Slashdot Mirror
Censorware Failure: Kiddle's "Child-Safe" Search Engine (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In a bid to protect young internet users from inappropriate content, a new visual search engine designed for children has launched this week. Kiddle.co filters its results so that only 'safe' sites are displayed and page descriptions are written in simple language. It also claims to get rid of indecent images and 'bad words.' However, tests have revealed that the odd risque image will still slip by into the listings. The words 'gay' and 'lesbian' have also controversially been removed from the 'child-friendly' platform. Other reports claimed that references to killing rabbits, naked images of Vanessa Hudgens and Khloe Kardashian's sex tape had initially slipped into the results. While Kiddle, based in the U.S. and the Netherlands, is a separate and unrelated venture to Google, the system uses the web giant's safe search mode in addition to its own team of human editors to pick out the unsuitable content.
'Kiddle' is waay too close to 'Diddle', which is what my Uncle used to call our secret happy fun play time.
heh. Captcha 'explore'
children in western countries are over protected and coddled, and as result, even as adults they have a warped sense of the world; they see moral landscape of the world simplistically, preach 'tolerance' of everything, but feel entitled to a lot, ignore the costs of that entitlement(be it blood or money), etc etc
when those who are paying the costs ( be it victims/instruments of their governments) refuse to pay(voting for 'outsiders' or perhaps resist violently or otherwise), they are branded racists, reactionaries, or terrorists,
of course in the long run those who pay will end up with the upper hand. its a ugly future for the coddled masses in west .
Not sure I'd want my kid using a 'visual search engine' that's a portmanteau of 'kid' and 'diddle'.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Internet censorship doesn't work?? Oh, come on! Next you'll be trying to tell us that Ebay is a bunch of crooks.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It also claims to get rid of indecent images and 'bad words.'
What does it replace "censorship" with?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
This is geared towards kids. Please tell me what neccesity is there for kids to be exposed to sexual preferences before they are even sexually aware?
Am I the only one who read the entire summary and thought the entire time that this was an extension for the Amazon Kindle, only to finally realize that I was reading the name wrong all along!?
It's not about sexual preference, it's about relationship preference. Very simple: some men grow up and end up marrying men, and some women grow up and marry other women. No one's asking they be taught about scissoring or anal.
It just says it's for "kids" with no definition about appropriate age ranges or its censorship standards that I could find. Depending on how you define "kids," some of them could easily be sexually aware. If they only intend it for use by the very young then removing all references to sexuality would seem uncontroversial but it would be better for Kiddle to give clearer guidelines about this.
That's just such a backwards way of thinking about things. They don't filter out the word mortgage just because kids aren't taking out mortgages and aren't really financially aware. It's especially odd since songs children typically know, like many christmas songs, include the word "gay" in its non-sexuality context, so you're way more likely to false positive on gay.
The onus is on the one doing the filtering to describe why their filter makes sense in achieving their goals. If they were generating a whitelist, then you could reasonably ask why they should put gay and lesbian on the allow-list, but this appears to be a blacklist approach, or at best a weighted approach with a large negative value on those words.
There are a couple obvious directions they can take:
1. We don't want to expose our children to the idea of same-sex attraction.
2. Lesbian and gay, as used in practice on the Internet, are strongly correlated with things they do think are child-inappropriate, like perhaps hostile trolling or actual pornography or what-have-you.
If you take the second route, then you have to describe why they think those things are child-inappropriate. Eventually you'll come down to a series of principles that you agree with or don't, in whole or in part.
Make another internet just for kids.
Really.
We already have mobile versions of websites. Why not kid versions? Little Billy can go to Samsung.kid and get treated the kid friendly page, instead of blah blah blah about investor relations and global operations etc. If Samsung doesn't want to put in a kid page with cartoons advertising their wares, they can just not have anything at all
Other educational sites can operate at whatever level of maturity the account holder can view.
Don't allow anonymous access. Have registration through the school system. Make it a crime to post content unsuitable for children on it.
I can see this not being ideal when you might start expecting a child to do research into subjects. 11? 12?
But younger than that, I can't see why children would need anything close to unfettered web access.
It still has the pitfalls of stolen identities/credentials being used to view or post inappropriate content.
And how do you handle children posting bad content? That I do not know.
