
Google adds "Black-owned" business attribute to local listings - waffle_ss
https://searchengineland.com/google-adds-black-owned-business-attribute-to-local-listings-338526
======
nico42
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

* Any tool that allows to discriminate "for" allows to discriminate "against"

* What is the rational to be able to add "black-owned", but not "mexican-owned" or anything else, are mexicans not victims of discriminations ?

* What is the end game ? Black people go to black-owned businesses, white people go to white-owned businesses ? this kind of anti-racism looks a little bit like segregation to me.

I'm not against any positive actions, but this one seems dangerous and could
have unwanted indirect impacts

------
stef25
As a European I'm very far removed from all this and don't really care either
way.

But I can't help but wonder - are there any Native American voices in this
whole story? Black people got a raw deal but surely it's incomparable with
Native American history and they situation the few remaining find themselves
in now. Or am I totally wrong?

~~~
fortytwo79
There are people of all demographics who've had a raw deal. In modern America,
there are black people born into lives of "privilege," and there are white
people born into adversity. So does flagging a business as minority-owned tell
the full story of the owner's life circumstances? Certainly not.

On the other hand, veteran ownership is a common thing to see advertised. I
guess I have no problem with businesses self-advertising their own values. I
take more issue if Google has a short list of business attributes, and only
causes they deem worthy make the list. I don't know if that's the case though.

------
craigmbooth
In contrast to most of the comments here, I like this.

Earlier this year, I watched the first episode of Trigger Warning with Killer
Mike (Netflix). In this episode he tried to spend a few days putting money
only into black-owned businesses... It was a hard experience for him, and
since then I have tried to be conscious of where my money goes, and if I have
the option of selecting a black owned business intend to do so, and I am happy
that there is an easy way for me to do that.

~~~
bloody-crow
So, you're saying you're intentionally prioritizing businesses based on the
owner's race. By doing so, you're making a statement, that the race of the
owners is an important variable since it leads to a different economic
outcome. You're denying ecomomic opportunities to other businesses based on
their owner's race.

Congratulations, you're perpetuating racism.

------
gremlinsinc
I support BLM, the protesters, and reparations even, but this is damaging.

There's way too many racists for businesses to put up a flag saying 'Black and
Proud' or 'Gay and Proud', a lot of bigots probably eat at a McDonald's, they
might stop if they learned the franchise owner is black, gay, or <insert other
minority>. Anonymity can bring in more cash, which I think they could probably
use, esp in this economy.

I'm sure, there's a lot like myself who'd go out of our way to use these
businesses, but I'm not sure if we outnumber the bad segments of society.

------
dirtyid
It's less intrusive than spamming my Google assistant quick actions with an
undismissable "black lives matter" button for the last couple weeks. When
tapped, it affirms BLM solidarity vow. My phone region wasn't even North
America.

More ontopic, wonder if this will be extended to other minorities. Easy way to
filter out actually Mexican owned taco shops. Or Japanese owned sushi. What
let's go full political, what if I want to avoid Christian owned franchises
like Chick-Fil-A. Maybe some of that Blue Vs Yellow division from HK.

~~~
dgellow
> My phone region wasn't even North America.

The spread of US internal issues to the rest of the world is quite frightening
to be honest. A social unrest in North America has way, way more influence in
Europeans countries than our own local issues (I'm in the EU), and both our
news and politicians react quickly to it, even though US problems are mostly
irrelevant here. Even without living close to America, or try to be only
consuming local content, it is impossible to avoid whatever is happening
there. This country has really too much impact over the rest of the world,
which wouldn’t be necessarily an issue if not for the fact that it is widely
dysfunctional.

~~~
sildur
It’s cultural colonialism, the way they force their problems over the rest of
the world.

~~~
stef25
There's nothing being forced on us here in the EU in the context of BLM. It's
more the case that people here lap it up, copying all the same narratives,
terminology and practices. This goes for both ends of the political spectrum.
It's pretty worrying.

~~~
dgellow
Yes, that’s a good way to describe it. I don’t think colonialism is a
meaningful analogy here.

