Latest Target In War On Drugs: Google Autocomplete

google this by ciderbrew · 2013-06-20 04:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Attorneys are ... :)

Re:google this by LifesABeach · 2013-06-20 04:33 · Score: 0

I guess Attorneys have so much work that First Amendment Issues are a nuisance?

And while we're on the subject of Attorney's. Given; if client A is in conference with attorney B, and person C comes into the discussion to talk with client A about how to commit an act of fraud. Question; Does the conversation between client A and person C in front of attorney B fall under the "Attorney–client privilege?"
Re:google this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:48 · Score: 0

Not so. It's just that 96% give the other 4% a bad name.
Re:google this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 05:14 · Score: 0

See? There is a conspiracy. Obviously lawyers had those results toned down.
Re:google this by fonetik · 2013-06-20 05:18 · Score: 2

"Politicians are..." yields more accurate results.
Re:google this by jeffmeden · 2013-06-20 05:21 · Score: 2

I guess Attorneys have so much work that First Amendment Issues are a nuisance?
And while we're on the subject of Attorney's. Given; if client A is in conference with attorney B, and person C comes into the discussion to talk with client A about how to commit an act of fraud. Question; Does the conversation between client A and person C in front of attorney B fall under the "Attorney–client privilege?"
You forgot to add "asking for a friend" to your question...
Re:google this by HappyPsycho · 2013-06-20 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Theres my daily dose of laughter and loss of faith in humanity,
One of my suggestions was "attorneys are doctors"!
The funny one was "attorneys aren't us" (a play on alcho annonomous)
Re:google this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 05:39 · Score: 0

Does the conversation between client A and person C in front of attorney B fall under the "Attorney–client privilege?"
No.
Re:google this by icebike · 2013-06-20 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Attorneys are ... :)
Welcome to the world of crowd sourced search trends, and self fulfilling prophesies.
The truth is autocomplete isn't manipulated, its crowd sourced in real time. No conspiracy, no secret room full of minions trained to push an agenda. Just statistical weighting of what hundreds of thousands of people are searching for. If you don't like the results blame the users, because, in fact, that is exactly the source.
Why is this so hard for politicians (and anyone else with an ax to grind) to understand. You read about people suing google all over the world for the same thing, (and mostly losing except in France).
.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:google this by SJHiIlman · 2013-06-20 05:57 · Score: 1

Google tries to blacklist A, B, and C, so clearly they should have to do the same for D, E, F, G, and H! It makes perfect sense!
Re:google this by LifesABeach · 2013-06-20 06:03 · Score: 1

This Economic Hydra Effect is nasty. I'm just trying to figure out how Goldman-Sucks, et.al. got away with things like "robo signing," and "conflict of interest issues." I wonder, "how could a group of people do this, and get away with it?" A possible solution was, "put your attorney in the mix, and all communications are privileged."
Re:google this by jeffmeden · 2013-06-20 06:50 · Score: 3, Informative

In general the answer is no. Courtesy of a general counsel briefing on ACP:

Communications in the Presence of a Third Party
The privilege extends only to communications that the client intends to be confidential. Communications made in non-private settings, or in the presence of third persons unnecessary to accomplish the purpose for which the attorney was consulted, are not confidential and are not protected by the privilege.
Re:google this by PopeRatzo · 2013-06-20 08:46 · Score: 2

I'm just trying to figure out how Goldman-Sucks, et.al. got away with things like "robo signing," and "conflict of interest issues."

That's easy. The Justice Department is blind to crimes by the big Wall Street outfits.
And when they do get caught, they are fined a pittance compared to their windfall from the crime.
If you neglect to put a dollar in the parking meter, you will be fined more than FIFTY times the amount of your crime. If a bank steals $10billion, the fine is maybe 1/500th of that.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:google this by QRDeNameland · 2013-06-20 08:58 · Score: 2

The truth is autocomplete isn't manipulated, its crowd sourced in real time. No conspiracy, no secret room full of minions trained to push an agenda. Just statistical weighting of what hundreds of thousands of people are searching for. If you don't like the results blame the users, because, in fact, that is exactly the source.
I question that. For quite a while now, "Pirate Bay" will not autocomplete from either the Google main page or the Firefox search bar unless it is pulling it up from a previous search you did. It used to be the first result by "pir". Not sure how crowd sourcing would account for that.

--
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Re:google this by icebike · 2013-06-20 09:29 · Score: 3, Informative

I've never googled Pirate Bay on this account. Until now.
Yet as soon as I entered the word Pirate the second auto-complete was for thepiratebay.se (which led to a different site altogether).
Some things are forcibly excluded from search results by various laws in various places, so it might not work for me but would work for someone else.
Still, that is the "legally mandated exclusive case", but that wouldn't explain or refute the "crowd sourced inclusive case".

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:google this by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 09:32 · Score: 0

Heresy!
Re:google this by khallow · 2013-06-20 14:35 · Score: 1

Why is this so hard for politicians (and anyone else with an ax to grind) to understand.

I can't locate it now, but there is a saying about how incredibly difficult it is to enlighten people who make a career of being ignorant.
Re:google this by Urza9814 · 2013-06-20 14:40 · Score: 2

This Economic Hydra Effect is nasty. I'm just trying to figure out how Goldman-Sucks, et.al. got away with things like "robo signing," and "conflict of interest issues." I wonder, "how could a group of people do this, and get away with it?" A possible solution was, "put your attorney in the mix, and all communications are privileged."
The DoJ freely admits that they have plenty of evidence to prosecute them...they just don't want to.
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/too-big-to-jail-obama-justice_n_3322824.html:

DOJ officials have previously defended the lack of criminal charges against banks suspected of wrongdoing in large part by pointing to the so-called “collateral consequences” associated with filing a criminal indictment against a leading financial institution.

lol by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:18 · Score: 0

I would like to know what kind of drugs he was on when he tried searching for that.

Re:FUCK Your WAR. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:20 · Score: 5, Funny

...thus began this Anon's War on War

He's a moron by cellocgw · 2013-06-20 04:21 · Score: 5, Funny

And so is anyone who accepts the proffered autocomplete options without thinking about what he wants to search for.

On the other hand, here's an opportunity for GoogleClippy. "It looks like you're searching for illegal drugs online. How can I help you with that?"

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw

Re:He's a moron by interkin3tic · 2013-06-20 04:34 · Score: 4, Informative

At least it sounds like he's focusing on drug abuse that traditionally gets ignored.

