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.'"
...they should try winning over hearts and minds (and clicks) instead of censoring something they find politically inexpedient.
the Santorum is surging.
Tolerance of bigotry is counterproductive. Dan Savage has been remarkably restrained considering the very real threat that Santorum poses.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
He's a political figure with public presence, he has exposed and his being chastised and lampooned was really well-deserved, based on statements made in public meant for the public.
The website exposes neither his private life nor anything else that would make it bullying.
Simply put, poltiicans have to put up with criticism, and if they're total bastards, they will get really harsh criticism...
Or maybe it's just the google algorithm at work.
I find it interesting that a Christian-Taliban like Santorum would cry about cyberbullying when he thinks raped women should see a resulting pregnancy as a gift from god and that the Catholic Church paedophile priest is primarily a Homosexual problem rather than one of opportunity.
I see one bully here and the top google result is what I would term "blowback". If I felt sorry for anyone, it would be for his children and anyone else with that name who has nothing to do with it.
Calling out scumbags like Santorum who attack CIVIL RIGHTS is hardly "bullying".
Santorum is pure "Christian Taliban", that is all.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Rick Santorum has chosen, for whatever reason, to make gay marriage a centerpiece of his campaign. That's fine, and it certainly gets him a lot of mileage with the far right. But it also comes with a downside. When you chose to single out a particular group as your enemy, you're going to have to deal with them fighting back. And if humor is one of the few weapons they have, you can expect a lot of jokes. So man up and get over yourself. It's not like Dan Savage was the one who started this fight.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It is not a search engine's responsibility to police our neologisms. Santorum is a word now used by the common public, and it requires no editorializing by third parties. As the original article points out:
The news is better for searches for Rick Santorum's full name, rather than just the word "santorum." In that case, his official site ranks tops.
So in other words, if I'm looking for a person, I write the person's name in and find the person. If I'm looking for a thing, I type said thing in and find it.
For example, would anybody be annoyed if a google search of the word "houston" showed Houston, TX as the first hit, instead of Whitney Houston?
Now as to why Santorum and santorum came to be connected is another matter. But that's something for a different conversation, which the columnist fails to grasp.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
It's more an example of Internet Bullying.
A good case could be made that Santorum started it by preaching intolerance.
No, it isn't.
1. Rick Santorum is a public figure. A high school kid (which is usually what "cyberbullying" refers to) is generally not. If he wanted to avoid criticism, he could have simply retired quite comfortably to his home in Pennsylvania.
2. The website and Spreading Santorum campaign were created in response to things Rick Santorum has said in his official capacity as a United States Senator on the floor of the US Senate. If you're a public official, statements like that are clearly fair game for criticism and/or satire.
3. Bullying is typically done by somewhat powerful people to a powerless or marginalized person. Rick Santorum is neither powerless nor marginalized.
4. Rick Santorum's stated position regarding homosexuality is that he would use the power of the government to try to force homosexual people to either not be gay or not exist. That a prominant gay man responded by trying to prevent him from taking power seems like self-preservation as much as anything else.
Sorry, the claim along the lines of "poor widdle Ricky getting bullied by mean Dan Savage" is simply ludicrous.
I am officially gone from
Tolerance of bigotry is counterproductive.
I too believe in tolerance, except for tolerating things I disagree with.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I dunno, I think the problem is a Rick Santorum's Problem. It's because of Rick Santorum's obsession with gay people and banning gay sex. Maybe Rick Santorum should get off his soap box. And since Rick Santorum is against gay marriage obviously those people are going to be active against him along with others that fear is rise to power.
Mocking a politician is not the same as harassing vulnerable kids. The former is an important part of a functioning democracy, the later is just being a dick.
Why, are you a Nazi?
You see a malicious and hate filled public attack, I see a non-violent protest that, truth be told, I find rather clever and funny. Stop and think wether you would not also see it this way if it was about someone you oppose politically.
Jesus saves... the rest takes full damage.
"If he wanted to avoid criticism, he could have simply retired quite comfortably to his home in Pennsylvania."
Yep, that would be one way.
Another way would be to, you know, not be a monstrously bigoted asshole. But you know, people choose different ways to get through life.
Santorum is the bully.
He tried to use his political power to dehumanize gay people, and did things like comparing gay sex to having sex with dogs. Dan Savage's response, as a gay person, one of the people Santorum was bullying, was to fight back.
Santorum was never not one of the people with power. And God forbid if he were to become President, he would have more power than anyone. He is not a victim. He is a victimizer.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there. What Dan Savage is doing is explicitly in line with the definition of tolerance. Is Dan Savage trying to make Rick Santorum's speech a crime? Is Dan Savage trying to make sure that Rick Santorum does not have equal protection under the law? Is Dan Savage trying to deny Rick Santorum his civil rights?
No. Those things would be intolerant. Those are the things Rick Santorum is doing to Dan Savage.