------
reactchain
The next logical step of course is to start bumping up "disadvantaged"
listings in search rankings.

~~~
reportgunner
Then we start wondering why everybody has stopped using the app all of a
sudden.

------
bjt2n3904
"Anti-racist" strategies bewilder me. Am I now supposed to consider the skin
color of the business owner before shopping there?

Because I thought making business decisions based on skin color was racist.

~~~
BluSyn
According to "Anti-racists", MLK's dream of "judging people by the content of
their character" is now a racist dog-whistle.

Not sure when, but eventually the shoe must drop and people realize this so-
called "Anti-racism" is an incredibly racist ideology. This is not progress.

~~~
sleepinseattle
That’s a glib interpretation. And you’re pushing the same anti- affirmative
action viewpoint that has maintained racial inequities.

~~~
lucaspm98
Affirmative action as currently implemented based primarily on race is just as
bad, shifting the inequality of opportunity at best. White people of low
socioeconomic status are disadvantaged while people of color with high
socioeconomic status unfairly benefit. The idea of affirmative action and
“anti-racist” policies are fundamentally fine, but it’s almost completely
socially unacceptable to disagree with the popular strategies.

~~~
sleepinseattle
Racial inequity is socially unacceptable. That’s the whole damn point.

~~~
ironmagma
The question is how you fix it though, and not all answers to that question
are acceptable either.

------
Grue3
What's next, marking Jewish-owned businesses and LGBT-owned businesses? We
don't learn from history at all, do we?

------
eloff
Is this a good thing? Why should I care about the skin color of the owner of a
restaurant or business I'm thinking of going to?

~~~
baddox
I don't think you need to look for a "should." The article says:

> Google said it has seen “a surge in online searches for Black-owned
> businesses” in recent months

So it seems like a feature Google decided is useful for its visitors in the
same way that a business' address, operating hours, and reviews are useful for
its visitors.

~~~
albacur
By that logic, if they saw a surge of interest in white-owned businesses, it
would be justified adding a “white-owned business” label.

I think we can say “segregating people based on skin color is wrong in
principle,” or “segregating people is acceptable if it benefits those who are
disadvantaged,” but I don’t see segregating races based on search interest as
a reasonable policy.

~~~
baddox
“Segregation” means “forced separation,” but you seem to be using it to mean
“recognizition of any distinction.”

~~~
Ancapistani
No, not necessarily.

Neither the dictionary on my desk nor Wikipedia define the term as requiring
force.

~~~
baddox
I think the context is pretty clear here.

------
kepler1
This is getting really frustrating. How many tech company equity-based
judgement calls are we going to be subjected to, that will not be extended to
other groups that aren't the popular favorites of the moment?

How about tags for restaurants owned by poor immigrants? Or how about
veterans? Or people who are their family's first people to go to college?

When are we done with this moment, or when does the equity get extended to
other equity-worthy groups?

~~~
brandmeyer
Apparently, veteran-led and women-led are already available as tags.

------
aphroz
Isn't this the exact definition of racism ? Imagine if they started putting
jewish owned business. It can be both used to promote and discriminate, but in
both cases to differenciate people based on skin color. This is absurd.

------
zzo38computer
It doesn't matter to me if they are black-owned or women-led or whatever (and,
in order to avoid (possibly unintentional) bias, perhaps it should not be
listed by default, unless you specifically look for that information). I
should think what matters is the quality of the products/services. Business
hours, telephone number, price, etc, are much more important than whether or
not those people are black.

~~~
X6S1x6Okd1st
Then I suppose this isn't a very useful feature for you.

Taking feedback or offering a customizable experience isn't really Google's
way so I guess you'll just have a small icon to ignore until they decide to
silently kill the feature

------
hokkos
Well, they already have the yellow star icon next to black owned, women-led
icons, for the next step in their journey.

------
senectus1
now there is an interesting philosophical stance.

hmmm. I wonder if businesses are allowed to de-list "attributes".

~~~
wutwutwutwut
Why wouldn't they be able to remove an attribute they have added themselves?

------
kyriakos
This is actually the definition of racism packaged as anti racism. I don't get
it, pointing out a business is black owned means you differentiate based on
skin colour aiding discrimination.

~~~
X6S1x6Okd1st
Would reperations be racist?

~~~
bearclaw89
Reparations for what?

~~~
stef25
Reparations refers to giving cash payments to the black community as an
apology for what happened during slavery.