"Pot and crack? Yes, lock all of them up, those criminal scum.

Oxycodone and hydrocodone? Hey man, sitting on your fat ass in a chair and blabbing about how liberals are destroying society all day is tough. Rush NEEDS those pain pills. That shouldn't be jail time!"
Re:He's a moron by ciantic · 2013-06-20 04:42 · Score: 1

I must be one of these morons. It often happens to me that Google Chrome address-bar (omnibar) throws in the auto-completion just when I'm about to press the enter. Then after looking at results for a while I find out the stuff I typed is appended with crap.
Now that I bothered to write about my stupidity, I'm considering turning the auto-completion off from address-bar.
Re:He's a moron by Hatta · 2013-06-20 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Prohibition is bad policy. There's no "at least he's" when he's implementing bad policy. The right thing to do is advocate against bad policy. If he can't do that as AG, then he should quit. Keeping his job and implementing bad policy should earn him nothing but contempt.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:He's a moron by cyberchondriac · 2013-06-20 04:53 · Score: 1

"Traditionally gets ignored", my butt. There's been a huge push to stop abuse of prescription narcotics, especially the oxy; that stuff is all over the street. It hasn't been the drug of choice for the upper crust for many, many years.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:He's a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 05:25 · Score: 0

And so is anyone who accepts the proffered autocomplete options without thinking about what he wants to search for.
You sure? I mean, clearly, google does its mind-reading correctly most of the time.
Re:He's a moron by jeffmeden · 2013-06-20 05:27 · Score: 2

I must be one of these morons. It often happens to me that Google Chrome address-bar (omnibar) throws in the auto-completion just when I'm about to press the enter. Then after looking at results for a while I find out the stuff I typed is appended with crap.
Now that I bothered to write about my stupidity, I'm considering turning the auto-completion off from address-bar.
The chrome address bar autocomplete only fills in more than you type in two cases; if you are typing part of a word that will get turned into a "We think you mean to search for X" anyway, or a search you have already executed that started with the same text. An off-the-cuff search won't use the live suggested search results to autocomplete your search.
Re:He's a moron by HappyPsycho · 2013-06-20 05:32 · Score: 1

I'm assuming you mean HAS been the drug of choice.
Re:He's a moron by operagost · 2013-06-20 05:40 · Score: 0

Thanks for trivializing a sensitive issue by making it hateful and partisan.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:He's a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 06:10 · Score: 0

"Traditionally gets ignored", my butt.
There are lots of things that I want to do to your butt.
Re: He's a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 06:14 · Score: 0

not really he is just going to make some of his friends rich.
one thing people forget about is in the state of Mississippi that the state can hire private lawyers to go after cases for the state.
so if he sues them, suddenly state tax dollars go into the pockets of his lawyer friends, that then do their best to get their hands into googles deeper pockets.
if they dont win hey it was only tax payer money.
Re:He's a moron by interkin3tic · 2013-06-20 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Decades of prohibition against relatively harmless drugs, and preferentially the ones that poor minorities use, but no, I'm the hateful one here for pointing it out...
Re:He's a moron by interkin3tic · 2013-06-20 06:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

Perhaps the best way to get society to demand the war on drugs end is to prosecute the middle and upper class like we do the lower class. Lock up people who abuse prescription drugs, and lawyers who do coke, and throw away the key. The public is slowly admitting that maybe pot isn't that bad, but they don't feel strongly enough about it because no one they know is fucked over for victimless crimes.
Re:He's a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 07:10 · Score: 1

Here's a small start. District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg drunk off her ass, rude as hell. She was tough on everyone who came before her with a DWI and still has her job. At least she got to see what it's like.
Re:He's a moron by Hatta · 2013-06-20 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Perhaps the best way to get society to demand the war on drugs end is to prosecute the middle and upper class like we do the lower class
If you could do that, it would solve most of our problems. The whole point of government is to protect the weak from the strong, but in practice it protects the strong from the weak.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:He's a moron by cyberchondriac · 2013-06-20 08:16 · Score: 1

Oops.. yes, sorry, brain/finger fart

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:He's a moron by cyberchondriac · 2013-06-20 08:17 · Score: 0

lol! it's user "ass__faggot" from memdroid! :D

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:He's a moron by russotto · 2013-06-20 13:36 · Score: 1

Decades of prohibition against relatively harmless drugs, and preferentially the ones that poor minorities use
Both powder cocaine (rich people) and crystal meth (poor white folk) are illegal too. So is ecstasy (rich trendy young people), and pot (EVERYBODY...well, every ethnicity and income group, anyway). The war on drugs may not be equal opportunity, but it does get in a plenty of licks against everyone.
Re:He's a moron by tragedy · 2013-06-23 10:35 · Score: 1

Both powder cocaine (rich people) and crystal meth (poor white folk) are illegal too.
Yes but, as has been pointed out many times, for some reason crack cocaine tends to draw much harsher punishments than powder cocaine. This is despite the fact that they are the same drug.

The new front... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny

The new front in the war on drugs: minor inconvenience. Take that, drugs!

Re:The new front... by fafalone · 2013-06-20 14:43 · Score: 1

New front? Where have you been? That's all the drug war is unless you or a loved one is actually the one arrested. If a dealer is busted, it's a minor inconvenience to find one of the 10 dealers who took his spot. If a trafficker loses a major shipment, it's a minor inconvenience since it's a cost of doing business. If a mule goes down, it's a minor inconvenience for everyone else. Hell, Mexico seized a lab with 15 tons of pure meth worth $4 BILLION dollars. That was a minor inconvenience- they didn't even bother to defend it, and there was virtually no impact on availability or prices.

And that's the totality of accomplishment for spending billions and billions every year for decades trying to stop it, while eviscerating the constitution and running a mass incarceration policy that sees higher per capita imprisonment than any nation on earth, so-called 'oppressive' countries included... not to mention all the collateral damage, like an epidemic of forcing people to live in pain, torturing them and being a drain on the economy; or the complete loss of trust in a now profoundly corrupt law enforcement sector which views citizens as an enemy.

Danger! by Sponge+Bath · 2013-06-20 04:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

A government official is looking for a moral crusade to fill his time and justify his paycheck. Mississippi Jim, on patrol!