There is zero evidence that an uncensored web causes any harm to children. This is witchcraft all over again.
death is a bad word, die is not. mass grave is not, 2 clicks later I am looking at something I don't want to look at. suicide is a bad word, but right to die is okay. Searching for gay or lesbian returns a special message "You have entered an LGBT related search query. Please realize that while Kiddle has nothing against the LGBT community, it's hard to guarantee the safety of all the search results for such queries. We recommend that you talk to your parent or guardian about such topics." searching for suicide or kill myself just returns the same bad word message. Gun is a bad word, rifle and pistol is not. deep throat is banned, throat deep is not.
Why did they choose a mad looking robot as the mascot?
Demand to censor all the religious texts. You know, the ones where they stone people to death, and where they nail the good guys to crosses. That's scary for kids! Scarring them for life! Get rid of that filth!
Then let the religious nuts and the SJWs duke it out. I bring the popcorn.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, it does explain it if you search for it:
"You have entered an LGBT related search query. Please realize that while Kiddle has nothing against the LGBT community, it's hard to guarantee the safety of all the search results for such queries. We recommend that you talk to your parent or guardian about such topics."
Ie, the search term leads to too much porn to be able to filter out.
I can't actually get it to work (other than complain about certain words, like lesbian).
Is it slashdotted?
As far as I'm concerned, once you're sexually aware, you're no longer a "kid".
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
Me deciding what not to read is not censorship, and the means by which I choose to not read it is not oppressing you. Me helping my children decide what not to read is not bad parenting and using this or any other means at our disposal to be selective about our choices is our business. Calling this censorship is as ludicrous as calling the nyt best sellers list censorship because it's a finite list of all possible books. Get over yourselves.
Tell it to the judge.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I thought it was Kim who made the sex tape, with Ray J?
"It's a good computer... for I to BM on!" - apologies to Triumph, the insult comic dog
Since when are sites that require "Adobe Flash" safe for kids when a child can be manipulated into turning on the camera and microphone in the flash settings?
I am so very certain that a five-year- old will be disturbed for life if he finds a Playboy magazine and sees nude girls. Oh! the horrors, the agony, the moral outrage, are just too wicked to bear. Really people, is it 1930 again?
Wouldn't it be more effective to educate children about the internet and how to surf it safely? This goes beyond protecting them from things that are considered "obscene" or "vulgar". I can only imagine the application for this search engine is children who are surfing unsupervised. Do you trust your child not to accidentally download malware? Do you trust them to recognize a phishing attempt? Are these guys at Kiddle (yeah it's a stupid name) actually able to filter all of these things out as well? At least that false sense of security will put your mind at ease while your kid is on Facebook being recruited by ISIS.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
So if innocently some men marry men an so on, why does it need to be labeled for children? It would seem to me that if it is natural, presenting it as natural instead of labeling it would be the proper form of presentation.
Well, "Gay" used to be a fairly common given name, it's still a fairly common family name, and if the kids are old enough to be looking at classic texts they'll still see it used a lot to mean "happy" (kids are unlikely to be searching texts old enough to encounter earlier meanings). So even if you want to shelter them from the real world, filtering "gay" gives far too many false positives. "Lesbian" is going to give fewer false positives, but it is the correct adjective to describe a native of the island of Lesbos.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I can agree with this, remove the label and have it divided into 'sexually explicit' and not and I have no issues with it, so long as that's the line.
Sadly, I suspect it's really an attempt to filter gay/lesbian relationships from reality, which I do have an issue with.
My kid is being taught in school at gr 2 that some families have 2 mommys and some have 2 daddys, and I have no problem with it. I wouldn't want her to use a search engine that was less open then her school.
Min
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
How do you explain it to your kids when they see two women kiss at a public restaurant.
I had to explain to my 6 year old niece why she only has one aunt because her other 3 uncles are not married yet(my self included) Just this past weekend.
My god daughter asked about men wearing skirts, and her mother said men don't wear skirts. Except a couple of months earlier they were at a Renaissance fair with men wearing kilts.
Children are 100 times more observant than adults. They notice a lot but it sometimes takes them a couple of months to ask the questions relating to that observation.