~~~
bearclaw89
I guess in this context that's what it means. Giving money out simple based
off someone's skin tone doesn't make much sense to me. Don't think America
invented slavery.

~~~
X6S1x6Okd1st
That's an absurd standard. People successfully sue for fraud all the time, not
just against the person that first invented fraud.

If you'd like to learn more about the case for reparations for chattel slavery
in the US I can pull up some resources.

~~~
ralfd
African-Americans have way higher living standards and income than Africans
though. I know very few who would have rather be born in Kongo or Zimbabwe.

~~~
X6S1x6Okd1st
Could you elaborate on what your argument is?

------
dathinab
So Google went accidentally racist again?

Because the moment you treat someone different because of things like skin
color it's racist, you know.

Doesn't matter if it's a preferred or discriminatory treatment because any
preferable treatment for one group of people based on race is a discrimination
against all other.

~~~
zapita
Your definition of racism is incorrect.

Racism is a hierarchical caste system based on a pseudo-scientific
classification of people into races. The dominant form of racism, invented in
Europe and exported all over the world via colonization and slavery, is built
on the concept of a biologically superior "white" race. This form of racism,
also known as white supremacy, is deeply embedded in the societies and
institutions of European countries and their former colonies. The United
States are no different.

In the United States specifically, Black people are in a special position,
because their very existence as a group is the result of colonization and
slavery. Their existence is a physical reminder of the racist origins of the
US. And the injustice they continue to endure in the United States today -
including of course police violence, but also housing discrimination,
discrimination in the workplace, excessive incarceration, restricted voting
rights, restricted access to healthcare and education, etc. - are a reminder
of the fact that racism is still, today, deeply embedded in US institutions.

One consequence of this, in the US, is that there are few Black-owned
businesses relative to the population, and as a result, Black people have less
access to equity. Because equity is the primary mechanism for wealth increase
in the US, and is taxed very favorably compared to wages, this means that
Black people are not able to benefit from economic growth at the same rate as
the rest of population. This is a self-reinforcing problem because a Black
entrepreneur is much less likely to receive an investment from a bank or VC
than a white entrepreneur of similar experience and risk profile.

This is a widely known problem, and one commonly proposed solution, if the US
finance system won't invest in Black businesses, is for Black people to
"invest in themselves", so to speak, by choosing to buy from Back-owned
businesses whenever possible. So this is primarily about helping Black people
support each other, in the absence of US institutions not supporting them
appropriately.

~~~
brandmeyer
Institutional racism flows from individual acts of racism. Individual acts
like this serve only to create a new institution of racism.

------
grizzles
Bad idea. Just like it is/was stupid for them to surface the neo nazi content
I've been shown in the last few years, eg. in Google News. I usually expect
more from this company. Has Google gone hopelessly corporate?

------
pragmaticpirate
Both woke and racist subgroup of people are very happy with this decision.
While the former knows where to go shopping, and latter is more aware of what
to avoid.

------
AnonC
I’m fully in support of surfacing attributes about groups who are systemically
discriminated against (African American, women, LGBTQ, etc.). I also
appreciate knowing that some business is local, supporting the poor and those
not privileged to have a decent education, the disabled, etc.

But considering how most of the world has turned strongly and violently right
wing in the last few years, I’m also concerned about targeted attacks against
such places in the light of this information. Yeah, if you won’t visit a place
dominated by businesses owned or run by African Americans because of this fact
alone, that’s problematic in itself. But if you’re against these groups and
want to cause harm, now Google has made it easier for you to find them or
inform people who think similarly in other places where they should target.

I don’t know if this move is beneficial or harmful overall at this point in
time. I wish this had been done more than a decade ago though.

~~~
nitro_luke
> most of the world has turned strongly and violently right wing in the last
> few years

Really? Do you have evidence that right wing violence exceeds that of any
other political affiliation? Anecdotally, looking at current events, the
opposite seems to be true. I'm not looking for a fight, I'm genuinely curious
if there are sources for this claim.

------
Markoff
all racists now thank Google for information how to avoid black businesses

they provide even Yellow stars for you to rate them

------
runawaybottle
If the business owners choose to broadcast that label then it’s fine.