Re:Danger! by Trepidity · 2013-06-20 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe he's angry about his own autocomplete results,

Why is Jim Hood...
Why is Jim Hood still in jail
Why is Jim Hood a democrat
Why is Jim Hood a republican

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Danger! by gl4ss · 2013-06-20 04:53 · Score: 1

that's actually funny.
murders convicted etc.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Danger! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 08:07 · Score: 1

Maybe we should get all of slashdot to google "Jim Hood sexual predator" that way when people start typing his name this will come up first? Is this the future google bomb?

wasteful by hurwak-feg · 2013-06-20 04:23 · Score: 2

Why try to stop people from searching for something they are searching for anyway? The algorithm probably just checks to see what common queries are completed using the text so far. How much time and money is going to be spent on something that isn't going to do anything but annoy Google users and developers? IANAL, but I thought ordering drugs online is legal in the US as long as it is not a controlled substance?

Re:wasteful by gstoddart · 2013-06-20 04:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why try to stop people from searching for something they are searching for anyway?
Because they believe that Google should be at the front line of essentially censoring the internet to only return things they feel are 'acceptable'.
The government can't censor you (yet), but if they can strong-arm a company into doing it for them, it must be OK, right?

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:wasteful by DragonWriter · 2013-06-20 04:30 · Score: 1

> Because they believe that Google should be at the front line of essentially censoring the internet to only return things they feel are 'acceptable'.
Which, given that Google has voluntarily taken on this general role, is simply a debate over what the standards for "acceptability" are.
Re:wasteful by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:52 · Score: 0

This is the USA you're talking about here. You can buy as many guns as you want, and enough ammo to start a small war, no problem; even the most limited regulation is verboten. Want to buy some medicine though, now we have to regulate that shit. Crazy place.
Re:wasteful by king+neckbeard · 2013-06-20 04:53 · Score: 2

The problem is that nobody understands what volunteer means. They chose to do some things without being forced to, so now assholes like Jim Hood think they should be forced to do even more. That's seven kinds of stupid.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:wasteful by cyberchondriac · 2013-06-20 04:55 · Score: 1

Well, that strong-arming thing usually goes both ways between corporations and the government.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:wasteful by NatasRevol · 2013-06-20 05:38 · Score: 2

Google does it for monetary reasons.
The government does it for control reasons.
That's not just a difference of the level of acceptability.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:wasteful by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 06:13 · Score: 0

This is the USA you're talking about here. You can buy as many guns as you want, and enough ammo to start a small war, no problem; even the most limited regulation is verboten. Want to buy some medicine though, now we have to regulate that shit. Crazy place.
I got carded for buying Nyquil last night at CVS. Apparently kids are now buying it in bulk to drink instead of alcohol. Also, not that I was buying more than the discount two-pack, she also said you were limited to two bottles a DAY. Not visit, freaking day. I get less of a hassle picking up my pain medication at the pharmacy.
Re:wasteful by chrismcb · 2013-06-20 10:56 · Score: 1

Yeah, I don't understand how this is going to prevent anything. Or do people ONLY accept autocomplete results? When 'prescription drugs online' doesn't give you the option you want, then keep typing 'without a prescription' then hit return. OBVIOUSLY enough people already did that for it to be a top autocomplete suggestion.

Strange, if you type in "Douchebags" . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-06-20 04:24 · Score: 5, Funny

. . . it auto-completes with "The National Association of Attorneys General" . . .

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:Strange, if you type in "Douchebags" . . . by dinfinity · 2013-06-20 09:46 · Score: 2

Slashdot/reddit/4chan could probably make that happen.
How many unique searches for something like 'Jim Hood is an idiot covered in hot grits' would it really take before that shows up in in the autocomplete?
Re:Strange, if you type in "Douchebags" . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 08:38 · Score: 0

i'm sure Google would only display current-searches that have actual page-ranked pages behind them

but...that's...not how it works... by dAzED1 · 2013-06-20 04:24 · Score: 4, Informative

If a lot of people that started a search with "prescription drugs online" were searching for "prescription drugs online unicorns riding gorillas wearing purple napkin trampoline" then that is what autocomplete would suggest. Bloody hell, it's not like someone at Google is manually creating "suggestions" for people...

Re:but...that's...not how it works... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:26 · Score: 1

http://socialtimes.com/google-april-fools-2011_b55088
Re:but...that's...not how it works... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:29 · Score: 0

This is just the thin end of the wedge, they are after the ability to fully control what people do and say on the internet, and they need to be able to be in charge of google et all to do that.
Re:but...that's...not how it works... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:35 · Score: 0

However, Google does *prevent* autocomplete from presenting suggestions if your search is leading towards a particular kind of content. Try attempting to search for an adult film actress and autocomplete shuts up fast. That's what is meant by "manipulating" the autocomplete feature. I am not sure technically what determinations Google's system uses to decide to stop showing you any suggestions at all, and considering the top suggestion for "nude" is "nude pumps," what suggestions are filtered out while still showing suggestions -- however, Google does manipulate their autocomplete feature.
Re:but...that's...not how it works... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:35 · Score: 0

Bloody hell, it's not like someone at Google is manually creating "suggestions" for people...
Of course it is. Don't you see? This is the MS AG's scheme to explain to his wife why on some computers Google autocompletes with illicit, fetishistic porn--Google is behind it all and it has nothing to do with user activity.
Disclaimer: Nothing above should be taken seriously, as a disparagement of the man's character, or construed to indicate any knowledge of the AG's web browsing activities. I'm not the NSA. This joke was merely an easy jab which would have been made about anyone, but is especially easy when the target seems to believe Google's algorithms are trying to shill for meds.
Re:but...that's...not how it works... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:44 · Score: 1

AGs: "Google, it's come to our attention that you must, in fact, be manipulating the autocomplete feature in your search results."
Google: *exasperated sigh* "Yes. We know. We know this because it's YOUR paranoid law enforcement and antiquated laws that FORCED us to do so! Of COURSE we have to do it! We had to write all this shit because you don't understand BitTorrent, we have to-"
AGs: "Yes, and we'd like you to do more of it. For the kids, you understand."
Google: "I WILL MURDER EACH OF YOU AND EVERY PERSON WHO VOTED FOR WHOEVER PUT YOU IN YOUR RESPECTIVE OFFICES."
Re:but...that's...not how it works... by dAzED1 · 2013-06-20 05:02 · Score: 1

manipulating based on particular names is one thing, but is the federal government going to be coming up with the list of phrases (versus names) for which we shouldn't be able to search? I'd love to see that list, and have a conversation with the author thereof about what they think censorship means...
Re:but...that's...not how it works... by lightknight · 2013-06-20 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

