Why do different search engines return such different results? Here are the first results for a query I made on Google and Yandex: "R. F. Kuang breasts" where there is a clear difference between the images. Google does not show the image on the right even when going to the furthest possible page of results. This trend of censorship will continue until the people rise up.
Google
Yandex
Hi-res for the first image (Yandex result)
Hi-res for the second image (Google result)
Apparently someone (a woman) wrote an article about this author and took an image from another article about her, and censored it. I think I will reach out to her and tell her that censoring the woman's free expression of her body infringes upon her autonomy and is anti-feminist. But the question remains: why does Google not show the nippley one?
>>108914931Would.
I sent a message to the woman who originally censored the image
>>108915020based autist
>>108914910This is gonna sound crazy, but yandex actually can edit pictures live. I seen it happen multiple times, even before AI was a thing.
>>108915020Kek
I notice the color changes from what they show vs the original.>>108915035
>>108915035I've also seen this.
>>108915035I considered that, but the two articles check out.https://www.elle.com/culture/books/a64900222/r-f-kuang-katabasis-next-fantasy-book-interview-2025/https://www.interviewmagazine.com/literature/r-f-kuang-on-plagiarism-and-the-pitfalls-of-identity-politicsThe article-writer definitely made the change. Or something in the system she used to publish it did. Either way, I will report what I hear back from her when she gets back to me.
>>108914910Because imagine how bad it could be if a child with unrestricted internet access saw the image on the left.
Apparently Bing is still based enough to show what I want
I noticed recently on startpage if you search for an actress name like "eva green nude" with safesearch off it will show only SFW results, yet you can search the word "porn" and it will show you hardcore porn. I think it's using bing for the image search. Not sure why they did this. I'm guessing it's literally rape to see people who were nude in movies now?
>>108915020Are you a bisexual who plays hockey, Jack? Wondering since you seem like a spare I work with.
>>108915020lamo
May we see her butt hole?
>>108914910This is so autistic anon. One goes to pintrest the other goes to elle who for some reason photoshopped her nipple out KEKAlso your image is fake because the pintrest version is 400px not 2000px
>>108914931Liar the first result in yandex is ~500,600px not 2000x2500
>>108915177>startpagehas been shit for a long as time
>>108915355Click the dropdown on the side to select a higher resolution. The highest resolution option goes to the article I linked.
THEY AI'D AWAY HER NIPS?? IM FURIOUS...ly beating off on yandex from now on.
Nothing screams female Empowerment more than by Photoshoping her nips away to appease some agenda.
>>108914910Because google is used by kids, you retard
>>108915020thank you for your service
>>108915925kids have been banned from internet
the editors of ELLE decided to cut her nips off for whatever reason. the ELLE article is ranked very high by Google, but doesn't appear in Yandex images at all. presumably the reason you don't see both versions is because the engine treats them as the same image and hides duplicates, to avoid the hell of Google Images from the olden days, where you had the entire page plastered in duplicates.there also seems to be some animosity between ELLE and Yandex.
does ddg still use bing images? It's got the nip's nips too
>>108916157they should at the very least put a disclaimer saying the image has been edited
>>108916132Google is (((curiously))) exempt from any kind of age verification laws and will gladly show porn to anyone on the Internet (except for places that might ban Google altogether).
>>108916132I wish this was actually true
>>108916173How exactly do you expect this to work in practice, retard? All images get "edited" to some degree.
>>108915925what's wrong with kids seeing nipples?
>>108916338exact descriptions of how those images are edited should be included
>>108916413GPLv3 but for images?
>>108915020a decade of gamergate has broken people's brain into thinking that writers are selecting and photoshopping the images that go on their articles
>>108915020good job anon
>>108916425what purpose does your pedantry serve? the author of an article for a well-established fashion magazine most likely had some uncredited schmuck to source and edit the image. so fucking what?
>>108914910>the right to bold nsfw nipples protudringyou have my axe
>>108916442you have the brain of a baby. you don't know how anything works.have you ever had a job in your life?
>>108916453>you don't know how anything works.i was agreeing with your point, i just said that it's irrelevant. but now you're trying to have it both ways - by disagreeing with me, who was agreeing with you.okay, genius, why don't you tell us how it all works?better yet, why don't you tell us what's going wrong with *your* life that made you get triggered and project this much?
>>108916496shut the fuck up, dipshit. you don't even know what you think you're agreeing with.the photo being used across multiple articles means it's probably provided by her agency with the press pack. writers write the articles. editors decide the photos and even the headlines. and if the boomer editor doesn't like nipples poking out they tell the intern to shoop them out.you want to harass someone send an email to elle or better yet, kill yourself instead
>>108915925Are female nipples haram in Burgerland?
