This week Twitter user Kabir Alli posted a video of him carrying out two specific searches on Google. The search for “three white teenagers” produced smiling and happy generic images of white teenagers, while the search for “three black teenagers” produced some generic happy images too – alongside far too many mug shots and what could be perceived as negative images of black teenagers. The video of the search was put up without any explanation, and people predictably reacted emotively; it’s been shared more than 60,000 times. It brought back an internet meme I debunked back in March this year, in which, on the basis of such search results, people on social media called Google “racist”.

The outrage towards Google as a result of those searches makes sense if a person isn’t aware of the nature of search engine optimisation (SEO), algorithms, alt tagging and stock photography.

But once you have that knowledge, it enables you to direct your outrage more accurately. In short, Google doesn’t produce or tag the images themselves. Google is a search engine; search engines collect data from the internet. The most popular and most accurate search results make their way to the top. Websites and companies use SEO to get their images, products and articles to the top of the search engine. So you, the viewer, can see them.

Alt tags are the descriptive words attached to an image or article by its producer, ie, a human, and Google uses these alt tags to bring you “accurate” results. For this particular search the images that appear tend to come from two sources: stock photography and news sites.

YOOOOOO LOOK AT THIS pic.twitter.com/uY1JysFm8w — July 3rd. (@iBeKabir) June 7, 2016

Stock photography involves a photographer taking generic images of models and then tagging the images in order to sell them to advertising companies. Black people make up 13% of the US population and 3% of the British population. That means there are far more white people in each population, which means far more companies potentially looking to buy images of smiling white teens. The demographic breakdown of society isn’t, in itself, racist. However, the fact that companies don’t think white people would buy their products if they had black models advertising them seems like a reflection of society’s prejudices. For instance, when the US clothing brand Old Navy used an interracial family in its advertising, it was bombarded with racist tweets.

Whenever a news site publishes an article writers will describe the pictures in the caption and alt text, and these news pictures form the source of many of the “negative” images and mugshots that appear. So, if a story is about a white or black teenager committing a crime the image which accompanies it may well be associated with the phrase “black/white teenager”.

News organisations want page views, and sadly many see the promotion of fear as a great way to reach a big audience. In western countries one of the fears some seek to exploit is the perception of black men as “dangerous”. This perception is evident if you compare the media’s depiction of young black men Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin, who were 12 and 17 respectively when they were shot dead, and that of Brock Turner, 20, who has just been convicted of sexual assault. The two black teenagers were depicted as criminals and their deaths were blamed on themselves. This narrative was supported by images chosen to portray them with the “young black thug” stereotype. Turner has been depicted as the wholesome white swimming star with a bright future ahead of him – except for the moment he decided to try to rape an unconscious woman. The media portrayed him with a smiling college photo rather than his mugshot.

A study by the US campaign group Color of Change found that black people account for 51% of those arrested for violent crime in New York City. However, the arrests of black people receive 75% of the news coverage. Why? Because a calculation has been made – even if subconsciously or inadvertently – that these stories are of particular interest to a news audience.

So, is Google racist? No. But society is still racist. Not in the same way as the obvious and profound segregation seen in the US before the civil rights movement. But in more subtle, insidious ways, manifested through advertising, the media, film and policing.

We have to accept that computers and search engines do not think for themselves. They are a reflection of their creators, and in the case of search engines, a reflection of those who use them – us. Negative images of black teenagers aren’t at the top of the search results because Google is racist, but because society reflects our institutional and subconscious prejudices.

If people want to see positive images of black young people they are going to have to start writing, searching, reading and sharing them. This is the only way to change the negative perception of black teenagers, and black people.