Google Autocomplete Still Makes Vile Suggestions (wired.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: In December of 2016, Google announced it had fixed a troubling quirk of its autocomplete feature: When users typed in the phrase, "are jews," Google automatically suggested the question, "are jews evil?" Almost a year after removing the "are jews evil?" prompt, Google search still drags up a range of awful autocomplete suggestions for queries related to gender, race, religion, and Adolf Hitler. Google appears still unable to effectively police results that are offensive, and potentially dangerous -- especially on a platform that two billion people rely on for information. Like journalist Carol Cadwalladr, who broke the news about the "are jews evil" suggestion in 2016, I too felt a certain kind of queasiness experimenting with search terms like, "Islamists are," "blacks are," "Hitler is," and "feminists are." The results were even worse. For the term "Islamists are," Google suggested I might in fact want to search, "Islamists are not our friends," or "Islamists are evil." For the term, "blacks are," Google prompted me to search, "blacks are not oppressed." The term "Hitler is," autocompleted to, among other things, "Hitler is my hero."

Comments

What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is showing what others are searching for. What else would you expect from humanity?

Re:What did you expect?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

So, Google has no obligation to prevent its services from being leveraged by those who understand how it works from exploiting search suggestions as a means of disseminating their personal views. Is that what you're saying?

Re:What did you expect?

[religionofpeas]

They should prevent exploitation of their algorithms in general, not just when it suits some particular vocal group.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Google has no obligation to prevent its services from being leveraged by those who understand how it works from exploiting search suggestions as a means of disseminating their personal views. Is that what you're saying?

I know several consultants who call that SEO and charge a premium for it.

On the other hand, the world would be a better place with Google search. I hope Alphabet can put an end to it soon.

Re:What did you expect?

[Pinky's Brain]

That's one way to read what he said if you have a mindset which believes Russians cause everything on the Internet you don't agree with.

I assume he meant "humanity is awful and doing awful searches". No exploitation needed.

Re:What did you expect?

[jellomizer]

I see this as a reflection of human kind, not of Google.

As we get more polarized, it gets too easy to see the other group as bad or evil, we tend to forget that the other people have the same set of problems that we do. And are just trying to make it in the world the same as us.

Re:What did you expect?

[ezdiy]

So, Google has no obligation to prevent its services from being leveraged by those who understand how it works from exploiting

Google bombing is exception, not a rule. It simply doesn't happen on this scale.

There are no secret neonazi meetings for this.

The truth is that people simply do search for these things - "are jews nice?" and "are jews evil?", the latter ends up being more frequent as a result of people encountering nazi propaganda elsewhere and following it up by questioning it via google.

Interestingly, whenever a moral outrage happens over some tardy phrase like that (last time, it was "how to have sex with kids"), the media shitstorm actually amplifies the phrase, in ultra-refined Streissand fashion and only then we can talk about the phrases being artificially rated up.

Re:What did you expect?

[Sneftel]

Do you, personally, get your news and personal opinions from Google autocomplete? If so, please stop doing that. That's not what it is for.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Google has no obligation to prevent its services from being leveraged by those who understand how it works from exploiting search suggestions as a means of disseminating their personal views. Is that what you're saying?

Google, by tampering search suggestions, disseminate certain views and censor others. Google has the right since it is its service, but please don't use such rhetoric ("leveraged", "exploiting", etc) because it makes my Greek blood boiling. If you are honest rephrase it like "Google, understanding how its services work exploits search suggestions as a means of disseminating its views"...

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

You want google making choices about what is good and bad?

fuck off you moron.

Re:What did you expect?

[DaveV1.0]

No, they don't.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

This!

Using an autocomplete algorithm to base your opinion on what any one subject may or may not be is no way to come to a logical conclusion. Why do we still need to be pointing this out to people in 2018? This isn't some magic eight ball, it's a search engine. Stop treating it as a soothsayer or a modern day Oracle of Delphi.

Re:What did you expect?

[fustakrakich]

"Obligation"? No, its only "obligation" to me is to call up what I search for. It's up to me, the user, to refine the the query and filter results, not them. They should be a mere data dump over a dumb pipe.

Re:What did you expect?

