Googles Offensive Search Results

Status
Not open for further replies.


Not seeing anything obviously offensive, other than Google offering an explanation for the results shown for one word out of millions and including a link to a site with an obvious political agenda.

Them treating this as a special case is offensive in itself, but the ADL link undermines any reputation Google may have for impartiality in it's results.
 
I love "google explanations" it reminds me of the Bush google bomb a few years back.

It's a fascinating topic though. Jew is one of those words that you find yourself uncomfortable saying, and your not exactly sure why. If you're talking about someone's religion/culture and you say "he's a jew" it sounds like you are saying it in a derogatory since and not just stating a fact. I find myself saying instead "He is jewish" and for some reason I"m comfortable with that.

The sweaty spot that Google finds themselves in is a good conversational piece too. Should they alter the results? (as they eventually did in the Bush Google bomb) Doesn't that censor the free internet? But then again, doesn't allowing this to go on infact impede people's search for accurate information? Of course I"m not sure why anyone would be searching for "jew" as opposed to "jewish" unless it was somewhat derogatory which brings me back to my first paragraph...
 
LazyHippy said:
Not seeing anything obviously offensive, other than Google offering an explanation for the results shown for one word out of millions and including a link to a site with an obvious political agenda.

Them treating this as a special case is offensive in itself, but the ADL link undermines any reputation Google may have for impartiality in it's results.
Click to expand...

I was wondering that too, the only thing i saw that maybe offensive was about Ann Coulter, and she's always offensive ( I didn't click the link though).
 
One thing I did notice was only one other ad... a potentially profitable low-competition keyword? Or do they censor it on Adwords?
 
What's offensive is subjective, Google shouldn't be even adding comments to the search results let alone playing moral police by deciding what is or isn't offensive on our behalf.
 
Jewwatch.com was the offensive site...it is pretty anti-[SIZE=-1]Semitic in its content. They claim to be [/SIZE] "Keeping a close watch on Jewish communities, organizations, monopoly, banking, and media control worldwide"....its just rude and their site look terrible.
 
ChicaRica said:
Jewwatch.com was the offensive site...it is pretty anti-[SIZE=-1]Semitic in its content. They claim to be [/SIZE] "Keeping a close watch on Jewish communities, organizations, monopoly, banking, and media control worldwide"....its just rude and their site look terrible.
Click to expand...

Agreed, their site looks terrible. I do think those type of organisations need to be watched, but regardless of the ethnicity of the people running them. The historical stuff is interesting, although I wouldn't trust it to be unbiased as that site seems to be very prejudiced and discriminatory. (I won't use the term anti-semitic as it implies that discrimination against one group of people is somehow worse than against another.)

However, there are many much more offensive sites out there, targeting all sorts of groups of people. By publishing a statement regarding this, Google are re-enforcing the suggestion that site makes that Jewish groups do have a powerful influence, especially when they don't mention which sites they are referring to, yet link to other sites with a strong religious or political agenda.

"[SIZE=-1]The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results."

Well, that's crap - the links on that statement are influencing the search results, they haven't added the nofollow attribute or excluded that page from their index. The links Google are giving to those sites will also help many other sites down the line, likely to be associated with the same cause. The decision to link to those sites must have been made based on someone's beliefs or preferences.

Would it be the same situation if a site criticising Islam came up for a search on "Muslim"?
[/SIZE]
 
I checked out the site. I disagree with the majority of it, but I agree that we need to stop funding Israel's military.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back