But "think of the children" ! Oh, and obviously anyone using a search query like that is probably up to no good (probably looking for illicit drugs)...maybe Google should start profiling the people who search with these kinds of queries, and tip off law enforcement, so we can have a safer society and stuff. You know, just send a copy of that person's search history for the last month and GPS location to a nearby police station, and the police will have a look around the premises for anything incriminating. To help bootstrap the process, right? Because that's the society we live...one that's constantly looking for someone to thump, by any means.
Oh, to live on a different plane of existence where stupidity like this does not exist.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:but...that's...not how it works... by jeffmeden · 2013-06-20 05:36 · Score: 1

If a lot of people that started a search with "prescription drugs online" were searching for "prescription drugs online unicorns riding gorillas wearing purple napkin trampoline" then that is what autocomplete would suggest. Bloody hell, it's not like someone at Google is manually creating "suggestions" for people...
Not to mention, there are two features offered by Google: autocomplete (changing the search you are typing without you taking any additional action) is totally different than live suggested search (a list of searches that start the same way that you must choose in order to execute). Autocomplete uses only past searches or dictionary information, not a magic cloud algorithm that can be bent to the will of our overlords.
This is NOT about autocomplete, as autocomplete will NOT change your search for "prescription drugs" to "prescription drugs for free from a crack dealer" plain and simple, unless you searched for that exact phrase in the past. This is about suggested search, which is just a collection of things other people have searched for. Hilariously, "prescription drugs online without prescription" is not there for most users, so did he search for that in the past and have google "remember" it for him?
Re:but...that's...not how it works... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 08:13 · Score: 0

It isn't just names that Google filters on, there are lots of phrases that don't show up under autocomplete and/or will prevent autocomplete from showing any results. The vast majority have to do with porn, but that's not the only discriminator used.
I don't *agree* with the federal government getting to decide what should and shouldn't show up on autocomplete (which is what this is about, prevent the results from autocomplete, not preventing the results from being searchable).
But the GGP made a factual claim that is wrong. Just because people search for a full phrase the most given a specific partial phrase does NOT mean that Google will show you that result under autocomplete -- because Google *already* filters autocomplete results.

Yeah, he's an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:25 · Score: 0

Perhaps 'prescription drugs online without a prescription' is a more common search query than 'prescription drugs online' ?

Also, somebody teach this idiot how incredibly difficult it is to adjust data retrieval algorithms is*, especially on Google's scale.

* = while maintaining acceptable performance across a massively distributed engine.

Re:Yeah, he's an idiot. by icebike · 2013-06-20 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Also, somebody teach this idiot how incredibly difficult it is to adjust data retrieval algorithms is*, especially on Google's scale.

Actually, the algorithms adjust themselves, in real time, all the time, based on trending searches.
That is why they are so successful. They are crowd sourced.
Everyone thinks they are so unique and individual and different from everybody else. They are totally shocked to find out they have exactly the same thought patterns as a large percentage of other people. I often see something on TV, reach for my tablet and google a couple words, only to have auto complete suggest almost exactly the next few words I was going to enter. 60 million other viewers saw the same thing, and decided to do the same search, and at least half are faster than I am. Its worked this way forever, and without it I'd still be clueless about who Amanda Witherspoon is.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Yeah, he's an idiot. by nabsltd · 2013-06-20 06:50 · Score: 2

Also, somebody teach this idiot how incredibly difficult it is to adjust data retrieval algorithms is*, especially on Google's scale.
Actually, the algorithms adjust themselves, in real time, all the time, based on trending searches.
In addition, the algorithm is personalized based on your previous searches (although you can turn this off).
So, an attorney general who accepted the auto-complete for "prescription drugs online without a prescription" would be more likely to see that as the first recommendation when subsequently typing "prescription drugs online" into the Google search box.
Re:Yeah, he's an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 07:43 · Score: 0

No, the algorithm neither 'adjusts itself', nor is 'personalized'.
What changes are the *results*, because the *data* plugged into the various variables in the algorithm changes.

I wonder which... by Andrio · 2013-06-20 04:26 · Score: 1

Will this Slashdot discussion focus on Google's responsibility for its autocomplete algorithm, or the ethics of buying drugs/medicine online and the questionable reasons some things require prescriptions at all (basic antibiotics, contact lenses, etc.)

Either way, I hope we see some good car analogies!

--
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.

Re:I wonder which... by gstoddart · 2013-06-20 04:33 · Score: 1

and the questionable reasons some things require prescriptions at all (basic antibiotics
Are you mad? We over use antibiotics now, and people don't always take the full dose, which just leads to more resistant strains.
If you could walk into a store and buy an antibiotic, the usefulness of them would probably be wiped out in a few years because people would use them wrong.
Thankfully, you need to be a doctor to write prescriptions for drugs. Though, I'm sure if big pharma had their way, 'consumers' would be free to buy any drug for any disease they think they have, then they could go straight to marketing it and not worrying about anything else (like making sure it's actually safe before releasing it).

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:I wonder which... by lightknight · 2013-06-20 05:06 · Score: 1

Oh God, the stupid burns!
The reason doctors prescribe antibiotics even if the person has a viral illness is because of secondary or opportunistic infections. You only have so many white blood cells at a given moment, and when they are diverted dealing with a viral invader, other, normally not problematic bacteria can advance causing damage.
Think of it being like oral thrush, and AIDS patients -> normally the stuff that causes thrush (a fungus) is held in check by your immune system...it's not a challenge, and your immune system swats it a hundred times a day. Your immune system becomes compromised through HIV, and suddenly thrush, a normally non-existent problem, is eating you from the inside out.
As for superbugs, etc. -> this has more to do with lack of cleanliness about hospitals, and less to do with antibiotics. Bacteria are exposed to ridiculously nasty antibiotics, of all shapes and forms, in their natural environment, all the time; pick up a soil sample, you'll find some superbugs in it that are resistant to every antibiotic we have in every hospital and lab on earth. What keeps them in check? Their own kind -> evolution isn't free. If the bacteria that is immune to every antibiotic in existence is armored like a tank, but has to invest 10 cycles of its metabolism creating that armor, compared to its neighbor which is armorless and invests no cycles, but just breeds...pretty soon there will be 10 armored bacteria and 30 trillion non-armored ones. The non-armored ones will probably be more mobile, and will be able to find food easier; the armored ones are only good in extreme settings...like next to the earth's vent...and definitely not inside a living host organism which has its own evolving defense system (!)...there are more stable places for a bacteria to be.
Hospitals, contrary to their images as clean places, are actually really, really dirty, and it takes a lot of medicine and technology to keep them clean. If it were possible, I'd install UV lamps through-out hospitals to zap any viruses or bacterial or fungal spores floating through the air...but that's an imperfect solution; those lamps can damage the retina, possibly the skin, and so on. But they do tend to destroy DNA pretty quickly.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:I wonder which... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 05:20 · Score: 0

Go back to medical school. You fail at basic pharmacology.
Unless you are immunocompromised, the chances of secondary infection from a bacteria are low. In the event it does happen, you can diagnose it. You don't need to treat viral infections with antibiotics to prevent secondary bacterial infections. In fact, we've shown rather convincingly that it doesn't work (overtreating middle ear infections does not decrease the risk of mastoiditis, a rare infection in the bones behind the ear.
The risk of 'superbugs' is much more complex that you present, but your little diatribe about how carrying antibiotic resistance genes confers a general negative selection on such bugs is wrong and about 15 years out of date. Look up 'cassettes' (not the 8 track type).
If your theory of Evil Hospitals was correct, then you would expect that people that work in them would be signficantly sicker than the rest of the population.
They aren't.
Keep trying.... This one's a miss. Three strikes.
Re:I wonder which... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 06:11 · Score: 0

Oh God, the stupid burns!
Then, really, stop being so fucking stupid.
Because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Using anti-biotics for the wrong reason, or not taking the full course, is absolutely a huge factor in developing resistant strains.
Re:I wonder which... by mypalmike · 2013-06-20 06:16 · Score: 1

There is growing evidence that the dogma of taking all your antibiotics is mistaken. Or at least oversimplified. The theory is essentially that antibiotics kill off healthy flora while leaving antibiotic-resistant microbes to thrive and conquer.
http://blogs.plos.org/publichealth/2012/11/29/are-we-causing-antibiotic-resistance-by-trying-to-prevent-it/

--
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Re:I wonder which... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 06:59 · Score: 0

There is growing evidence that the dogma of taking all your antibiotics is mistaken.
Or, alternatively, there's a growing dogma which asserts that.
Just because someone believes it, doesn't make it true -- and since I didn't go to med school, I will wait for the reputable/authoritative sources to agree with this.
The presence of an internet site which makes a claim is, fortunately, nowhere near what I'd call a level of proof.
Re:I wonder which... by Chirs · 2013-06-20 07:08 · Score: 2

he reason doctors prescribe antibiotics even if the person has a viral illness is because of secondary or opportunistic infections.

It's *also* because people want the doctor to do something to make them feel better. I've heard multiple doctors admit that they do stuff with no sound medical basis because it makes the patients feel like they're doing something useful.
Re:I wonder which... by Chuckstar · 2013-06-20 07:13 · Score: 1

LOL... the stupid is burning you because it's inside your head.
Doctors prescribe antibiotics for viral infections overwhelmingly because patients ask for it and it's easiest to just give people what they want. It's no secret among doctors and many will even admit it, as long as they aren't on the record.
Superbugs have nothing to do with cleanliness. You can certainly reduce their ability to spread by being more cleanly, but they evolved because of antibiotic use. You get right the reason that superbugs don't do well in the natural environment, so how come you don't understand that a hospital isn't a natural environment? In a hospital those non-armored organisms are now at a disadvantage, and the 30-ton tank has the advantage -- precisely because of antibiotic use, not because the hospital is dirty.
And hospitals are not at all dirty environments. They are very clean environments. They just happen to have a relatively high proportion of pathogens around, but that's because sick people tend to congregate there, not because they are dirty in-and-of themselves. High percentage of pathogens is not the same as dirty.

blame this guy by Valen1260 · 2013-06-20 04:27 · Score: 5, Funny

http://youtu.be/blB_X38YSxQ

Re:blame this guy by anagama · 2013-06-20 04:42 · Score: 1

Holy shit -- that's actually worth watching. Very clever, very amusing.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:blame this guy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 05:20 · Score: 0

Someone need to send this video to Mr Hood. He might believe it!

Re:FUCK Your WAR. by interkin3tic · 2013-06-20 04:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, I was going to invite you to my annual "worldwide slashdotter tug of war" competition, but now I'm not sure I'll even host it again this year.

Autocomplete "Jim Hood" by Spy+Handler · 2013-06-20 04:31 · Score: 2

type "Is Jim Hood" and the second autocomplete result is:

still in jail

coming soon: Pirate Pharmacist by denis-The-menace · 2013-06-20 04:31 · Score: 2

Pirate Pharmacist: Get all your illicit information on drugs that you could also get from a library or med school.

I'm sorry but your latest tactic is Blatant censorship

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration

Re:coming soon: Pirate Pharmacist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 09:18 · Score: 0

Get all your illicit information on drugs that you could also get from a library or med school.
For now. I have noticed that 'generic' public libraries are quietly pruning more subversive titles from their shelves. ( college libraries, not yet.. but i wouldn't be surprised if one day you had to scan your ID card to get ANY book, and what you requested goes into a database.. perhaps denial if you aren't in an 'approved class' )

Hands Off! by StoneyMahoney · 2013-06-20 04:35 · Score: 1

So the guy who hasn't got the faintest idea how autocompletions are generated is now the self-appointed policeman trying to save us all from it's evil clutches. The US legal system that allows prosecutors to decide you're guilty of something that's not even illegal and then side-step, tap-dance and threaten their convoluted way through the court system to make sure you get punished for it while leaving a trail of collateral damage longer and wider than Godzilla's last walk to the park to exercise his Labradoodle is about to be fired up for yet another nuclear strike against a nut that has the audacity not to leap out of it's shell upon psychic command. I do hope Google figure out how to limit the inevitable fall-out on a national level, I don't want 'Murica's laws imposed on my UK web habits.

end rambling rant

Oh, BTW, ability to manipulate != manually approving every combination

They should know by now by king+neckbeard · 2013-06-20 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

When you do something small and nice for a group of assholes, be it the government or the RIAA or whomever, then you set the expectation for that as the bare minimum across the board. There's no gratitude, they'll only say that you aren't doing enough. The second they started censoring autocomplete, it was an inevitability that crap like this would happen.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Re:They should know by now by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 05:15 · Score: 0

danegeld?
Re:They should know by now by canadiannomad · 2013-06-20 05:43 · Score: 1

It is just a game of inches...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz5H62O-72g

--
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Re:They should know by now by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 06:10 · Score: 0

It's like the old joke about the guy that offers a woman a million dollars to have sex with him. When she says yes, he tries to reduce the price. She asks him what kind of woman he thinks she is, and he responds that he already established that and is just negotiating the price.
"What kind of search engine do you think we are?" is going to get Google nowhere now that it's already been established. Now they're just negotiating the censored content.
This is the exact reason people talk about "the slippery slope" here on Slashdot.

Drugs will... by Darkness404 · 2013-06-20 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Drugs will fuck up your life kid, so if we ever catch you using, buying and selling them we'll kidnap you and throw you in a cage and fuck up you and your family's lives.

Typical politics.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.

Re:Drugs will... by LifesABeach · 2013-06-20 04:44 · Score: 2

Unless you operate a Compounding Pharmacy?
Re:Drugs will... by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-06-20 04:52 · Score: 1

Either Google Autocomplete or the War on Drugs has to go.
I don't see any Constitutional issue with or State referenda against Google Autocomplete.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Drugs will... by paiute · 2013-06-20 04:59 · Score: 1

Either Google Autocomplete or the War on Drugs has to go.
Only one company profits from the former, but numerous companies and politicians profit from the latter.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

why am i so terrified of by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:37 · Score: 0

chinese people

Re:why am i so terrified of by lgw · 2013-06-20 08:55 · Score: 2

Heh, that really is a Google auto-complete.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

The war on drugs is a waste of time and money. by intermodal · 2013-06-20 04:38 · Score: 2

Let's end it along with the prescription system. Much like prohibition, the war on drugs only empowers cartels and drug companies. Not that there's really a difference between the two groups.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Re:The war on drugs is a waste of time and money. by triffid_98 · 2013-06-20 04:57 · Score: 1

Doctor, my rheumatism has really been acting up lately. Can you prescribe me some crack cocaine for that?
Re:The war on drugs is a waste of time and money. by Overzeetop · 2013-06-20 06:47 · Score: 1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRm1yqSmsGY
You're welcome.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

The Gift of Pride by LifesABeach · 2013-06-20 04:38 · Score: 1

One would think that when discussing the acts of constitutional illegality, that the speakers would try to at least not grin when purgering themselves.

Re:The Gift of Pride by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 08:31 · Score: 0

One would think that when discussing perjury, one knows how to spell the big word he's trying to use.

Jim Hood is a stupid hick from a hick state. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:38 · Score: 0

Idiots like this make the world a less pleasant place to live.

Fortunately, Mississippi is a shithole that those who are
intelligent don't need to visit, so the influence of human waste
like Jim Hood won't reach very far.

down the rabbit hole we go by nimbius · 2013-06-20 04:38 · Score: 5, Funny

other nefarious and dastardly plots these brave attorneys have uncovered:
1. an image search for 'boobies' using google image search can and will display, actual breasts.
2. Google translate can and will translate nearly a dozen highly offensive english words into any of more than 20 different languages.
3. a youtube search for 'collateral murder' will produce a video of american soldiers murdering journalists in iraq.
4. Google searches for the phrases "edward snowden" or "Julian Assange" provides shockingly inappropriate, unbiased information pertaining to united states foreign and domestic policy.
5. despite dire and repeated warnings by their trustworthy IT staff, google will in fact let you google the word 'google' without any safeguard for the catastrophic consequences that ensue.
6. despite providing readily available search results for filthy pill junkies, google search raises the ire of attorneys around the globe as it fails to provide a reliable and affordable source of high quality pure columbian cocaine for todays savvy litigators and high powered firms.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

Re:down the rabbit hole we go by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 08:19 · Score: 1

> 5. despite dire and repeated warnings by their trustworthy IT staff, google will in fact let you google the word 'google' without any safeguard for the catastrophic consequences that ensue.
If you had googled recursion you would have understood this.
Re:down the rabbit hole we go by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 06:17 · Score: 0

That's a great video!

Re:FUCK Your WAR. by Sarten-X · 2013-06-20 04:48 · Score: 3, Funny

but now I'm not sure I'll even host it again this year.

After that guy showed up last year with his "tug-of-war robot overlord", there's really not much point to it. I mean, we could go for a bigger slab of concrete with a bigger nuclear-powered winch, but after a while it's just more work than fun.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.

Google's self censorship .. slippery slope? by jbohumil · 2013-06-20 04:50 · Score: 2

I was surprised. Yesterday I wanted to play John Lennon's song "Woman is the nigger of the world" for a friend who had never heard it. Google autocomplete shut off at the "n" and wouldn't show the song's title. Google has made their own bed here by manipulating their autocomplete for a variety of reasons already. They certainly can't complain that they can't do it, or that it is too hard. They are doing it, and for fairly trivial situations such as avoiding presenting a disturbing word to a search engine user. This opens up the door for all kinds of requests for censorship, whether the politically correct ones like preventing the dread "n word" from appearing without someone actually typing it, or this idea that people can be prevented from visiting questionably legal sites by manipulation of autocomplete.

As soon as they deciding to do all kinds of manipulation they left themselves open to this kind of thing, and it seems like they pretty much have to go along with it, don't they? I mean, do they really want to make the case that showing someone an offensive word is worse than letting people see dangerous and questionably legal activities?

How much protection do Google users need from the horrors of the raw unfiltered internet? Gradually this will reduce the effectiveness of their search engine.

Re:Google's self censorship .. slippery slope? by Zynder · 2013-06-20 17:20 · Score: 1

Your sentiment is spot on and I agree wholeheartedly. You got it backwards though. The user doesn't need protection from google, google needs protection from the user! If the n bomb popped up in a google search (as I am sure it used to) and some African-American helicopter momma saw that, you can bet that she'd get an attorney if she were overtly sensitive or someone who thought they just won the lottery. The very fact that they even started censoring stuff like that is probably because they DID get sued by some helicopter mommas. It's simple CYA which to not affect their bottom line, they had to institute. But then your point kicks in and now that they can, they kind of have to. In this case, you know what makes that slope so damned slippery? Money.

Yes! by PPH · 2013-06-20 04:52 · Score: 2

I have always suspected that Google autocomplete was on drugs.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Autocomplete this: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:54 · Score: 0

"why does my girlfriend smell" ....

Re:FUCK Your WAR. by Em+Adespoton · 2013-06-20 04:55 · Score: 1

but now I'm not sure I'll even host it again this year.

After that guy showed up last year with his "tug-of-war robot overlord", there's really not much point to it. I mean, we could go for a bigger slab of concrete with a bigger nuclear-powered winch, but after a while it's just more work than fun.

Just imagine a beowulf cluster of those.... You'd have to have some pretty hot grits to go up against that.

Strange, if you type in "I am"... by Iniamyen · 2013-06-20 04:55 · Score: 5, Funny

It auto-completes with "gullible"...

Re:Strange, if you type in "I am"... by dsvick · 2013-06-20 05:29 · Score: 1

Hey, no it doesn't. It says ...... oh, errr.... nevermind

Autostop reading by paiute · 2013-06-20 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

I got as far as "Mississippi Attorney General" and stopped reading, because I knew what followed would simultaneously knock points off my IQ and make me weep for the lost potential of a once-sentient species.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

Don't bang illiterates... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 04:56 · Score: 0

Lessons from Google Autocomplete:

Try "how do u"
Then try other variants like "how does someone", "how does an individual", "how do I".

Conclusion: It's mostly illiterate people who get venereal disease. Stay away from them.

Ah, Mississippi by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-06-20 05:08 · Score: 1

That shining beacon of Justice for All.

It works as designed, which is quite good. by astro · 2013-06-20 05:20 · Score: 1

As far as I understand it, query autocomplete is mostly, but not entirely, social in nature - which turns out to be a pretty good predictor. It is quite likely that I will be looking for the same thing as millions of other people. I think autocomplete is probably a combination of social and algorithmic, And for me, even for technical queries, it works so well that sometimes I am astounded - or disappointed that I was not the first to have a brilliant idea.

Re:It works as designed, which is quite good. by Entropius · 2013-06-20 05:59 · Score: 1

I dunno, often I type something like "26", and it autocompletes to "26 weeks pregnant" (basically, any small two-digit number autocompletes to "XX weeks preggers"), when all I really wanted to do was a little math in Google Calculator.

Mr. Reynholm? Is that you? by waspleg · 2013-06-20 05:26 · Score: 1

I didn't know there were Brits in Congress...

Re:Mr. Reynholm? Is that you? by waspleg · 2013-06-20 05:26 · Score: 1

Oh AG, not senator, my fault.

Re: FUCK Your WAR. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 05:29 · Score: 0

I think his comment was about the US warmongering government. Not the warmongering autocomplete or the warmongering Google. I hope you can appreciate the not so subtle difference of the actual meaning of his post.

Cool by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-06-20 05:31 · Score: 1

Other suggestions:

"how to reduce my carbon footprint" --- "and not seem smug and think I actually make a difference"
"why is the earth warming" --- "when the sun shines hotter and brighter"
"Apple is the greatest" --- "manipulator of marketing towards stupid people"
"when did the dinosaurs exist" --- "in the figment of a heathen's imagination"
"what is evolution" --- "but a plot to educate Christians"
"how to overthrow the US government" --- "and throw them a great party"

Also cool is the auto-complete will change based on whether you have a left wing or right wing (or right right wing) Congress.

"I am gay, where can I get married" --- "in a striking gorgeous taffeta suit" (Democrats)
"I am gay, where can I get married" --- "to a woman" (Republicans)
"I am gay, where can I get married" --- "and the authorities are already on their way to lock you freaks up, resistance is futile" (Tea Party)

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.

Re:Cool by operagost · 2013-06-20 05:48 · Score: 1

You have no idea what the Tea Party is.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Cool by Zynder · 2013-06-20 17:44 · Score: 1

You didn't help your cause not one bit. I thought I could show you an article about some TPer saying just that: arrest the gays. You won't like what came up.
Google exactly this: Tea Party arrest the gays
What you will find is a whole lot of TPers who have been arrested for all kinds of fucked up shit: rape, murder, masturbating in front of kids, sexual crimes of all sorts. All kinds of weird shit that yes, any sample of humanity will do regardless of party lines. In the context of cheerleading your team though, you might want to stop that. It makes you guys look like you are sexually repressed pedo's....but hey to your credit, I didn't see any of those sexual crimes perpetrated on gays so if you're gonna rape a kid, at least make sure it's of the opposing sex. What self restraint and commitment to convitions your party has. I am gonna have to make the claim that Mr. Skepticism up there does, indeed, know who they are.

Monkeys by subanark · 2013-06-20 05:39 · Score: 1

See no evil
Hear no evil
Speak no evil
Think no evil

These are what the 3 monkeys advice. There are only 3 monkeys.

Re: FUCK Your WAR. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 05:42 · Score: 0

So some one DOES get it.
Just figured was time to give up any hope of anyone having any idea of what our mentality has turned to.
Thank you.

Hey Jim- by Trailer+Trash · 2013-06-20 05:45 · Score: 1

Are you still supporting forensic fraudster Steven Hayne?

http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/12/mississipip-ag-jim-hood-still

--
Do you have ESP?

Re: FUCK Your WAR. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 05:51 · Score: 0

Yes, somebody gets it, but there are only three of us:(

Translation... by Lumpy · 2013-06-20 05:54 · Score: 1

The National Association of Attorneys General

In English this means "National Association for the removal and criminalization of the 1st amendment and other pesky rights"

These Men and Women are the single most evil people out there in the USA, They enjoy destroying people's lives to further their own careers.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

they're right by swschrad · 2013-06-20 06:02 · Score: 1

you search "politics" for instance and a million ads for antidepressants come up.

perfect matches.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

F-tard by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 06:08 · Score: 0

What a complete self righteous moron. Doesn't he take into a account that autocomplete could also be based on popular searchs. So if one searches for prescriptions drugs without a prescription doesn't that tell you there's a big demand for it. Now if google popped something up and said "Use Tor and Silk Road to get your stuff, online pharmicies are a scam. Please don't send money to anyone in Cammeroon thank you." then I'd think there would be a case.

'prescription drugs online without a prescription.'

Which means he's not one damned bit concerned with illicit drug usage in the normal, life-destroying sense.

No, here's yet another ass who wants to make sure Merck and friends can get away with exponential overcharging of US citizens vs. the rest of the world.

Remember, kids, R&D takes a ton of money, that's why we put all our capital into telling you to ask your Doctor about Bullshitadart every other goddamned TV commercial.

its based in-part on actual searches... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 07:05 · Score: 0

so if autocomplete suggests ".... without prescription" to finish "prescription drugs online" well then that's what people are searching for....

you wanna fix the problem, mr. government... then give the masses what they're actually looking for: cheaper prescription drugs

Autocomplete Smotocomplete... by bjwest · 2013-06-20 08:24 · Score: 2

You know what I do if what I'm searching for doesn't autopop up while I'm typing? I finish typing. I don't give up and say "fuck it, I guess what I want isn't out there" until I type it in and get no results.

I really hope the youth of today aren't so spoiled that they give up searching if what they're searching for isn't in the autocomplete buffer.

--

--- Keep the choice with the user..

Autocomplete is already manipulated ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 09:02 · Score: 0

Conservatives complain that Google employees have manipulated autocomplete to remove it for well known conservative commentators, when a few months before it was working. Examples include Pat Buchanon. It is a way to "non person" people that Google does not like.

That is acceptable behavior for a company with many, many alternatives, but given Google's dominance in search as a defacto monopoly, and holding all that data about people, conservatives are angry and offering solutions:

Regulate Google to insure no more non-personing of people Google does not like.

Break up Google into smaller, competing companies.

Make sure Google non-persons liberals and leftists -- aka turnabout is fair play. By forcing Google to do so or face fairly heavy taxation, fines for data privacy violation, etc. Google has played fast and loose with rules and laws for years, making them vulnerable to executive or Congressional action.

That last is probably the way things will go, and of course Liberals and Leftists face no turnabout/fair play retaliation as long as Republicans don't hold the Presidence or the House and Senate. Again, as long as Democrats hold the Presidency or the Senate.

I vote for less autocomplete... by fahrbot-bot · 2013-06-20 09:46 · Score: 1

Personally, I can't stand the Google auto-complete "feature" - and all the traffic (and, I'm sure Google tracking) it generates - and have it switched off. Furthermore, my local proxy/filter is configured to ensure it stays off. I don't enable Javascript on Google pages either. I'm not a Luddite, but just want a simple search page w/o crap, Javascript, animations, etc... I'm sure I'd have the same (or more) concerns/complaints about Bing, if I ever used it.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:I vote for less autocomplete... by fahrbot-bot · 2013-06-20 09:47 · Score: 1

Personally, I can't stand the Google auto-complete "feature" - and all the traffic (and, I'm sure Google tracking) it generates - and have it switched off. Furthermore, my local proxy/filter is configured to ensure it stays off. I don't enable Javascript on Google pages either. I'm not a Luddite, but just want a simple search page w/o crap, Javascript, animations, etc... I'm sure I'd have the same (or more) concerns/complaints about Bing, if I ever used it.
P.S. The same goes for Google "Instant" - sigh.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Has anyone considered? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 09:47 · Score: 0

Has anyone considered that, "a search on 'prescription drugs online' presents an autocomplete suggestion of 'prescription drugs online without a prescription.' is actually the Right of a Free People to search out sources for items they wish to purchase AND that the really has no business interfering with a Free Person freely entered into contract with another Free Person?

End the War on (all) Drugs.

Other than the Silk Road... by Endloser · 2013-06-20 10:26 · Score: 1

Where can you even find prescription drugs online without a prescription?
Sure there are a bunch of sites that claim they are legit.
But yeah, try spending some money with them.
What are you going to do when the package doesn't arrive? Call the cops?
And there are a few where you may get a delivery, but they are few and far between (very few if they still exist).
I think what works better in preventing people from buying prescription drugs online without a script is to let them spend some money.
When nothing comes in return they will see their neighborhood drug dealer (read: doctor) or another shady character that works on a corner.

Drugs are one of the most profitable industries in the world.
Neither the healthcare system nor crime orginizations would let a new economy take their share without blood.

Jim Hood Searching For Drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-20 10:36 · Score: 0

I wonder if Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood ever considered that his browser cookies are affecting the results and he needs to stop searching for ways to support his habit?

Self fulfilling by Zynder · 2013-06-20 16:43 · Score: 1

To clarify your self fulfilling prophecy statement to other readers, it's like your favorite porn site. Most all of them have a button at the top that will show you the Most Favs, or Highest Views, Most Popular, etc. Have you ever actually clicked on that list? It is almost always the same 30 movies you've already cranked one out to 15 times. Why? Because the counters count the clicks, the views, the likes, etc. So when you watch what everyone else did, you incremented the counter keeping it at the top. Ad Infinitum. I have tried on multiple occasions to rig the system and put something crazy on the favs list like midget clown porn (hilarious fyi!) but I, alone, can't generate enough clicks by myself to get it to the top. Also, my hand goes numb. Some people like to call that game "Stranger" but it feels dead to me and I am not into Zombies or Necro in general. YMMV.

Re:Self fulfilling by ciderbrew · 2013-06-20 21:06 · Score: 1

midget clown porn? I've been clicking that too ..........

WHOOSH! by Zynder · 2013-06-20 17:12 · Score: 1

WHOOSH! Is this a whoosh moment? This is my first whoosh. Did I do it right? Just in case: thatsthejoke.jpg

I C WUT U DID THAR by Zynder · 2013-06-20 17:29 · Score: 1

Wow a score 5 for a redneck joke. Let me +5 Informative you: I live in TN outside of a military base and people from up north and out west are just as racist as anyone else around here. IE, some are bad, hateful, useless sacks of meat and some are loving and accepting of other's differences. Some don't give 2 fucks. I know you think Miss has earned it's rep and in ways it has but your post was most definitely a TROLL and if you want to get into a link war on dumb shit found in MS, I can show you a link for damned near any other state. Who wants to go first?

Auto-complete by Stan92057 · 2013-06-21 03:13 · Score: 1

Auto-complete is the number 1 reason i quit using Google.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none

Free people should be free to purchase all drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-21 06:16 · Score: 0

The national anthem has shifted from, "Oh say can you see" into "I want to hold your hand".
If you don't trust the people, the people will not trust you.
People will realize the danger and adjust.

Re:FUCK Your WAR. by RockDoctor · 2013-06-21 22:35 · Score: 1

I mean, we could go for a bigger slab of concrete with a bigger nuclear-powered winch, but after a while it's just more work than fun.

Spoilsports! We'd got our new carbon-nanotube diamond double-helix anchoring ropes into production and now you pull out on us. Wimps!

Guess we'll just have to junk the cable now, unless these people wanting to build a space elevator are serious about wanting 30,000 km of the stuff.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

GvG by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-22 19:15 · Score: 0

Anyone up for a round of Google or Gavin?

Slashdot Mirror

Latest Target In War On Drugs: Google Autocomplete

154 comments