[GuB-42]

I don't think anyone is gaming the system here. It is just that the way you start your query matters.
For example "Islamists" is rarely used positively, and the suggestion reflect that. People genuinely interested in Islam would probably use another term, like "Muslims". "Blacks" is probably more negative than "black people". "Jews", or even worse "jew", is used more negatively than "the Jewish".
As for "Hitler is", why would you type that unless you are expecting something unconventional? People more interested in history are more likely to type "Hitler was", because you know, he's dead.
Google is serving exactly what most people entering these queries want. And if they are disseminating their personal views, they only do it among themselves, not to those who use more "reasonable" search terms.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I did not expect is first poster to be:
    On subject
    Understanding how auto complete works
    Not Damning auto complete for being what it should be
    Not warping illogic to fit political correctness

Bravo!

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

whenever a moral outrage happens over some tardy phrase like that (last time, it was "how to have sex with kids"), the media shitstorm actually amplifies the phrase

As a parent, I read that search as being shorthand for "how to have sex with kids in the house"...

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Google has no obligation to prevent its services from being leveraged by those who understand how it works from exploiting search suggestions as a means of disseminating their personal views. Is that what you're saying?

Google is a search engine that indexes the human input of the internet. How the hell do you expect it to work?

For fucks sake this is like blaming the mirror for evil atrocities when Hitler stands in front of it.

Re:What did you expect?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

I never use autocomplete on anything, for multiple reasons. If you use autocomplete, please stop doing that. You're part of the problem. This is my opinion, and it represents what I believe. Deal with it.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jews are very nice to the Palestinians. Set a child on fire from the inside out with white phosphorus, you keep him warm for the rest of his life, after all.

Re:What did you expect?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

They should prevent exploitation of their algorithms in general, not just when it suits some particular vocal group.

I agree with this. It's interesting that my question was modded down. Who was afraid of my question? Anonymous cowards, I assume, who use their logged on sessions to mod things down they don't like to see, and their AC sessions to make actual comments when they are bok bok bok chicken.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

My news feed IS google autocomplete.

Re:What did you expect?

[farble1670]

The truth is that people simply do search for these things - "are jews nice?" and "are jews evil?"

While that's believable, with what are you backing up that assertion?

Re:What did you expect?

[GameboyRMH]

I think he's saying that Google shouldn't be surprised at vile things showing up in a box populated by unmoderated entries from Random Internet Fuckwads. I'm not. They should moderate the entries if they don't like it.

Re:What did you expect?

[farble1670]

For example "Islamists" is rarely used positively

Among who? The 1.6 billion muslims in the world? Are you sure about that?

Re:What did you expect?

[Lab Rat Jason]

I agree with what your saying here... but I just gotta point out that the world would be equally outraged if google was found guilty of putting a shine on the search results by hiding or depressing results for evil thoughts. I'm not saying there's a fix for this... and perhaps really what I'm saying is that THERE IS NO FIX for this, because humanity is messy, and like a flag in a stiff breeze - there is no equilibrium. We are instead doomed to vacillate back and forth furiously until we're frayed, ripped at the seams, and eventually destroyed.

Re:What did you expect?

[aicrules]

Yes, exactly that. Are jews being autocompleted to Are jews evil? isn't going to make me think "oh jews are evil". That's not how that sort of thing works.

Re:What did you expect?

[sexconker]

I do. Just yesterday I was using vinegar to clean some shit and someone remarked that vinegar is sour, and I said vinegar is bitter.
I went to ye ol' search engine and typed in "vinegar b" and got "vinegar bitter or sour" as a suggestion.

That suggestion told me that this was a thing. Clicking around a few links and reading a bit told me that while I may be outnumbered, I'm not wrong. Most people seem to categorize it as sour, but there are still plenty of us sane people who categorize it as bitter.

Re:What did you expect?

[sexconker]

please don't use such rhetoric ("leveraged", "exploiting", etc)

If you are honest rephrase it like "Google, understanding how its services work exploits search suggestions as a means of disseminating its views"...

?

Re:What did you expect?

[ShanghaiBill]

It's interesting that my question was modded down. Who was afraid of my question?

I am afraid. I don't think you should have been modded down since you raise an interesting point, but I fear that we sometimes go too far in censoring uncomfortable truths. In this case, maybe Google should take action. But we need to be careful. If they censor results for "Jews are ...", a precedent will be set, and they will soon come under pressure to also censor results for "Republicans are ...."

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a faggot Bill, you can suck Trump's dick but you can only do it in prison from now on.

Re:What did you expect?

[sheramil]

In this case, maybe Google should take action.

The vast bulk of humanity is, in the words of Citizen Ted, "a worthless morass of lying, defecating chimpanzees". What precisely should Google do about this? If they are developing AI that will replace us all, that's enough.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did too, the first time I was asked (by some article author) to be outraged about it, I just didn't see why, then I read it a few more times and realized why they felt I should be outraged.

