement is notoriously white. We will always need Black women, and Hispanic women, and women of all races and/or ethnicities in feminism and academia as a whole. Feminism that excludes any woman is not feminism.

This is also why Amazon Alexa, Google Home, and other "smart homes" are absolutely terrifying. Technological dystopia hellscape! Technological dystopia hellscape!

I have been trying to avoid the word "money" in my annotations to avoid coming off as anti-capitalist as I really am, but yes: Corporations do not give a care about individuals or marginalized groups outside of how they can profit off of their oppression. Remember this June; this Pride Month; that any company selling you rainbow merchandise is not doing it out of legitimate care about LGBTQ+ rights but because it's profitable! Yes, even if they're giving 20% of proceeds to charity - where do you think the other 80% goes?

Hypothes.is doesn't like to let me annotate over page breaks, but this annotation is for the whole sentence.

This doesn't really surprise me, given the over-representation of Black Americans in prisons now (The Central Park 5 are just the tip of the iceberg of wrongfully convicted Black (and Hispanic) Americans, but they come to mind). Even an algorithm built on "apolitical" data would represent this racist trend.

This ties in really nicely and furthers my last annotation about newspapers: anything created by humans is likely political in some sense. The picture of apoliticalness (which is not a real word, but I can't find a better one) is perhaps a robot, but we have seen robots built to deter homeless people from setting up camp in certain areas, which is a very political move. It's important to be aware that behind anything - even the things you enjoy - is a person, and you may not even know their motivations for what they do.

They mentioned above that "Problematic representations and biases in classifications are not new," and I find that works well in tandem with this segment as well, because this quote also applies to the news. People see news and newspapers as apolitical; simply reporting events. Reporting is inherently political, and news stations and newspapers are endorsed or sponsored by politicians/political parties. They can still be credible sources, but I am always keenly aware of the type of language used in their articles.

After explaining the premise of this chapter, I read this line to my dad, saying I have experiences similar things (once again, with pornographic fandom content featuring children's cartoons or child characters), and he started talking about how "it depends on the search terms used." I'm a little shocked that he isn't bothered in the slightest that the search term "black girls" returns nothing but porn, but I guess that certainly tells you something about white men in our society.

That's a biiiiiig field of study. That's basically all of history; all of gender studies; all of queer studies.... etc etc. We should always be trying to further understand bigotry so that we can further combat it, but it feels like a never-ending task to me.

In the words of Heather Heyer: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." I find it hard to miss the sexism in our society, let alone others in the world. If all it takes is some search autofills to make you see that women's rights are still an issue, you weren't paying nearly enough attention already. I find it kind of sad that this project had such an easy time shocking people; and that it's such an easy project to do in the first place.

This can be seen by the ads used on different news forums or even on youtube. Sometimes the ads reflect what I have been searching up, but more often than not, I find them unrelated to anything I search. After searching some of the names from the ads, it is clear to see their affiliation with google as it is plastered on their websites homepage, including some information about their deal. With more catered ads, it might actually draw more people in and help both businesses..

This would definitely help with what is showing up on the first page of search results, but this should be a group effort. Fighting for different algorithms to be used or created to show less disturbing results will be extremely difficult if people don't work together. By working together with all types of people to create a less disturbing search engine might be the best way to ensure a safe result page.

This is so true. I never stopped to think about how reliable the first page of google really is. As Ktmorgan pointed out, whenever we have a question, we just google it. Whatever pops up first we take as a fact for the most part and continue on without stopping to examine if what we just read was fact, or if any bias might have been used in the placement of the search result and the answer that we found.

Even with Googles campaign to remove sexist search results, these are still being searched. Although, when things such as 'Women cannot drive' are searched the top results are focusing on current issues throughout the world and attempting to empower women while making global issues known. I think this is a great algorithm to be using.

Algorithms seem to be the newest version of racial profiling and judging a book based on its cover.

While it is important for minorities to speak up and show that these misrepresentations are not true, this sentence seems to be implying that it is only minorities that need to stand up and be critical of the results. While I am sure that this is not the intention of the author, all people should stand up for what is true, right, and just, not just the minorities that are directly affected. Standing up and being critical of things that are not right should be done by all in the interest of mutual respect among human beings.

Whenever we have a question, we just google it. However the issue is that sometimes we read facts, sometimes we do not. At this point, it is so embedded in our culture to trust what we read on the internet. More and more Google is treated as a completely reliable source when it should still be questioned for its truth and reliability.

When you put these phrases into google in 2019, you now do not get any google search suggestions. This is also the case when you type in the same phrases (i.e. should, should not) in association with men, nationalities and religions. Google has removed the racist, sexist ideas that were occurring by with these search suggestions. With this campaign occurring 5-10 years ago, I wonder if this campaign had an impact on googles decision to remove the search suggestions on these types of phrases?