>>108915035It doesn't edit them live, it swaps a thumbnail for a better quality version of the same image, and sometimes it looks different.
>>108914910>Why do different search engines return such different results?Go download Yandex leaked code and see what it censors. Ask around for cultural context and you'll see that it's mostly the same.Nobody knows who the fuck Kuang is in Russia.> This trend of censorship will continue until the people rise up.And do what, wage war on a corporation that has your entire state depend on it?If you care, try building your own search engine, self host it and forget about this bs.
>>108916520>writers write the articles. editors decide the photos and even the headlines. and if the boomer editor doesn't like nipples poking out they tell the intern to shoop them out.right. and me saying the following was "wrong" enough in comparison to cause you to throw a fit over it?>the author of an article for a well-established fashion magazine most likely had some uncredited schmuck to source and edit the imageyou got pedantic over anon implying the credited author was directly responsible for editing the image. then you once again showed your pedantry at me, since i guess my overview was too abstract/simplistic for your liking. in both cases you missed the point: none of your autistic "acckssschchcuallyy" details are relevant. perhaps take your own advice on that suicide? must be tough having to be "that guy".
>make a search>forget to log out or use incognito> auto logged into both yt and google, can't separate the twoData miners must be happy. Bing does the same with your microsoft acc
>>108916550that means it's not the same image, actually, though
>>108916572you being wrong about fucking everything and someone pointing it out is not pedantry you fucking imbecileyou don't know how anything worksyou should learn to keep your dog shit opinions to yourselfpeople should do this everytime you open your dumb fucking mouth because faggots like you need to be taught their place
>>108915925It’s not like tits aren’t used for kids. Breastfeeding is a thing. Sorry you didn’t get that experience. Mother’s milk helps children’s immune systems and brain development among other things.
>>108916659>Hi, I noticed that you censored an image [...] on your recent articlecontext-aware interpretation:>Hi [whoever gets paid to read this crap], I noticed that an image in a recent article that was published under the name "Lauren Puckett-Pope" has been altered [in a manner with which I take issue with]context-unaware interpretation:>Hi Lauren, I noticed that you personally altered this image using Adobe Photoshop in this article which you have personally written and published, I know this because of GamergateMost people are able to interpret the intent and ignore the irrelvant details. But not you. So when I said "of course it's not Lauren herself doing it, who the fuck cares?" you doubled down on your pedantic tangent, "ackschsually, it's da agency and da intern and da boomer editor!!" lmao, once again - who the fuck cares? Why is any of this relevant? Well, it's *not* relevant, you just simply can't keep your pedantry at bay. It's very clear you spend a lot of your time correcting people on irrelevant technicalities, which naturally causes people to not like you much, which clearly upsets you, but instead of acknowledging this as your own defect, all you do is double down - yes, *everyone else* is a dumb faggot, not me. Sad!
>>108916713i'm not reading your essay, baby.fuck off.
>>108916717hits too close to home, doesn't it, bubby? ;^)
>>108916720you're human slop, m8you don't know anything and spend your life justifying not knowing anything instead of trying to learnget a job
>>108915020Doing the lord's work.Thanks, Jack.
>>108916728truly, it is the lack of knowledge over the intricacies of fashion magazine editorial processes that directly determines my overall knowledge and my employement status.
>>108914910Sorry anon, those look sloppy as hell, I'll skip this psyops
>>108914910If you search “R. F. Kuang breasts” on Google you can get two webpages that use that image with the green tank top. Interview magazine hosts the image with nipples. Elle magazine hosts the image but they smoothed out the nipples in their version. This really isn’t a Google thing, it’s just that there are two similar images out there.
>>108915020If you were genuine this would be meaningful but you aren’t so you’re just an annoying piece of shit
>>108914951Because google's engine weights pics from the news articles higher.
google has gotten better at finding pornpreviously, you basically HAD to use Yandex if you wanted to find anything.say what you will about the kikes and streetshitters in charge there, but they have enough money to eventually make something marginally better than any other company would for less.
>>108918156whoa powerful, the way you stick up for her reminds me of her breasts
>>108916520He's right you are nitpicking irrelevancies.