Re:What did you expect?

[ezdiy]

Indeed, not an objectively verifiable truth, given that google doesn't share details of it's antispam measures.

Personally, I believe poisoning autocomplete is on par to poisoning the index itself in difficulty. A circumstancial evidence can be found by consulting blackhat seo forums - they mostly hire actual people to do the searches, it's really not something to be easily manipulated. Google antispam is thought to work by making a "bot or not" profile for each user profile it tracks.

As far I can tell, it's not possible to inject phrases at all via anonymous search.

Instances of google bombing work by simply crowdsourcing such credentials (think typical 4chan raids). The issue is that there is way too many of "outrageous" search phrases in the index, and only tiny fraction is traceable back to actual public troll operation.

Now, 'hillary...' phrases and such are entirely different story, and it's entirely plausible there was a secret campaign to poison the index. But for generally "outrageous" stuff, such an attractor is missing.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't usually refer to their "Islamist beliefs", they usually talk about Muslim beliefs, or their faith in Islam. While the definition of Islamist - the promotion of Islamic beliefs and culture - seems quite reasonable, the people who actually use the term, like Christopher Hitchens (who was an asshole) and Sam Harris (who is a fruitcake), have very negative views of the religion.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Nazis are smarter than you, is that what you're saying?

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1.6 billion Muslims in the world don't use the word "Islamist" for 2 reasons:

1) Its current popularity is only because of its power to inspire terror in the hearts of the elderly.

2) Most of those 1.6 billion Muslims speak Arabic, Indonesian, Urdu, Bengali, or a host of other languages that aren't English.

Re:What did you expect?

[ShanghaiBill]

The vast bulk of humanity is, in the words of Citizen Ted, "a worthless morass of lying, defecating chimpanzees".

My experience is that the vast bulk of humanity are decent people. We shouldn't let a the bottom 10% ruin everything just because they shout the loudest. Slashdot accomplishes that with the moderation system, which can be abused but mostly works well.

What precisely should Google do about this?

I think the best solution is to disable autocomplete for racial and religious terms. That is a neutral approach, and doesn't need constant monitoring.

If they are developing AI that will replace us all, that's enough.

That is a good long term solution. But until Humanity 2.0 is out of beta, we still need to deal with the world as it is.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I try and enter google.com as a web address, the autcompleter sends me to Disneyland via go.com

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think i undestand your question. As a Greek, when i use the term "rhetoric" and give certain words of it -rhetoric- as an example, i point to a negative form that has a dishonest character - and by rephrasing it in the way i did, i make my points (plural): about the dishonesty of the original commenter and the dishonesty of Google's actions. In other words, it is not about the words but about the way they are used...

Re:What did you expect?

[AmiMoJo]

Google has been "censoring" suggestions for terms and names related to things like porn and adult services for many years already.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

This article reads like a tumberina wrote it.

"Google autocomplete still makes VILE suggestions. I had a little cry about it before I summoned the courage to write this."

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google is showing what others are searching for. What else would you expect from humanity?"

Trump's Nazis are not humanity.

Re:What did you expect?

[AmiMoJo]

Google wants to make search like the Star Trek computer that can answer natural language questions. But this is kind of like you starting to say "Jews are..." and the computer finishing your sentence with "evil?"

That's how people see it. It's call a "suggestion", not a list of most frequent search terms.

More interesting (to me at least) is the argument that Google search should have some moral responsibility to give certain answers. For example, is someone asks "do vaccines cause autism?" then it's it okay for Google to give them a load of crank sites claiming it does as the top results? Some people argue it's the marketplace of ideas (where bargain basement bullshit seems to be the most popular item) and some argue that there is a public health and child protection issue (even though medical science is wrong sometimes.)

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't call themselves Islamists you tool, almost no-one not attacking Muslims (see the word) uses it.

Re:What did you expect?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

I'm in favor of eliminating all auto-complete. I believe that in all cases, the implementers of auto-complete gain information manipulation powers that are not perceived clearly by the users of auto-complete. Does that make me pro-censorship? Does it make me anti-user? Does it make sense to view this as a left or right wing American politics issue? Why am I seeing Cowards posting from those two sides, calling me names, as if I asked something dangerous?

Re:What did you expect?

[Ionized]

'hey stupid people - stop being stupid!'

that's you. that's what you are doing. good luck!

Re:What did you expect?

[gmack]

My experience is that the vast bulk of humanity are decent people. We shouldn't let a the bottom 10% ruin everything just because they shout the loudest. Slashdot accomplishes that with the moderation system, which can be abused but mostly works well.