Lastly just because something is natural doesn't mean it doesn't have a label. after all do you label a man and woman getting together with the word marriage? yes yes you do.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Unfortunately that's the exact excuse often used to block the discussion of LGBT issue. The exact claim varies, sometimes it's "it will be too confusing for children" and sometimes it's "we can't separate out the sexual aspects", but it all basically boils down to claiming that because there is effort involved it must be censored. Straight relationships require no effort to describe because they are "normal".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Because they are exposed to sexual preferences every single day (their parents, family members, etc.), and that can lead a child to think that is the entirety of the spectrum of human sexual preferences. As it is, people can get screwed over by other people's perceptions of their sexuality, especially by those who are under the impression it is deviant or abnormal, which one would be more likely to be should they not be exposed to the big picture during their formative years.
Would you ask this question if they arbitrarily blocked pictures of people with blond hair, or would you see the nonsense then?
Would you ask this question if they arbitrarily blocked pictures of people with blond hair, or would you see the nonsense then?
False equivalence; blond-haired people aren't 3%-4% of the population. When something is a statistical outlier, then guess what - it *isn't* normal, it's an outlier, same as people with less than 70 IQ points, or more than 150 IQ points, or people in the 96th percentile for shoe-size, etc.
After all, we don't teach kids that sociopaths are normal, and *those* people are greater than 10% of the population. How about criminals? You want to propagate the idea that being a criminal is normal because they make up more than 20% of a population? Violent criminals are something like 12% of the population, you want to go around calling those people normal?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I entered an ambiguous search term: "cute chicks", figuring a child-friendly search engine would probably show me pics of fuzzy baby chickens:
- It's either broken or incredibly slow. I waited...and waited...and waited... What is it, do the editors manually answer every query?
- I went to KidzSearch, which is also powered by Google Safe Search, entered the same term, and there are simply zero results. Zero?
- Enter the same term in Google Safe Search, and the top five results are baby chickens. So the search term works.
Ok, so I was trying to trick them, so let's try something ordinary: "puppies". Still zero results, even though Google Safe Search has zillions. Same result, i.e., nothing happened. I guess it's kid-safe if you never return any results. Boring, but safe...
- - - - -
Update: I tried refreshing the page, with the search term "puppies". This time I got a clear message "looks like your query contained some bad words." Bad puppies, bad! Somebody whack this site with a rolled up newspaper.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Is it? What I'm asking is if it is natural then why does it need to be labeled a special kind of marriage.
You think kids aren't exposed to sexual preferences all the time?
"Oh, so cute - you're 3 years old and playing with Molly; is she your girlfriend?"
"Timmy only pulled your hair because he likes you! You're gonna marry him someday!"
Parents or partners kissing or showing physical affection in front of their kids. Literally everything in mainstream media. Kids are bombarded with this stuff from the get-go; it's only when it's not heteronormative that people seem to have a problem with it.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
No, those words are very explicitly about sexual preference. They are words about what a person prefers in the bedroom and are inherently sexual in nature.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
> How do you explain it to your kids when they see two women kiss at a public restaurant.
explain it to the kids? i run over and start stuffing dollar bills down their shirts
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
At some point, you just have to laugh at what we humans have become. We're a bunch of overly sensitive, protectionist, worrywarts. Kids aren't that fragile. My kids, as an indicator, grew up to be healthy and fairly normal. No, no I have no idea why - or how. But they're well-rounded, productive, and generally kind. If a kid sees or hears about BDSM, or homosexuality, they'll still make their own choices.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
How about just treating them like humans and skip the labels so eventually there is no more difference than us or your parents or your neighbors or whatever else is normal? Why do we have to label when it comes to children? I think that just teaches them something is different - not normal.
I am not sure but I think I understand their perspective. You said it right in your post - "normative." They probably want normal kids.
No, no I'm not trolling. I just suspect that's their view. It doesn't even need to be religion that prompts it, just stupidity.
Why stupidity? Well, you can't beat (or pray) the gay away. If they're gay then, well... There's fuck all you can do to stop it. Even if you kill 'em, you'll just have a dead and gay offspring. You might as well do the smart thing and accept it and love 'em for who they are.
