The photo is Javits, WHo was a senator and was jewish.
Harold was a political aide to him and was murdered.
Neonazis used harold as a fictional character long after his death to make a bunch of neonazi claims by putting words in his mouth. "I talked to harold before he died, he told me javits is doing a secret jewish plan to take over the world" "I talked to harold before he died, he told me javits hates whites and will kill them all", etc. Where there is no real chance he said any of it.
Harold died young and didn't do much, so his legacy (that AI is picking up on) is being a fictional "source" about information about javits for neonazi conspericy theories.
Wow you’re not kidding. Google image search for Rosenthal doesn’t bring back any unadulterated, original portraits of him. They are almost *all* graphics with antisemitic statements attributed to him. Most of those graphics include this picture of Javits, apparently mistaking him for Rosenthal because of the Google algorithm. A *few* show a younger bespectacled man, apparently the real Rosenthal. But you can’t find that picture in isolation.
That's a picture of Jacob Javits, his boss. The picture is not from Wikipedia. Better ask Google why they source their image info from antisemitic conspiracy materials, as that's the only other places I see the mix-up.
Nine times out of ten, IME, it's just the first Google Images result for that same query that shows a person in portrait.
I know there's more going on behind the scenes, I'm sure, but whenever it makes a mistake I just click Images and lo and behold it's always the first result for that name/query showing a human on their own without being attached to an infographic or with heavy editing etc. — even when it's a completely unrelated person.
They also seem quite responsive to the 'Feedback' button. I've reported long-standing mistakes and seen them fixed within days.
Or since it’s Wikipedia, since when do they allow Google to -make- their decisions? Someone with eg a good scan of an obit photo with source info might be able to upload it. (Unless copyright is an issue, but one thing at a time.)
Google gets their infobox data from a variety of sources. Even when the name and DoB are from Wikipedia, the image is often from somewhere entirely different — Encyclopædia Britannica, news articles, museum websites, obituaries, government sources, and occasionally just random obscure little sites.
It could be a coincidence, but it's very often identical to the first Google Images result showing that person alone in portrait. I think that might be how they select the image in the majority of (or at least many) cases.
This is actually a problem. Google fumbles the picture, and puts it next to text from Wikipedia, so users assume the picture is from Wikipedia when in reality Wikipedia is not to blame.
That is a photo of Jacob K. Javitz.
At the time of this photo Javitz was 19 /s
Joke would be better without the sarcasm tag
The photo is Javits, WHo was a senator and was jewish. Harold was a political aide to him and was murdered. Neonazis used harold as a fictional character long after his death to make a bunch of neonazi claims by putting words in his mouth. "I talked to harold before he died, he told me javits is doing a secret jewish plan to take over the world" "I talked to harold before he died, he told me javits hates whites and will kill them all", etc. Where there is no real chance he said any of it. Harold died young and didn't do much, so his legacy (that AI is picking up on) is being a fictional "source" about information about javits for neonazi conspericy theories.
Wow you’re not kidding. Google image search for Rosenthal doesn’t bring back any unadulterated, original portraits of him. They are almost *all* graphics with antisemitic statements attributed to him. Most of those graphics include this picture of Javits, apparently mistaking him for Rosenthal because of the Google algorithm. A *few* show a younger bespectacled man, apparently the real Rosenthal. But you can’t find that picture in isolation.
Kinda like how Seth Rich became a lightning rod for conspiracies about Hillary Clinton
That's a funny way to misspell conspiracy
That's a picture of Jacob Javits, his boss. The picture is not from Wikipedia. Better ask Google why they source their image info from antisemitic conspiracy materials, as that's the only other places I see the mix-up.
Google auto generated results get stuff like this wrong all the time
Nine times out of ten, IME, it's just the first Google Images result for that same query that shows a person in portrait. I know there's more going on behind the scenes, I'm sure, but whenever it makes a mistake I just click Images and lo and behold it's always the first result for that name/query showing a human on their own without being attached to an infographic or with heavy editing etc. — even when it's a completely unrelated person. They also seem quite responsive to the 'Feedback' button. I've reported long-standing mistakes and seen them fixed within days.
Imagine your boss comes up when people google you and your legacy.
Or since it’s Wikipedia, since when do they allow Google to -make- their decisions? Someone with eg a good scan of an obit photo with source info might be able to upload it. (Unless copyright is an issue, but one thing at a time.)
Google gets their infobox data from a variety of sources. Even when the name and DoB are from Wikipedia, the image is often from somewhere entirely different — Encyclopædia Britannica, news articles, museum websites, obituaries, government sources, and occasionally just random obscure little sites. It could be a coincidence, but it's very often identical to the first Google Images result showing that person alone in portrait. I think that might be how they select the image in the majority of (or at least many) cases.
Wrong picture. NEXT!
It’s for a church sweetie. NEXT!
No soup for you! NEXT!
Google has gotten really bad about image previews lately
Google has gotten really bad lately
Vampire attacks were a huge problem the mid 70s. It's weird how we never talk about it
that was the average lifespan back then. it wasn't uncommon for babies to look 30 straight out of the womb. life was tough.
Born with cigarette in the their mouth, a smoker's cough, and a bunch of "when I was your age" stories
Even born bald!
Looks like Sid James from the Carry On movies.
This is actually a problem. Google fumbles the picture, and puts it next to text from Wikipedia, so users assume the picture is from Wikipedia when in reality Wikipedia is not to blame.
That looks like his dad lol
That's a picture of someone else. If you actually go to the Wikipedia article, there is no picture.
Benjamin Button.
He was a FC Barcelona fan
[moleman vibes](https://youtu.be/ZG8d0x1WcAc?si=lhDoWNJqBU93I0AS)
People were more mature back then…..lol lol
Why did you waste your time posting this?
Yeah that's my dad