Slashdot Mirror
Is Santorum's "Google Problem" a Google Problem?
theodp writes "Fortune contributor Dan Mitchell argues that GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum's 'Google problem' isn't Google's problem at all. 'The fact that searching for 'santorum' puts the profane, anti-Rick Santorum site SpreadingSantorum.com (NSFW) at the top of Google's search results,' insists Mitchell, 'is not an example of a "Google bomb," despite the widespread use of that term to describe the result.' In the same camp is Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan, who also says that Santorum has a search engine problem, not a Google problem. 'It's just that everyone fixates on Google,' Sullivan adds. Which is perhaps to be expected, since Google is the King of Search and also has ties to SpreadingSantorum creator Dan Savage, having featured the sex-advice columnist in Google's The-web-is-what-you-make-of-it Chrome ad campaign (for Savage's admirable It Gets Better Project, not SpreadingSantorum). So, considering Google's vaunted search quality guidelines, is some kind of change in order? Sullivan, while making it clear he opposes Santorum's views, nonetheless suggests Google is long overdue to implement a disclaimer for the 'Santorum' search results. 'They are going to confuse some people,' he explains, 'who will assume Google's trying to advance a political agenda with its search results.'"
As Dan Savage has repeatedly clarified on his blog, spreadingsantorum.com is NOT about Rick's opposition to gay marriage. It's about his being in favor of criminalization of consensual gay sex (as well as the 'wrong' kind of straight sex). Specifically, it's a reaction to Rick's AP interview in which he made an equivalence between gay sex and "man-on-dog."
Santorum wants Lawrence v. Texas overturned, and sodomy laws back on the books. He's also in favor of outlawing contraception.
In other words, he's a significant threat to the liberty of anyone, gay, straight, or otherwise, who has non-procreative sex.
Santorum believes that Lawerence v. Texas was wrongly decided, that is to say, Santorum believes gay people should be put in prison if they have sex.
Morover, Santorum is openly hostile to allowing gay adoption. Given that Dan Savage has an adopted son, that too is a direct threat to Savage's way of life.
Santorum's intollerant bullshit goes way beyond gay marriage. That's just the level of hate it is socially acceptable to express for the time being
The origin of the term 'Santorum'. From Dan Savage's "Savage Love" article May of 2003.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14422
I encourage /.ers to read this, and note that it was created almost *NINE YEARS AGO* before calling out Savage for bashing a presidential candidate or calling Savage the bully.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits