Sheng Li (gmachine1729) wrote,
Sheng Li

Blatant anti-China bias in Google search results

Originally published at 狗和留美者不得入内. You can comment here or there.

I looked up a guy (using US IP address, clearing all cookies so that they don’t remember any China related IP information) with top tier credentials in elite STEM contests plus top undergrad, PhD, and postdoc institutions on each of Google, Bing, and Yahoo. His page in the Chinese institution where he is now does not appear in the Google results, but it is the first result in each of Bing and Yahoo. I guess it’s not that fair to blame Google since Google is shut out of China anyway so they have some license to not index or down rank results from domains with China IP addresses, especially ones under the .cn top level domain. Baidu also does not really index and rank certain US sites very well, though if you look up programming stuff, you can still more or less easily find the quality English content.

Oh, I also tried on Yandex and Baidu (in pinyin using English alphabet) but no result, but that’s also fair since they are meant to serve the Russian and Chinese languages.

As for Google vis-a-vis Bing and Yahoo, depending on how you look at it, you can say that Google is doing this to spite China for being shut out of that large market, or you can say that Google is basically a company anti-China to the core (run by Zionists yearning for regime change of a destructive nature there, who use anti-communist as a cover). On the other hand, Microsoft is relatively mainland China friendly with MSRA in Beijing and some high up mainland Chinese there, like Harry Shum and previously Qi Lu, actually at the level of answering directly to CEO, and Yahoo, where Qi Lu first rose to executive ranks, had an ethnic Chinese from Taiwan Jerry Yang as one of the two co-founders and for quite a while the face of the company.

I’m almost certain that that person who is +4 sigma above the mean in IQ (certainly smarter than I am by a fair bit) has Googled his name sufficiently recently and isn’t very happy about the result.

More shortcomings of Google, Scholar, Disqus, etc

A Chinese physicist I talk to once complained about imperfections in Google Scholar. On that, I do remember once searching the name of a guy relatively high up at Google expecting his CS publication record, but instead I got mostly a ton of highly cited results of a guy with a similar name in biology with some results for the intended person mixed in, and assuming I didn’t remember wrong, they regarded the two as the same person in place where you could click on “name of researcher”. Looks like their AI/machine learning is not intelligent enough to discriminate between the two. Like, can’t they run some clustering algorithm to solve this problem? Of course, that takes some human resources/capital/labor, and mostly certainly Google Scholar, which doesn’t make the company any money directly, is quite far back in the queue. Though, I actually know well an extremely smart and competent guy who worked on that system. And also, I think that physicist might be a bit harsh. Google Scholar has already delivered to a ton of smart, impactful people a ton of valuable information. That somebody within the company had the technical competence plus social/political capital and skill to initiate such a non money making project and turn it into a workable product is already quite a positive result. Be more unlucky, and you can have something like Google Plus, which has been effectively shut down.

I guess I also initiated and drove to completion all on my own a mini search project to fill in another gap of Google search. The end product is which you can use to search comments of any username on Disqus.

The moral of the story is: don’t restrict to Google. Search engines basically only index sites that are publicly available with sites they already know of linking to them, that they want to and are allowed to by law, with restrictions based on that robots.txt thingy the details of which I’m not clear on at all. Don’t restrict to the English language either if you have the time and brainpower, it’s a pretty biased language (like just about any language but probably much more severe) in terms of content, especially on the political end. This is especially if you’re an ABC, I hope more of them take the initiative like I did to mentally and politically liberate themselves.


I told this to a tenured Russian scientist. His response:

I am not surprised. Google is as biased as FB or YouTube. I know a lot of Chinese scientists who voluntarily return to China. My bet is that if current policies of the US and Chinese government continue, in 10-20 years Chinese science would be much stronger than American.

Both liberal and anti-communist are the results of American brainwashing. Most people in the US either cannot imagine free education, free healthcare, ridiculously cheap housing and childcare we had in the USSR, or try to suppress their envy by convincing themselves that it is not true. Self-proclaimed liberals (who are not liberals in the original meaning of the word) now have disparaging nicknames in many languages: they are called “liberasts” in Russia and “libtards” in the US.

If you want more confirmation, you can look up the guy on Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc and see for yourself what results each of those search engines return. His name in codewords: pinyin(decode(“Scholarly/PhD”) + decode(“one character for 中国”) + decode(“中国铁路之父的姓”)).

Tags: google, цензура/censorship, 中国/китай, 互联网行业

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened