Google tweaks image search and SafeSearch to show less explicit content
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
Arguably, the default results are now more explicit, since you are allowed to stumble across porn if your query is suggestive enough. (After the warning you get the first time this occurs, that is.)
I remain a little concerned about whether Google will become more conservative in their results, now that they're forced to judge user intent by default. The filtering of (most of) the obvious single-word pornographic triggers is one example of how the lack of a explicit SafeSearch-Off mode changes the user experience.
The internet outcry so far focuses on how the results are less explicit, which to me is a good sign; I'll worry more if now or in the future mainstream channels start to highlight how you might theoretically stumble across porn by default now (after all, nobody reads popups, right?).
----
Across the handful of official Google representative responses that have emerged so far (mostly listed in the linked article's updates), there is every indication that these changes are behaving exactly as intended.
I find it hard to believe there won't be massive back-pedalling here, but far more intelligent, informed and long-sighted people than me must have done the calculations for this to have happened, which is very scary.
Absolutely, good point. I suppose why I'm so riled up about this is that I can't think of a single plausible development that could have as effectively induced opposition to these things as this... and the story doesn't seem to be catching. It had a chance, it was starting to gain momentum, but...
One of the largest organized places without this stigma, and one of the few places which wider opposition or outrage could have very quickly formed around; which all major news organizations regularly plumb for content, and which serves as one of the primary canonical barometers for (knee-jerk) public reaction to political technology issues -- Reddit -- has had its two largest initial threads on the subject removed from public visibility. Both of which were at the top of the default front page at the time of their removal, with 2200 comments between them.
I'm not sure of the actual mechanism for removing them from their previous places on their respective subreddits' and the collective front page. The threads still exist and are active, but are not readily discoverable. I'm successfully fighting the natural reaction attributing this to a malicious conspiracy: most likely, each was removed for breaking its respective subreddit's rules on editorialized headlines, self-posting, and subject matter -- r/wtf, the host for the larger of the two, explicitly forbids political content.
But, as of the posting of this comment, those two threads were the only place I've found on the internet where anywhere near as large a discussion as this warrants was happening (seriously, how is this very HN thread still so dead? 3 posts as of an hour+ on the front page). And no other discussion yet, even within Reddit, has taken their place. This is still very niche news, barely known even to communities whose bread-and-butter is outrage over far less extreme instances of creeping... however you want to characterize this.
Very unfortunate decision on the part of whichever moderators removed those threads. I hope this comment will be an embarrassing overreaction I'll wish desperately I could wipe from my HN history, but if nothing else picks up their momentum while this story is still fresh, that could be a decision that has subtle consequences on a historical scale.
At the very least, I've not seen, in any of the conversations I've read so far, a moderating voice of reason explain why this story isn't as big a deal as the common reaction to it, among people aware of it at all, seems to be (which is something that usually emerges from the froth). Can anyone help frame this as something less important than I seem to see it as?
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/14q6ir/censorship_as_of...
Still up and with about 1500 comments.
Some posters there suggest that more explicit search terms will still bring up explicit material. I'm at work so I'm not going to test that right now. I'll leave the final word to someone smarter than me but it appears this may be more of an attempt to prevent people from stumbling onto porn accidentally than outright censorship.
----
The canonical test terms seem to be "blowjob" and "anal sex", though it will be interesting to see what else emerges as effected.
After work, you can test for yourself [NSFW]:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=blowjob&tbm=isch
https://www.google.com/search?q=blowjob&tbm=isch
Make sure to turn "Safe Search: Off" for .ca -- you will notice there in no longer any such option for .com
So, you have the option, Google just doesn't care so much if you exercise it.
For example, say that I want to protect a junior school and I know that I want to block everything from pornhub. Google Images (and Video thumbnails) will not display the source of the images in the code. So must I therefore block all image search? And because image search is a URL off the main Google search (rather than images.google.tld), I need to block SSL access to Google search too?
It's great that Google is providing the option to allow people to control the content they get, but it still has a long way to go.
Blocking content is another exercise in trying to keep good people honest - it's pointless. If people want blocked content then they will have it, and those that don't want it will get hit by all the crap designed to get the "bad guys".
It's a classic case of adverse selection mixed with security theatre.
It's just like what happens with copyright piracy and DVDs. Any pirate can get the latest blockbuster in less than 10 minutes with no locks, restrictions, warnings or other bullshit.
But "woe is" the person who actually goes out and buys a DVD legitimately. By the time they get home, all they want to do is watch the damn movie and instead they are faced with:
> 10 different copyright warnings accusing them of being criminals for legitimately buying the DVD.
> Trailers and advertising they can't skip to get the movie they want
> A bunch of region restrictions.
> Other annoying crap.
And in the end, all of this is stopping them from enjoying the media they bloody well paid for in the first place!
Talk about stupid.
There is already curated sources (such a libraries and digital library catalogs) that should be the go to source for all research anyway, academic or otherwise. Blocking other content within a school network is a trivial whitelist process, if there is internet access at all. Cell phone policies are already in place at schools as well.
This may seem like a bit extremist position to take, especially considering all the good content that is out there, but when is a grade school student really going to have time to go internet surfing between normal school activities? Curated content sources such as professional encyclopedias, periodicals and text books offer more than enough content for children to sink their teeth into, no matter how ravenous their appetite is.
Nothing comes up in image search, at least (not with SafeSearch on, anyway) so their recent changes probably don't affect their regular web search.
Assuming Google is behaving as a rational business, discriminating against nudity means that Google thinks most users don't want nudity in their search results. This may or may not be an accurate assessment of user preferences, but the idea that Google should be "neutral" just doesn't make sense. Google will always promote some results above others, and it will always view some sites as irrelevant to the user's intent. It can't not do that. Discriminating against nudity is not inherently any more "false" than discriminating against Viagra spam.