It really doesn't. Posts where the author sounds sure of themselves often get modded up even if they are completely wrong. We also have a problem of posts being modded up because the posts agree with the moderators political biases (inplausable conspiracy theories, insults). And then there is the laziness problem where just the other week, a link to goat.cx link got modded to +5 because not a single moderator checked the link or read through the replies to see the warning not to click the link.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

"On the other hand, the world would be a better place with Google search. I hope Alphabet can put an end to it soon."

I'm confused. Did you mean to write "WITHOUT Google Search"?

Re:What did you expect?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Well, I guess we can expect this not to get modded up, even though it's absolutely true. Good observation. Moderation is clearly broken when I'm modded down as a flamebait troll because I asked what is essentially the framing question of this branch of the discussion, with the result that anyone viewing the forum with a filter at higher than -1 sees a series of disconnected comments and not the question I asked.

Re:What did you expect?

[novakyu]

There are no secret neonazi meetings for this.

And you know that ... because you were the minute keeper for the last national secret neonazi meeting and you didn't hear it come up?

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Islamist is a Muslim, but not every Muslim is an Islamist.
While it's likely that the term is inappropriately applied to all Muslims, in itself - Islamist - is usually reserved for those who promote an Islamic theocracy - that their divine-laws are above any human made laws, and that almost any means to achieve this are justified.

Re:What did you expect?

[IcyWolfy]

I went to ye ol' search engine and type in "earth fl" and got "earth flat or round" as a suggestion.

That suggestion told me that this was a thing.
Clicking around a few links and reading a bit told me that while I may be outnumbered, I'm not wrong.
Most people seem to categorize the earth as round, but there are still plenty of us sane people who categorize it as flat.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast bulk of humanity is, in the words of Citizen Ted, "a worthless morass of lying, defecating chimpanzees".

That's racist.

Re:What did you expect?

[Hognoxious]

O'Rly?

Re:What did you expect?

[Hognoxious]

They want money.
They get money from eyeballs.
They get eyeballs by showing people what people want to see.
They determine what people want to see based on what people enter in the search box.

If you want to find out if Jews are petunias, nothing stops you entering that.

So, the assertion is backed up with common fucking sense.

Re:What did you expect?

[tsqr]

So, Google has no obligation to prevent its services from being leveraged by those who understand how it works from exploiting search suggestions as a means of disseminating their personal views. Is that what you're saying?

I didn't notice that the AC said anything at all regarding Google's obligations. Help me out here. Is there some force at work that I'm not aware of, that compels people to accept Google's search suggestions?

Personally, when I search for something on Google, I type what I'm searching for into the box, take a quick look to make sure the box contains what I think I typed, and hit the Enter key. What other people have searched for isn't of interest.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no such peopke or nation as Palestinians. Check your antisemitic facts.

Re:What did you expect?

[Hognoxious]

Among everyone with a dictionary.

Re:What did you expect?

[sheramil]

What precisely should Google do about this?

I think the best solution is to disable autocomplete for racial and religious terms. That is a neutral approach, and doesn't need constant monitoring.

Google is a search engine and an advertising platform. They aren't a church - yet - and it's not their place to try to change human nature, or even to represent it in an unrealistically favourable light. If people absolutely can not deal with this, there should be an option they can activate to hide it from them.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, what do you expect from an algorithm? It's just doftware. As an added bonus, why do you have to be such a snowflake about it? Believe it or not, words on a screen can't hurt you, you are free to ignore them. All this tells me at root is that Google searches continue to decline in usefulness (the fallacy of big data and the concept of 'trending' - what is searched for the most is not necessarily what is the most useful). It spooks me that anyone would rely on Google voice or Alexa for answers when this is the quality of the pool they are drawing from. Bottom line: no, technology cannot replace your own brain, nor can it run (or live!) your life for you. Sorry, snowflakes.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vinegar is acidic. Acids are sour. Bases are bitter.

Did you take highschool chemistry "sane" person?

Re:What did you expect?

[BKX]

No, actually you are wrong. Absolutely wrong. Sour is the taste of acid in your mouth. Bitter is the taste of alkaline (although alkaloids are far more bitter than actual bases, one should note that alkaloid literally means alkaline-like, so color me surprised). Note that those things are completely opposite. While it is possible to taste both sour and bitter at the same time through the use of alkaloids mixed with acid, using ordinary basic substances, it is not. Acids and alkalines react together to make salts, which is something altogether different tasting. The thing is that ordinary vinegar doesn't contain any alkaloids and is acidic, therefore, it tastes sour. It's the definition of sour. Strong vinegar is as sour as sour gets.