Dan Savage, on the other hand, is behaving exactly in line with what tolerance means: he recognizes the opposition view, discusses it honestly, understands it, and uses speech only to properly characterize it as wrong. That is tolerance.
If Rick wants to show Dan tolerance, this is how he can do it: I, Rick Santorum, think that homosexual acts are morally wrong. However, I will not try to subjugate homosexuals, I will not deny them the right to marry or participate in society in any way. The only thing I will do is tell people that I really honestly do believe that people should not have sex with members of their gender. That is tolerance, and Rick would do well to follow Dan's lead on learning what the word means.
There's a profound difference between tolerating someone's personal beliefs and tolerating someone's trying to impose their personal beliefs on others.
But I guarantee you he didn't undergo anything as publicly humiliating as his own malicious and hate-filled public attack on Rick Santorum.
Really? You can guarantee that?
All those kids that kill themselves year after year over bullying and harassment must just be imagining their torments, I guess.
Santorum is a piece of shit that is reaping what he's sown. If his statements were about blacks, instead of homosexuals, there would be no one defending him, but because homophobia is the most acceptable form of bigotry in the far right, it's poor Santorum and the big bad Google. Dan Savage didn't attack Santorum because he's a Christian. Savage attacked Santorum because he's a bigot. There are plenty of Christians out there that are not bigots trying to shove religious considerations into secular laws.
I don't understand the problem. The status quo is maintained with the gay marriage too.
The same people that were allowed to marry before, still can marry. The benefits from marriage have not changed to them in any way. So for them, nothing changes. The status quo is upheld.
Why are they making a fuss about something what in no conceivable way has anything to do with them? They weren't interested in having a gay marriage before, they still don't want to be married to someone from the same sex, gay marriage does not affect them in any way. They are just trying to meddle in other peoples life with for no reason.
PS: I come from a country where a religious marriage ceremony is not recognized anyway. If you want your marriage to be recognized, you have to show a governmental certificate of marriage. Anything else is invalid. So any argument about how some religions define marriage is completely beside the point here.
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
I think you mean "vicious". Santorum shouldn't be viscous, and if it is you probably need to change your diet.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
That has always been the way with bullying. Everyone ignores it until the little guy successfully fights back. Then all of a sudden it is a problem that has to be dealt with.
1) express your love for another human
There is nothing preventing gay couples from expressing their love for one another. The government doesn't deal in "love".
1. Other than the whole "Lawrence v. Texas was wrong" plank Santorum stands on.
2) raise a family
There is nothing preventing gay couples from raising a family. Rosie O'Donnel is gay. She has adopted children. Many gay couples have had their own children through a surrogate mother or sperm donor.
2. Other than the fact that homosexuals are bared from adoption in many states (NY being one exception, along with 17 others. 6 make it explicitly illegal, the remainder have no clear law either way). Also, lack of marriage creates issues with custody and most aspects of family law.
3) share in the legal protections extended to straight couples/families
This is why many states have adopted the idea of "Civil Unions", which would give gay couples all the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage. The idea was turned down because it was not called "marriage", even though there is absolutely no law preventing gay couples from having a wedding ceremony or calling themselves married.
3. Barring a new supreme court ruling on the subject, civil unions are de jure unequal to marriage are they are not guaranteed to cross state lines. Marriage is one of the few cases where the full faith and credit clause works exactly as written. A legal marriage in any state is required to be recognized by any other state.
But if you really want to get literal, blacks have the same rights as everyone else. There is no law that states that blacks can't get married. The law only refers to which race they are allowed to marry.
Please explain how these are not equivalent and why anti-same-sex-marriage laws should not join anti-miscegenation laws on the scrap heap of history.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
You are exactly the type that promotes bullying. You ignore and endorse bullying over and over, and then when the little guy picks up a tool to fight back with, you declare foul. Santorum attacked Savage. He beat him down. He used his Senatorial position of power to call Savage a dog fucker. That's right. Santorum called Savage a dog fucker. You are all for letting that slide when the cool kid does it. As soon as the victim has enough and picks up a 2x4 to fight back with, suddenly name calling isn't fair anymore.
Your position is one of hypocrisy and is in direct support of bullying.
I don't want my 12-year-old daughter to see that definition
Please don't perpetuate your prudery into the next generation.
Please do not dictate how I should raise my children.
Here is what is wrong with the country: The world doesn't revolve around you. You expect the rest of the world to censor things that you don't like. I don't like Rick Santorum. He is a bigoted asshole who isn't fit to lead a Sunday school kindergarten, let alone the most powerful country in the free world.
But you know what? I put up with his stupid bullshit, because that is the agreement we have here in America. He is free to say whatever he wants to. And people are free to mock his hateful views. That is one of the things that makes America a worthwhile country. We have room for everyone and their views. And it seems that a sizable number of people seem to think that Rick Santorum needs to be mocked. Don't like the content? Don't use the Internet. Nobody is forcing you to.
Also, is it that horrible to learn what anal sex is? Some people like putting their penis in other people's anus, oh no! Get over it.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!