Everyone knows exactly why they don't make search recommendations, and is there really anything we can say about it that won't devolve into trolling, flaming, and deliberate misunderstanding?
Sure, but did you know that they were doing it at all? I didn't until today.
It seems to be driven by what people search for. First option under "dead b" is "dead baby jokes". Try "death and r" and "death and return of superman" is above "death and resurrection of jesus". And one of the options under "death squads" is "death squads health care" If people don't use "Islam is ..." all that often it's not going to be part of their suggestion tree.
PS: First option under "muslim is " is "muslim is wrong". Muslim is not actually a religion, but I think far more people in the US use it than islam.
Still, it's been pointed out that queries like "Muhammad is" still "work", which I think is evidence for your idea. :)
1) Autosuggestions are a sample of the most frequent phrases google users type in
2) This autosuggest list is analyzed statistically and a sentiment score established ranging from 0 (friendly) through 1 (hateful).
3) If the autosuggest list statistics reveal a certain characteristic (e.g. all hateful, or very controversial, etc.), then no suggestions get returned.
If I'm wrong that at least in principle this is an automatic, data-driven behavior, then I really feel sorry for the sod who is maintaining a list of what phrases aren't kosher.
Another argument is that typing in "Islam i[letter]" where [letter] is some common consonant usually returns suggestions.
For example, if you try with related phrases such as "Muslim is" it works. So my guess would be algorithm breakdown because of "is" repeat.
So my algorithm implosion theory is clearly wrong.
Weirder still is that "Muslim is $ADJECTIVE" is ungrammatical. Typing "Christian is" turns up some nonsensical results, not the same negative ones that "Muslim is" or "Christianity is" do.
a) By censoring some terms they open themselves up to more criticism, they can no longer point out that everything is done algorithmically; and
b) It's still possible to get offensive search suggestions out of Google, try typing 'Allah is'
NB. Interestingly, "christians are" and "atheists are" don't return any results either.
It turns out "(race or religion or nationality) are" is blocked for most races, religions, and nationalities.
Google is just being wise here. Why would they risk offending people who are already offended?
Not many would be offended when the completion suggests "niggers are.." - it is a thing of past; "jews are.." - they are sane and educated enough not to go batshit; "indians are.." - pretty well integrated with the western society. Muslims are neither that educated nor integrated well with the western world and we have a stinking situation in hand like occupied countries and a threat of having more occupied countries.
The minute after Google suggests completions about Islam there will be forward mails like "GOOGLE IS RUN BY JEWS AND THEY HUMILIATE US ALL!!!1". It is an effective bit of propoganda and there's a possibility of causing a loss of market share. And mind you this is the least of what could happen. So, again, why would they even risk it at all?
So, you're saying terrorism works. It's ok to offend groups who don't resort to terrorism to destroy freedom of speech.
That Google operates censorship in China and India is bad enough. Now you're saying the number 1 search engine in the west is right to censor.
Google has chosen to position itself as an ethical company. Google's motto is "do no evil". They want us to think they enshrine all that is good.
Discriminating in favour of irrational and violent religious fundamentalists is evil.
That is an interesting comment.
I dont think your right BTW (generally in your comment). I expect it is simply Google is avoiding any fall out. It's one of those current affairs terms that eventually somone would think to Google then write a blog post titled "look what Google suggests for islam is..."
Lose-lose all round. Best to go for the option the least amount of people would give a crap about.
EDIT: google doesnt offer suggestions for any of your other examples either btw.