And no... Nobody turns anyone gay. They might convince you to have sex with them but that doesn't mean they're gay.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
pervasive hetero-normative themes
Isn't hetero-normality pretty pervasive in itself? To be honest, Hollywood as a whole is overdoing it with the inclusiveness to the point that it subverts reality.
Because, as yet, nobody noted that 'heterosexuality' is also listed as a 'bad word'.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
Chaos theory. Have to be sure the female dinosaurs at the park don't get any egg-generating ideas on their own.
And found that : http://la.buvette.org/vrac/kid... but on the other side, http://wemakeporn.tetalab.org/ :)
On vendra Usenet quand on aura fini de le remplir
I hope for their sake they block results from Wikipedia, have you seen the sexual deprivation and, gasp, child pornography on that encyclopaedia of filth, won't somebody please think of the children!
"How do you explain it to your kids when they see two women kiss at a public restaurant."
How do you explain it when they see a man and woman kissing? Do it the same way, no need for a double standard.
"Lastly just because something is natural doesn't mean it doesn't have a label."
Way to deliberate misrepresent the issue. Of course things have names, it's not a question of having a word for something, it's a question of labeling it as unsuitable for children.
Kids get exposed to sexual preferences and behavior all the time and not only is it accepted, it is deliberate. It is only considered OK because it it conventional.
"...Kiddle.co filters its results so that only 'safe' sites are displayed..."
Every few years something like this comes along and it always ends up being an abject failure.
The fact is that effective censoring is difficult, especially when the subject matter is fluid and subjective.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I agree that this is probably their reasoning, and yes, it's extremely fucking stupid, with potentially tragic consequences. All too often people equate "typical" with "normal" and "normal" with "good" and it's pretty dumb.
Maybe I'm weird, but what I want is for my kids to be healthy, happy, kind and capable. Who they love, as long as it's consensual and doesn't interfere with their health, happiness, kindness and capabilities, is fine by me.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Because there exist a number of very vocal idiots who think their belief in contradictory morals dictated by invisible sky wizard gives them some kind of say in what consenting adults who are not them are allowed to do in private.
Said vocal idiots are really fucking bothered by the idea that other people who aren't like them might be considered equal in the eyes of the law, so they go out of their way to try and come up with special terms to describe the relationships that have not a single fucking thing to do with them. They really need to make sure that "people not like them" aren't allowed to be "married" because somehow that lessens the meaning of their "marriage" despite the fact that "people who are like them" often do a perfectly fine job of making a mockery of "marriage" just fine. Hence the "special label" you seem so puzzled by.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Why should the removal of words such as "Gay" and/or "Lesbian" be deemed 'controversial'??
Because it will end up blocking The Flintstones - one of the greatest cartoons ever - just because it uses the word 'gay' in the theme song.
This. We shield our kids from reality and protect them from anything that might be able to make them a better, more balanced, person, then we wonder why they grow up to be intolerant and completely lack and character or backbone.
In reality, by making sure nobody is ever "mean" to our kids, all we do is make them weak and unable to handle the real meanies out in the real world; and by hiding reality from our kids, all we do is force them to explore their urges (be they sexual, criminal, or theological in nature, for example) without guidance, often with dangerous consequences. As for the worry? Any parent who deprives their child of thick skin and a backbone should worry, the first time their kid encounters reality outside the parent's sphere of "safety" they're going to be completely lost.
Now, I'm not saying we should abuse kids (in any sense of the word), but they do need to be exposed to reality. Perhaps not the harsh realities of life, which they'll be better equipped to avoid on their own if exposed to a broader reality, but it isn't harmful to occasionally mess with their sense of reality (and let them work it out for themselves), take their toys from them to teach them why stealing is wrong (e.g. after they've taken something of yours), or even spank them (when the thing they're doing is likely to cause more harm than that if left unchecked). It's not harmful to let them know that they are not, by default, a special snowflake and teach them that becoming such a special snowflake, the kind of person society will remember forever and talk about in history books, takes drive, determination, lots and lots of effort, and a little bit of luck.
