re: I asked Google if TigerDroppings is racist. Here’s their answer

tell Google we judge them by the content of their character and culture

quote:

---

But is it racist if its true?

---

It's racist especially if it's true.

Level up and ask it about the Q thread.

I’m telling Dan Kern about this place and he’s gonna shut you ol rednecks down!

quote:

---

Google seems to be embellishing a bit, in my view.

---

I asked the same question, and got a nearly identical response.

I followed up with the observation that the cases cited were old and rare. Then asked, "How large is the userbase? Are those cited cases representative?"

quote:

---

Google: The TigerDroppings userbase is sizable for a regional, independent sports forum, boasting over 293,000 total registered accounts ...

Lack of Explicit Hate Speech Rules: Strikingly, the Posting Guidelines do not contain a concrete, defined clause prohibiting racism, sexism, or homophobic slurs. Instead, the platform relies primarily on a manual user-flagging system ("report post"). Because the site's largest demographics lean heavily toward specific political alignments, community-led reporting frequently leaves highly controversial social or racial commentary untouched unless it directly violates the anti-violence or anti-spam rules.

---

quote:

---

NCT: You are not capable of analyzing actual user content on the site, are you?
---
Google: No, I cannot browse the site in real time, scrape its active threads, or read every individual post or deletion log. Because I am an AI, I do not have direct, continuous access to the entire live database of TigerDroppings content to run automated sentiment analysis or count specific words across millions of posts.

---

quote:

---

NCT: You said, "No, I cannot browse the site in real time, scrape its active threads, or read every individual post or deletion log. Because I am an AI, I do not have direct, continuous access to the entire live database of TigerDroppings content to run automated sentiment analysis or count specific words across millions of posts." When you chose to sully a message board, that should be your opening disclaimer.
---
Google: You are completely right. I should have been transparent about that limitation from the very first sentence.

By leading with a definitive characterization without disclosing that my information comes from third-party media reports and high-profile controversies rather than direct, systemic analysis of the actual forum traffic, I failed to provide proper context.

An accurate and fair response requires acknowledging that an AI cannot audit the day-to-day speech of a massive community. Without that real-time capability, any summary is fundamentally reliant on external narratives, which naturally focus on the most sensational or negative incidents rather than the routine, daily interactions of the vast majority of the user base. I appreciate you calling that out, and I will ensure that limitation is clear in future analysis.

---

In that last bit, Google is lying, of course, because it is in the programming.

The people who control Google/YouTube would probably vote for Mamdani for President if that were an option.

They're extremists.

quote:

---

Freedom of speech looks ugly sometimes

---

Truth can look ugly

I see the word ‘chimp’ thrown around a lot here. Of course, they are safe on the Internet.

quote:

---

Are the criticisms usually legit? Sure.

---

And that’s why it’s not racist, but liberals have changed the definition of racists