Google Explanation Lacks Truth

Google has taken to explaining why racist and anti Semitic items come up when its search engine is used. Google explained that searches from the internet sometimes produce “disturbing content.” This is true and no one should blame Google because of the results. The company is in the business of producing a list of results that match criteria. It is not responsible for the content, just the ability to find it.

I can’t see why anyone would even blame the company. Google does not put the content on the web it just makes it easy to find content that is there. Google is not responsible for the image of Mrs. Obama that morphs into an ape. The person who put it up is responsible. I understand the whole ape picture racist issue and I know people got upset when Barry Obama was portrayed as Curious George (he does look like him) even though the picture was not meant to be racist. I can understand why people would be upset with a picture of Mrs. Obama turning into an ape though it baffles me.

Does not the left tell us we all evolved from non human primates? Well, that is an issue for another debate at another time.

Besides, Mrs. Obama is a Klingon.

Well Big Dog, why is Google untruthful?

It is because of this statement:

“Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it,” Google said. News 24

The problem is that this statement is untrue. Google owns Blogger, the free blogging platform that allows anyone to publish to the web at no cost. During the presidential campaign blogs, hosted on Blogger, that were critical of Obama in any way, shape, or form were deactivated.

Blogger uses a link that allows people to flag offensive content. Obamabots would visit sites that were critical of Obama and flag them. Google would deactivate the accounts and it took days to weeks before the owner could get the content back up. Many people went to hosted services because of this.

Google claims that it does not remove content because it is unpopular. Admittedly, they are talking about search results, but removing blogs because their content is unpopular is no different. And there have been accusations that Google has removed certain things from search results because of the content. I do not know about that but the company certainly deactivated Blogger accounts because of content.

The folks at Google are unabashed Obama supporters and that is perfectly fine. In America you can support who you want. Blogger belongs to them and if they want to block accounts critical of their messiah then they can do so but it is dishonest for them to claim they don’t block content.

Google allowed several Google Bombs that were disparaging to George Bush to remain up for a long time. When one was put up for Obama it came down pretty quickly. Once again, it is their business but they should not pretend they do not censor certain items or that they do not remove content. Google claims to have fixed the Bush Google Bomb two years ago but searches for miserable failure brought up his bio page (off and on) up to his last days in office. It was not until that search redirected to Barack Obama’s bio that Google fixed it. This article describes the issue in some detail. Suffice it to say that it was fixed after Obama started showing up in the miserable failure Google Bomb.

As for the racist or anti Semitic results, Google is not responsible for them. If you don’t like the content then navigate away from the page.

And Google, try to be more honest.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

11 Responses to “Google Explanation Lacks Truth”

  1. Adam says:

    I’m not really getting your point. Because Google allegedly disabled Blogger accounts they are lacking truth when they say “we do not remove a page from our search results“? You even admit they are talking about search engine content and not referring to every kind of content they deal with but yet you still say they are lacking truth because of Blogger? Am I missing something here?

    One thing to note about the Google bombs tinkering is the difference between changing how the search results appear and removing content altogether. This is a distinction you cleverly fail to note because that would make your conspiracy even more laughable.

    But no, you’re right, it’s one big conspiracy. Google never changes the way it’s search engine indexes and displays content except in order the further it’s own liberal political agenda…

    • Big Dog says:

      There is no allegedly about it. The statement while dealing with search results (which I pointed out by the way) is a confirmation that Google does not remove content because it is omportant to them and their integrity. I point out that they do remove content as with Blogger, as when they remove certain sites from search resuults and page rankings and as when they played with the Bombs. You claim the change was in the way displayed. Not so. For many years the Bush bomb remained. It was changed to display what a GB was in 2007 and used the Bush one as an example (also the WMD not found one and the Dumb Mother effer one) but then some folks changed the GB to Obama bam a few days after he took office and bam the algorithm was changed and the results were changed blah blah.

      They are in the tank for Obama and that is fine but they should just say it and move on.

    • Adam says:

      I’m still not getting your point. We’ve both said they were talking about search engines and not blogger so where do you get the lack of truth? On what do you base the idea that they changed the google bomb only because of Obama?

  2. victoria says:

    I believe Big Dog already answered your question in his article, however, you cannot accept the point. So could you please spare us the, “Am I missing something here?” It really does get tiresome.

    • Adam says:

      Feel free to ignore my comments. They aren’t directed at you anyway but rather the authors of this site. Since it’s getting tiresome it must be time for your nap.

  3. Big Dog says:

    The impression they give is that they do not remove something because it is unpopular. They do as evidenced by Blogger.

    They removed the Bomb for Barry very quickly.

    The point is that they have a history of removing search results and other items that are unpopular.

    They are not truthful.

    The idea that content is so important that they would not remove it is wrong. Search or otherwise.

  4. Adam says:

    They aren’t removing content from Blogger because of unpopularity either way. I can find one instance of a series of interrelated anti-Obama blogs being disabled because of spam triggers but restored later after a stink was raised.

    You cite sources yourself showing Google has been working on defeating Google bombs since 2007. You’re imaginary view of a Google corp that is in the tank for Obama and alters their search engine code to help him is kind of silly.

    They aren’t saying content is so important that they would not remove it. They were speaking specifically about search engine results and you have provide no evidence of them being untruthful in any other manor.

    • Big Dog says:

      Seems to me that Google would check it out first. I clicked the link on a number of pro Obama Blogger sites and they were not deactivated while being checked as Spam…

      Hmmm…

      Hmmm again…

      • Adam says:

        I’m not really getting the conspiracy aspect of this. There is no evidence that this was censorship or even intentional, just the anger and frustration of those with the blocked accounts, all of which were returned to service. Google has not lacked truth in any of the ways you’ve suggested.

        • Blake says:

          If Google says that they do NOT do something, but it can be proven that THEY TRULY DO THAT THING, then they have lied- How hard is that concept for you to grasp, Adam?
          And if they did this thing to get Barry elected, and other sites also did this, it is a true conspiracy.
          At the least they lied- even you should admit this, if you are honest.

        • Adam says:

          Well Blake, Google said “we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it” and Big Dog has not proven his exertion they do actually do it.

          So, that’s why I’m having a hard time understanding it. Are you following me? But maybe since you’ve got such a strong handle on the subject of search engine technology you’d like to clue me in.

          I’m glad though that you measure my level of honesty based on my ability to admit to something Big Dog has not proven. What we need is lot more political hacks in the world like you…