The only thing I don’t like about this social pattern is that it can over time
lead to people becoming more prejudiced. Filter by white-owned, Chinese owned,
etc. The worst version of it was when Germany labeled Jewish owned businesses.

The best way to deal with a bug is to not design a system where the bug could
appear.

~~~
eganist
> The best way to deal with a bug is to not design a system where the bug
> could appear.

Correct. The problem right now is that prosperity around small businesses
tends to be stumbled-upon by people with the necessary networks and safety
nets. Said people largely tend to be White, and as a result, there's a bias in
the number of White-owned businesses which succeed.

Affirmative Action and other policies (including this move by Google)
recognize this and realize that the only way to level the playing field is to
artificially boost the signal on Black-owned businesses, Black attendance in
higher-ed, etc., because with policies that completely remove all handicaps,
momentum is sustained, and momentum right now is in favor of sustained
systemic racism (even after the protests).

That's also why policies like this generally aren't considered racist: because
they act to level the playing field when a certain group has an outsized
advantage.

> The only thing I don’t like about this social pattern is that it can over
> time lead to people becoming more prejudiced. Filter by white-owned, Chinese
> owned, etc. The worst version of it was when Germany labeled Jewish owned
> businesses.

To this point, it's also a difficult balance to strike. How can we get to as
close to level as possible without instilling the wrong search practices long
term? I don't think anyone knows the answer yet.

------
sleepinseattle
I’d suggest most of you read this as a longer form examination of policies
like this:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Be_an_Antiracist](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Be_an_Antiracist)

Rather than trying to make tired points in 140 characters.

~~~
monoideism
Most of us understand the "anti-racist" philosophy. We just don't agree with
it.

BTW, it's the height of passive aggressiveness to use this rhetorical trick of
naming things (antifa, anti-racist) in such a way that you use the very name
to shame people.

I mean, meet my new group: the anti-evil collective. What's that? You're don't
agree with us? Well, you're against evil, aren't you? Are you some kind of a
demon, or a devil?

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
So, you claim to understand "anti-racism", but don't agree with it. And yet
you're complaining about the name?

I'm sure if you understood the philosophy then you would be able to articulate
your issues with it, rather than just complaining about something superficial.
I'm guessing you're also against (but understand, ha) feminism too? but just
don't like that it sounds like it's just for women.

~~~
baryphonic
Or maybe he doesn't want to waste the time writing a dissertation-length
critique as a comment on an Internet news aggregator? The name being
pretentious and tendentious is a quick heuristic to determine that the overall
ideology is nonsense.

------
zapita
I'm seeing many comments calling this initiative "racist", or at least going
against the principles of all people being equal, etc. This is incorrect!

Racism is a hierarchical caste system based on a pseudo-scientific
classification of people into races. The dominant form of racism, invented in
Europe and exported all over the world via colonization and slavery, is built
on the concept of a biologically superior "white" race. This form of racism,
also known as white supremacy, is deeply embedded in the societies and
institutions of European countries and their former colonies. The United
States are no different.

In the United States specifically, Black people are in a special position,
because their very existence as a group is the result of colonization and
slavery. Their existence is a physical reminder of the racist origins of the
US. And the injustice they continue to endure in the United States today -
including of course police violence, but also housing discrimination,
discrimination in the workplace, excessive incarceration, restricted voting
rights, restricted access to healthcare and education, etc. - are a reminder
of the fact that racism is still, today, deeply embedded in US institutions.

One consequence of this, in the US, is that there are few Black-owned
businesses relative to the population, and as a result, Black people have less
access to equity. Because equity is the primary mechanism for wealth increase
in the US, and is taxed very favorably compared to wages, this means that
Black people are not able to benefit from economic growth at the same rate as
the rest of population. This is a self-reinforcing problem because a Black
entrepreneur is much less likely to receive an investment from a bank or VC
than a white entrepreneur of similar experience and risk profile.

This is a widely known problem, and one commonly proposed solution, if the US
finance system won't invest in Black businesses, is for Black people to
"invest in themselves", so to speak, by choosing to buy from Back-owned
businesses whenever possible. So this is primarily about helping Black people
support each other, in the absence of US institutions not supporting them
appropriately.

