Images of Donald Trump Dominate Google Image Search for ‘Idiot'


. . . "Breitbart News reached out to Google for comment but did not receive a reply.


Images of Donald Trump Dominate Google Image Search for ‘Idiot’

Charlie Nash 19 Jul 2018 Breitbart News

Searches for “idiot” on Google Images return pictures of President Trump in the top five results, and heavily throughout the rest of the list.

According to Business Insider, “Anti-Trump activists are gaming Google’s algorithm so that when people search for ‘idiot,’ almost all of the top results are pictures of Donald Trump.” . . .

. . . “Protesters are publishing articles on their own platforms which associate the word ‘idiot’ with Trump, as well as sharing and upvoting articles which do the same,” they explained, adding that the “net effect of this is that the association inside Google’s algorithm becomes stronger, producing photos of Trump when people input the term.”

In May, Google was criticized for listing “Nazism” as an official ideology of the California Republican Party. . . .

. . . Just days later, searches for Sen. Trudy Wade (R-NC) displayed an image labeled “BIGOT.” . . .


Popular Youtube political satirist Mark Dice who has been victimized by Google’s bias in this area has complained about this phenomenon too as used against him.

Maddow: ‘Feels Very Palpable’ ‘That the President Is a Foreign Agent’
Behind the Google-Southern Poverty Law Center relationship

Soros must have done it.


Whether you support Trump or no, purposely trying to smear one’s reputatiom is mortally sinful. Google should be ashamed.


Google is flawed.


Google? …


The article blaming this on anti-Trump activists is fake news.


Look up the word idiot on google. You’ll see what I’m talking about.


Yes …That is what the thread is all about. But why do you say that google should ashamed, or suggest that google is "purposely trying to smear one’s reputation?


That would be like asking the same question of the NYT, the Washington Post,
MSNBC, CNN, Robert de Niro and a multitude of others.


I wouldn’t have heard about this unless posted here. I wouldn’t ever googled “idiot”.


Like when Rick Santorum found his name was associated with a byproduct of anal sex. At the end of the day associative searches are driven mostly by statistics. Google already had a policy of not interfering or taking action with things like this.

More specifically, the Google Knowledge panel gave the Wikipedia summary. A user had edited the Wikipedia entry to state the association. Later other’s at Wikipedia corrected the edit. Somewhat reminds me of when users edited the Wikipedia entry for Burger King so that the Amazon Alexa and Google Home speakers would both report less than positive things about the food.

The Google Search result here reflects associations formed from recent publications on the Internet. While it’s generally easier to point at a single entity than at the various distributed actors doing so omits an overwhelming amount of the causal factors in the result.

That said, I’m not confident that all the people contributing to this are activist. Us talking about it here contributes to the weight of such results. Also I know this is anecdotal, but I hear the label applied to the president rather frequently.


I agree, as none of those images in articles associating them with the word “idiot” were posted by Google.


The Rick Santorum thing was on purpose. Someone coined that phrase.

It’s a derivative of the Italian name, “Santoro”. He’s Italian American, I’m not sure why his name is latinized.

The meaning of Santoro is “feast of all Saints”


So, when Trump called Chuck Schumer a clown, was that a mortal sin? When Trump calls Liz Warren Pocahontas, was that mortal sin? When Trump calls Hillary “Crooked Hillary” was that a mortal sin?


That’s true, there was a vote of what they were going to try to associate it with and that’s what won out. There was a campaign pushed by Dan Savage to use the term enough to get neologism to rise in the search results.

I’m not sure that the association of the president’s name to have been a targeted action as much as responses to actions and statements. But a relevant comment from the previous incident.


If you want a more balanced view of this issue, note that the Breitbart article is just their take on the Business Insider article, which they cite. So skip the Breitbart commentary and go straight to that article. It has less innuendo directed at Google. It simply reports that this result is based on many people posting this association and up-voting it. Or click through to the Guardian article that Business Insider cites.

Are these “anti-Trump activists” doing anything wrong? They are making their voices heard in a way that anyone else could do too. Complaining about them “gaming the system” is like those whose choose not to vote in a Presidential election complaining about those who do vote as “gaming the system.” If those with the opposing view want to oppose this action, then get out there and do so.

But really, who actually Googles “idiot images” for any reason other than to see who people are calling an idiot these days? In the case of Trump, for whatever reason, a lot of people are calling him an idiot. So as a statistical reporting on current social trends, Google is doing just what people expect it to do.


In a world where Trump calls Chuck Schumer a clown, Liz Warren Pocahontas, or Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary” I cannot see any reason why anyone should care about people calling Trump an idiot. Perhaps it would be better if we all had better manners, but I am not sure there was ever an era in American politics where that actually occurred.


ThinkingSapien . . .

Google already had a policy of not interfering or taking action with things like this.

What do you think that “policy” is?


LeafByNiggle . . .

If you want a more balanced view of this issue, note that the Breitbart article is just their take on the Business Insider article, which they cite. So skip the Breitbart . . .

I wanted a more balanced view of this issue, so once I found out about this, I ignored Breitbart AND Business Insider and went straight to Google.

Then I went to other sources too. Several. Then like everyone else, I have to draw my own conclusions.


Right. There is not much factual that any of these sources add to the story that one cannot see for themselves by just trying it out with Google.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit