Slashdot Mirror


How Google Searches Are Promoting Genocide Denial

merbs writes: If you use Google Turkey to search for "Ermeni Krm", which means "Armenian genocide" in Turkish, the first thing you'll see is a sponsored link to a website whose purpose is to deny there was any genocide at all. If you Google "Armenia genocide" in the U.S., you'll see the same thing. FactCheckArmenia.com may reflect Turkey's longstanding position that the Ottoman Empire's systematic effort to "relocate" and exterminate its Armenian population does not qualify as a genocide, but it certainly does not reflect the facts. The sponsored link to a credible-looking website risks confusing searchers about the true nature of the event. Worse, it threatens to poison a nascent willingness among Turkish citizens to recognize and discuss the horrors of its past.

6 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The alternative is... What, exactly? by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ban people with an opposing point of view? Google deciding intentionally what's "true" and "not true"? Only people with approved viewpoints get a chance to place ideas out there?

    "I hate Jews" is a point of view. "There was no Holocaust" is a flat-out lie. You are entitled to your own opinions and interpretations, but not your own facts. The latter makes you wilfully insane.

    And frankly, Turkey is being a moron here. They could simply ignore all this, it happened 100 years ago after all. Or they could issue an official apology. They could even frame the Armenians as nasty people who had it coming, evil as such approach might be. But instead they pick the one strategy that has no chance of success whatsoever: pretending nothing ever happened. It's enough to make one question whether someone in Turkey wishes to ride a national persecution complex to power.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. Re:It is an ad. by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

    So Turkish nationalists are buying Google adwords. What's the problem with that? It's an exercise of free speech (for a position that I disagree with).

    I have Armenian (and Greek) friends, so I know the basics. Armenians tell me about losing grandparents, aunts and uncles in 1915. This is of course the 100th anniversary. The personal tragedies are overwhelming, and if that wasn't enough, there is the further tragedy of destroying the Armenian and Greek communities and culture in Turkey, and the end of Ottoman tolerance.

    I realize there's a debate over the word "genocide." The official Turkish position is, "Let the historians decide." I'm not sure what good that does them. The New York Times leans towards "genocide." http://www.nytimes.com/ref/tim... There is some symbolism here that I can't follow too well.

    There is also a small, slowly growing movement among Turks to acknowledge the Armenian position. I don't know how long it will take. I'm not as optimistic as I used to be about world peace and reconciliation.

    But Google isn't doing anything wrong.

  3. The problem is the ads don't show the sponsor by hhammermill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is not the ads themselves. Advertising is free speech. The problem is that the ads don't show the purchaser (the sponsor) so the reader has no context on potential bias.

    Basically Google is enabling astroturf campaigns.

    No matter how misleading a political ad is, there is always a "paid for by X" at the end of it. We should require the same of all advertising.

  4. Re:It is an ad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    the funny thing about all this is that the term "genocide" was coined precisely to describe what the ottomans did to the Armenians. no kidding, look it up. the author of the term is known.

  5. Re:It is an ad. by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Informative

    The official Turkish position is, "Let the historians decide." I'm not sure what good that does them.

    Is that a new position? Or does Turkey like the Armenians better than the Kurds somehow?

    When Noam Chomsky wrote about the treatment of Kurdish people in Turkey, the position of the Turkish government was to prosecute Noam Chomsky's Turkish publisher.

  6. Re:The alternative is... What, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some factual errors here.

    "Armenians as the name implies are Aramaic" (I've corrected your spelling too)

    Wrong. Armenia is the name used by non-Armenians to refer to the country. "Hayastan" as we call it, is named after Hayk, the patriarch of Armenians. Depending on your reference, you'll find that Armenia originates in reference to Hayk's descendent Aram (your mileage will vary).

    You might be confusing Armenians with the Arameans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arameans). Armenians predate (and coexisted with) the Arameans. Armenians aren't Arameans nor do they speak Aramaic. Armenian is an Indo-European language - it's predecessor is Proto-Indo-European.