~~~
bloody-crow
> The dominant form of racism, invented in Europe and exported all over the
> world via colonization and slavery, is built on the concept of a
> biologically superior "white" race.

That sounds like bullshit honestly. I haven't seen any evidence that white
people specifically have "invented" racism instead of being a position of
power for the most part. There's plenty of evidence that racism existed
throughout the history in all parts of the worlds and all the races are
susceptible to it, it's just white ppl historically ended up being on top for
the most part.

To suggest that non-white people are somehow different and could not have
possibly be racist or "invent" racism is to deny human nature and perpetuate
the myth that the color of your skin makes you special albeit in a negative
way in this case, and therefore is racist.

> In the United States specifically, Black people are in a special position,
> because their very existence as a group is the result of colonization and
> slavery. Their existence is a physical reminder of the racist origins of the
> US. And the injustice they continue to endure in the United States today -
> including of course police violence, but also housing discrimination,
> discrimination in the workplace, excessive incarceration, restricted voting
> rights, restricted access to healthcare and education, etc. - are a reminder
> of the fact that racism is still, today, deeply embedded in US institutions.

I like how readily every measurable statistically significant difference
between races is readily attributed to racism without any attempt to explore
multiple other possible explanations. Sure, the only possibly reason that the
racial minority that that has been historically economically disadvantaged and
repressed from advancing over generations has been poorer educated, engaged in
more crime and less economically involved today would be racism.

~~~
zapita
> _That sounds like bullshit honestly._

It sounds that way to you because it goes against your beliefs. It doesn’t
mean it’s wrong...

> _I haven 't seen any evidence that white people specifically have "invented"
> racism instead of being a position of power for the most part._

If you read History books, you will find plenty of evidence. It’s not hard to
find. Nothing I wrote is particularly controversial among historians.

> _There 's plenty of evidence that racism existed throughout the history in
> all parts of the worlds_

You’re thinking of bigotry, or prejudice. You are correct that it is present
everywhere in the world. But it is not the same as racism (see my definition
of racism above).

> _and all the races are susceptible to it_

Note that races are a pseudo-scientific concept. There is no such thing as
“all the races” when talking about humanity as a whole. It’s as meaningless as
saying “all the Hindu castes in the world”.

> _it 's just white ppl historically ended up being on top for the most part._

Yes, Europeans conquered most of the world, occupied it militarily, plundered
its resources, enslaved, killed and displaced tens of millions of people, and
invented the concept of “white people” as the superior race to justify it. As
a result, much of the world’s wealth and power was redistributed to Europeans
and their descendants, both in Europe and in their colonies.

If that’s what you mean by “being on top” then we are in agreement.

> _To suggest that non-white people are somehow different and could not have
> possibly be racist or "invent" racism is to deny human nature and perpetuate
> the myth that the color of your skin makes you special albeit in a negative
> way in this case, and therefore is racist._

Again, you are confusing prejudice and racism. Sure, I guess anyone _could_
have invented racism and spread it to half the planet. Any human group is
biologically capable of doing that. Who cares? That statement applies equally
to every historical fact. Any humans could have conquered the Mediterranean -
but the Romans did. Any humans could have caused WW2 - but the Germans did.
Any humans could have invented and spread racism - but the Europeans did.

> _I like how readily every measurable statistically significant difference
> between races is readily attributed to racism without any attempt to explore
> multiple other possible explanations._

Oh, plenty of people have looked for other explanations. It’s just that they
have failed to make a convincing case for them. By contrast, what I explained
to you is supported by mountains of evidence and pretty much the entire
scientific community. You might as well be looking for alternate explanations
to global warming. But feel free to try!

 _Sure, the only possibly reason that the racial minority that that has been
historically economically disadvantaged and repressed from advancing over
generations has been poorer educated, engaged in more crime and less
economically involved today would be racism._

I didn’t say it’s the only possible reason. It’s just the only reason
supported by evidence and research.

~~~
ralfd
> Yes, Europeans conquered most of the world

... and invented humanism and outlawed slavery (worldwide!) and decolonized
their own empires. This is pretty remarkable and unique in history.

~~~
zapita
How is this relevant to the topic being discussed?