Meanwhile, there is clear harm in telling every kid that any effort at all, just simply participating, is worthy of praise and an award; this teaches entitlement, it teaches that you only have to show up and go through the motions to get the reward, you needn't actually do a better job than anyone else, because there are plenty of awards to go around. While that's a nice sentiment and I'm sure we all wish it were actually true, I dare any one of you to try it at work (at your own risk, of course) and let me know how it works out). There is clear harm in shielding kids from the pain of their mistakes, particularly when those mistakes carry considerable risk of inducing their own pain; for example, if your kid runs into traffic once and you tell them not to, they do it again and you tell them more sternly, they do it again and you yell at them, you're doing them a disservice if they don't get a spanking the next time they do it; this is something that can hurt or kill them, it should be a painful experience for them every time it happens, so the stop doing it before they really get hurt.
But no, no reality or behavioral learning for our little special snowflakes. It's like we don't want them to succeed in the world.
Will your kid hate you if you spank them? Yeah, for about 5 seconds. Sure, they won't be happy about it, but they'll get over it (quickly, at that) and, later in life, they'll realize why you did it and be thankful, assuming you reserve that severe of a punishment for instances where they're risking severe injury or death to themselves or others. Will they curse your name when you take their toys? Of course they will! But, again, they'll get over it quickly and, later in life, realize why and be thankful, again assuming you reserve that punishment for instances where they've caused (or very seriously caused risk of) loss or damage to someone else's property through their own knowing action (e.g. they stole or purposely broke something). Those are severe punishments, which should be reserved for severe behaviors; they should not be avoided altogether. We, as a species, learn best from pain and loss.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Will prevent everyone to spot a naked female nipple, but just do an image search for "beheadings", "execution" or "crucifiction" and you well get graphic pictures of extreme torture.
Yeah, the word "homosexual" is censored, but it is no problem to look at a picture showing Nazi soldiers executing people in a concentration camp.
This is obscene and disgusting, not nipples or "bad words", motherfuckers.
You don't type "straight" into google and find porn. You do find porn if you type "gay" or "lesbian"; it's not on the first page, but it's certainly there.
It's not about avoiding the topic because it takes effort to discuss, it's about avoiding the literally impossible task of removing all of the porn from the results.
Or are you saying we should allow porn on a child-friendly search engine?
Mind you, I think the entire premise of a child-friendly search engine is a bit off-putting to begin with; a child young enough to not have already had the "two mommies" and "two daddies" talk shouldn't be using the internet unsupervised in the first place.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
> ... I'm not saying we should abuse kids ...
I'm no expert but I do have two healthy and productive kids that are now adults. They're even mostly sane - though they share my sense of adventure and sense of humor. We've got a bit in common, actually.
But, I like to share this story and then I'll get to my point.
We moved to a new location and my daughter crawled up on the couch. She was just a little thing and not at all coordinated. She fell off the couch and everyone wanted to comfort her and run over and pick her up. I did not let them - I literally got in the way. We had family and friends there as we were just moving in - I got in their way.
She landed right on her head, too. Meh, it was a carpeted floor. She got up, cried a bit, and got back on the couch. To the best of my knowledge, she never fell off again.
My point? You don't have to be abusive and it shouldn't be considered abusive to get out of the way and let them learn on their own.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Sounds like you did the right thing. How much crap did you take for it?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So then blocking the terms is appropriate? I mean if they cannot use them, they cannot find the haters about it.
How much? More than was necessary but my point was proven successfully and with relative quickness so it subsided quickly. I did not, on the other hand, get an apology. I remember it quite well. You could say it was more enlightening than it seems or than it merits.
It should be noted that I later split up and divorced the mother of my kids. After a short while, they both opted to come live with me permanently. I'd like to lie and say it's because I'm such a great father but the truth is that I just had the better toys. They still spent plenty of time with their mother as I was often on the road but I was the primary care giver. The eldest was about 9 at the time and her brother trundled along behind her so we all lived together. That hampered my style but I have no regrets.
As a further point of interest, my daughter doesn't recollect the story but has heard it many times and comments on it fairly often. She claims that it was, even if she doesn't remember it, one of the more influential things in her life. I've since shared this "nugget of wisdom" (aka a Davidism) with her, "I've hit my thumb with a hammer many times but I have never done so on purpose." Between the two, I think I've managed to impart the necessary life-skills to enable her to be happy, healthy, and productive.
The boy-child... Well, he's a good kid. ;-) He's much the same though he's a bit more laid back and introspective. He's curious and a thinker but not overly cautious. They both have trusts but I did not enable them to be useless or unproductive. I sold and thought long and hard about it and they do have managed trusts but they also have control (if they want it) over those trusts. They can not live all that well on those trusts - but they won't starve on them either. I wanted them to be working, productive, and not spoiled. They were kind of old when I sold anyhow, so they weren't all that keen on being spoiled.
The daughter, she never touches her's and saves it up. The boy, well... He's smarter than we give him credit for. He's living like a king in Peru with a very sexy native. He's smart about it and will soon be the proud owner of a small bar/hotel. He's actually managing to save money because the cost of living is so low down there. He went there to collect samples of endangered plants and then have their genome sequenced. He found a lovely young native girl and is now living there and helping her and her mother out. I've only met the mother once, over a few day long visit down there, but I've met his girlfriend a couple of times now and they seem to be good people. So, he might not be as productive as he could be but he's not a leech and he's doing good things.
Which is to say, if you give them room to make errors then they'll learn from them and become better people. I could finance either and let them be entirely useless. I will not do so. I am not even leaving them a whole lot when I die. I don't want monsters for kids and that means that Ii let them experience life and not shelter them. Protect? Sure... However, the line between protecting and sheltering is not so very vague. It's pretty clear. Hell, I didn't even really protect them so much as to give them the tools to dust themselves off and fix things up for the next run.
They tell me I did a fine job. They're probably lying to make me happy but they don't come with man pages so I could only do what I felt was right at the time. They're happy, I'm happy, and that's the most important thing to me - even beyond health. It seems a lot of the lessons that I've learned center around the idea of getting out of the way and letting people make their own choices and then enabling them to reach their goals. In business and in family life, I think that method has served me well.
Ah well... Sorry for the novella but that doesn't easily fit on a bumper sticker nor in a tweet.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You do realize that the Matthew Shepard story is about a drug deal gone bad and not gay bashing like it was presented right?
This search engine blocks searches for things like Childline.
https://twitter.com/LaSouvarine/status/704651356351520768
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
So much of this wisdom is missing from modern bumper-corner helicopter parenting. Thank you for documenting it here.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
People have the right to speak, and other people have the right not to listen. If someone wants to browse a version of the internet where everything "inappropriate" has been removed, they have that right. This company is trying to provide that for them. When they block certain content, that isn't censorship. It's giving their customers what they want, and performing exactly the function those customers came to their site for in the first place.
You can argue this will never be very effective. Possibly that's true. You can disagree with their choices about what's inappropriate. Well, don't use their site if you don't like the policies they've chosen. If a lot of people feel the same way, they probably won't get much business. I sure wouldn't invest in this company. And you might feel parents shouldn't be so protective of their children, that it's important to be exposed to these things. Maybe or maybe not, but parents have the right to decide how they'll raise their children.
But the one thing this site absolutely is not doing is censoring the internet. They're not doing anything to block you from reaching content you want to get. Instead, they're providing a service to block content you want to have blocked. A service that you go to specifically because you don't want that content appearing on your computer. That's no more censorship than the spam filter on my email.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Why do people keep making the same mistakes over and over again, ad infinitum?
If you're so damned worried about what your kid might see on the Internet, then maybe, I dunno, you should supervise all their time using the Internet, instead of expecting some total strangers on some allegedly 'kid-safe' search site to do it for you?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Or have a very big bumper!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
They successfully built the ultimate filter: whatever words I type, it keeps telling me the query contains bad words.
"Atom", "China", "Kid", "Robot", "Obama", "School", "Neutral" are reported bad. Even "Mickey Mouse" is bad (well, I may agree...)
Probably the manpower needed to segregate the sites and the objections of the employees who would need to do it. I'm sure some is automated but I doubt the AI is capable of catching everything.
Perhaps limiting the search terms is a way to make it realistically possible to filter the porn.
What? Are you seriously upset because you are limited in pushing gay propaganda onto children with these restrictions?
Over 90% of the world is not gay. If you think the real world is hetero propaganda I think you might have issues that need professional help. How about we not label it at all and if either show up in search results we just call it normal family relationships?
BTW, most hetero family propaganda i can think of (movies about family and such ) tend to be dysfunctional. I'm not sure you have to fear that they will turn people not gay.