>>108916139>the hell of Google Images from the olden days, where you had the entire page plastered in duplicatesYou mean the better Google images
This is the kind of investigative reporting that keeps me coming back here
My company uses AI to auto censored any images negative of Israel
>random who microceleb's image is edited before publishing in an article>internet autists realize her braless nipples are censored from their original stout posture>nameless hero emails the author and shares their concerns about the effect they have on free womynly expression>someone is seething for some entirely unnecessary reason ITTI was here to witness this. Thank you 4chan.
>>108915020thank you for your service anon
>>108914910What I love about this is that RF Kuang is definitely the type of chick to proudly show her nipples as long as she feels like she "owns it". How dare they!
>>108915020>I hope that you know censoring a woman's free expression of her body is fascist and patriarchal.I am Jack's smirking revenge. Than you Jack.
>>108916641Yes but the point is that it's just a mistake of the tech, it's not an edit or whatever.
>>108914931>>108914937real?
>>108918183True, its still my go to for finding good sites and vids
>>108915020How is this different from when a Twitter user sent a complaint about the racist drawing of the black woman in a news article?
>>108919252>microcelebShe is the author of that yellowface book, so shes not really a microceleb. She is a very notable contemporary literature author.
>>108921241Lol
>>108915020Jack's got a point
>>108915020
>>108914931saved to my hi res rf kang breasts folder
>>108916132but what (indians like you) are you doing it
>>108915925And? Parent's problem.
>>108920074>t. putin shillenjoy the rubles
>>108914910Most of the time Yandex refused my search even from just pirating software/games.
don't use google
>>108918156baited nobody
>>108916713dude, it really doesn’t matter! That mail goes straight to /dev/null and nobody is going to take action on any of that.It would be different of course if whoever owns the copyright of the photo would officially complain through DMCA. The article would probably be deleted.
>>108924030>That mail goes straight to /dev/null and nobody is going to take action on any of that.It's highly unlikely that the mail literally doesn't reach an actual inbox. If there's a potential legal issue in your article and an autistic reader happens to point it out, surely you'd want to know. Action may be taken depending on how important the issue is deemed to be.>if whoever owns the copyright of the photo would officially complain through DMCAThis would imply that the magazine had no right to distribute it to begin with but did it anyway, which is extremely unlikely, or that the licencing included clauses that prohibit altering the image in any way, which is also unlikely.
>>108915925AIEEE *female presenting nipples*!!!Every baby that got breastfed must be scarred for life. Then again you're probably from Burgistan so that's what you actually believe, isn't it
Google has been shit for years.All people had to do is not shove politics and agendas into everything, but that's too much to ask apparently. Consequence of allowing pearl-clutchers a voice on the internet.
>>108925335>>108925462bing is a good balance of the 2i swear bing is unironically good now
>>108916401
>>108915020has she responded?
>>108925507do you mean ironically?
>>108925845I don't know what irony is, I just say "unironically" when I'm serious like frfr
>>108925507Even if Bing was good now, I still haven't forgiven them for trying to sneak install Bing Bar.
>>108915020>mansplainingthat's a no no
>>108926468>assuming they're genderbigot
>>108925556I guess you were never breastfed
>>108926509I probably was for a little while after I was born, but not long enough to have any memory of it.
>>108925854bing "secretly" being (or becoming) good, despite having a reputation of being bad, could be considered ironic. so when you ad the "un" it's almost like... you're saying the opposite of what you mean, which seems kinda retarded.
>>108926422Similarly, the very first time I used Bing I typed in "blogger" and it hit me with "did u mean """ blog """???"I closed the browser, rubbed my eyes, exhaled and never used Bing again.
>>108925507>>108915148>>108915177>>108916167I used to use Bing on my work laptop and one day the images page just full on started showing very young girls in bikinis unprompted It wasn't even like a clothing catalogue either it was basically like non nude dodgy stuff you'd expect to find in a more depraved corner of the internet
>>108914910Kek Troongle. Im not surprised they are censoring woman.
>>108915020based
>>108925556It's honestly disgusting how much Anglo culture hates displays of nudity.
>>108915020post results
>>108926422>Bing Barsounds tasty
>>108915020basedchinese women belong to the white cock
>>108927180american puritanism and the porn industry is to blame
>>108915020Should have used a female name retard.
>>108915020witnessed
>>108927180>lets ignore the nude magazines
>>108914910>>108914921>>108914928They're from different sources. Google sources from Elle. Yandex sources from PinterestThis is more which website each engine prefers
>>108927305That barely exists anymore?
>>108914931>>108914937Are the sources different? Who would Photoshop out nipples? Is that a job or is AI doing it?
>>108915020lmfao based
>>108925625Not yet. She's probably still seething.
>>108915059George Oh Well!
