What's more sinister--Google accurately reflecting the gist of the content and information available on the web, or Google carefully scrubbing it to better reflect a chosen set of cultural sensitivities?

> Google accurately reflecting the gist of the content and information available on the web

I wouldn't assume that Google's search results reflect anything but an attempt to bring you back by showing you results you find valuable, and to monetize your visit.

> scrubbing it to better reflect a chosen set of cultural sensitivities?

Google (and any other mass market vendor) removes a lot of things that people don't want to see, including scams, X-rated content, brutality, etc. People searching for information on their dog don't want to see bestiality. These aren't arbitrarily chosen preferences or mere "sensitivities", but social norms which in many cases have a strong moral foundation.

"Social norms" can be either descriptive or prescriptive. Descriptive norms are norms that reflect society as it is, and Google doesn't need to do anything about them, because the society that produces millions of web pages with cute pictures of puppies or helpful information about what not to feed your dog for every single web page with dog porn will result in a SERP that is overwhelmingly weighted towards that information.

Conversely--haven't these same people been telling us for years that we live in a racist society? So why are they surprised that a search engine of a racist society's web pages returns racist results?

I'm surprised myself that someone on HN is really claiming that Google doesn't edit search results for all sorts of reasons, including for purposes of social norms, of any sort, and social responsibility. In fact, every person and organization does that. I doubt there are any social interactions where people don't behave according to a set of rules.

> why are they surprised

Nobody said they are surprised; that's not relevant. They are trying to solve a problem, just like people who are working to resolve the problems of cancer, gun violence, and bugs in Firefox.

I'm not saying they don't edit search results (clearly they do); I'm saying that it's worth reexamining the expectation that they should edit search results for the sake of political agendas.

You raise an interesting point, but the comment was about the article itself and the thesis in the article.

FWIW, I read the article as addressing the issue in general. The headline and lead-in are Google-specific (as well as many of the examples), which is unfortunate in the sense that it's arguably click-baity and leads to arguments like this, that the thesis is wrong because it's not just Google. I understand why it's done, as providing a familiar, well-understood context helps people better understand what the author is getting at.

Examples of how the author is approaching the topic more generally are found in headings such as "Content and Creators" and phrases like "Information monopolies such as Google". The author's book is likewise entitled "Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism", not "How Google Reinforces Racism".

I agree that results in Bing and Duck Duck Go, for example, currently show a lot of the flaws describe in the article. But the point (as much as the headline may lead you to believe) isn't that it's only Google.

rayiner wasn't just bringing up Google vs other companies, though.

rayiner was saying that there is a "coupled system" and Google just reflects external racism, and then Google's search results amplify racism. The article did not mention anything about those interesting points, which might be worthy of bringing up and discussing, but it seems very unfair to accuse the top comment of "not getting the point" about them, when they are rayiner's insights that were only now presented.