Some of the darker vinegars may have some small amounts of bitter substances in them, but acid will be the overriding taste. You'd need to make up some coffee vinegar or some shit to have a "bitter" vinegar. But even if you did, the acid is going to be the thing you taste most. Vinegar is like 5% acetic acid, so you're definitely going to taste it. And, even if your crappy coffee vinegar was bitter, it'd still be sour, because, you know, 5% acetic acid is pretty damn sour. So, yes, you are wrong. A minority of people agree with you. That's makes them wrong too. Just like the flat-earth retards. As far as bitter vinegar and flat earth being things goes, you're all fucking retards.

(Don't take my rant too seriously, I'm just in a bad mood. I feel much better now that I've gotten that out of my system. LOL, I was going to delete the text and not post it, since it's so vitriolic, but fuck it, I'll post it anyway, If I have to be angry, so do you.)

Re:What did you expect?

[sexconker]

Except when I typed "earth fl" I got "earth fleas", "earth flag", "earth flow", etc.
Flat Earth Society turned up somewhere in there too, but any clicking around would tell you that you're wrong to think Earth is flat.

Further, the Flat Earth Society is a joke. I love that you used it as your example because it shows how dumb you are. No one seriously believes in a flat Earth. It's clear and obvious satire, with some amusing exercises thrown in (trying to explain various phenomena starting with the assumption that Earth is flat). The fact that people like you point to it as some sort of example of ignorance is hilarious, because you're the ones who don't get it. It's a troll.

Re:What did you expect?

[farble1670]

So, the assertion is backed up with common fucking sense.

SEO. Google it.

Re:What did you expect?

[Hognoxious]

We're talking about the search box not the results. Stupid fat retarded cunt who doesn't know what "Islamist' means, google that.

Re:What did you expect?

[Hognoxious]

It's insulting, but chimpanzees are a species.

Re: What did you expect?

[yndrd1984]

There are no such peopke or nation as Palestinians.

Calling them something else doesn't make them less dead.

Re:What did you expect?

[allo]

And now you need to tell us how to identify these terms. Is the cult of scientology a church? What about the flying spaghetti monster? Once you start you need to censor everything or there will be always a perceived minority feeling abused.

Re:What did you expect?

[Megol]

Trolling?

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a single straight white man who according to tumblr is a creepy rapist, I read that and said "Obviously they want to know how to continue their sex life when you have kids", and the trick to that is vaseline.

Smear it on the knob and they can't open the door.

Re:What did you expect?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

I find your perception of what autocomplete does as an overall system to be lacking.

Re:What did you expect?

[eaglesrule]

The parent link has a function.

Post after post complaining about getting an unfair down mod? You must be new here. It isn't a perfect system but it works well enough. Please consider that.

Re:What did you expect?

[farble1670]

Stupid fat retarded cunt who doesn't know what "Islamist' means, google that.

Man you must have gotten beat up a lot of a child.

The autocomplete results in the search box are just search results. You can think of it like a meta search. You are searching for search phrases. The algorithms that builds that meta data can gamed as well. A naive approach would be to just spam search for a particular phrase to make Google think it's a popular. In reality it's a lot more complicated than that, just giving an example so people like you can hopefully comprehend.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

took me a little while to parse that, but I rather tardily realised that the poster must have meant "tawdry phrase" (although tawdry wouldn't have been the apposite word in any case)

Re:What did you expect?

[tsqr]

I find your perception of what autocomplete does as an overall system to be lacking.

Oh, no. I suppose I could ask for illumination; however, I find that your opinion of my perception doesn't mean very much to me.

If I'm typing a query into the Google search box, I don't get an autocomplete "suggestion" in the search box. I see a short list of suggestions below the search box, where I can click on one of them if I wish. My experience has been that (1) it is extremely rare for one of the suggestions to match what I'm after; and (2) typing my query is faster than scanning the list of suggestions. There just isn't any compelling reason to look at the suggestions. Of course, this is just my use case. You're welcome to your own.

Re:What did you expect?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Post after post about unfair downmod= 2. Inflammatory language from others + downmods, many. Mobile users and casual viewers aren't going to use parent links. It isn't a perfect system, and it works well enough for you, but may still need improvement for other users. Please consider that.

Re:What did you expect?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

You say my opinion doesn't mean much to you, but then you describe your use case. So, I'm going to assume you do want an opinion after all. Your use case makes sense, provided the host of the servers that collect and weight the autocomplete results is truly a trusted provider. I assume you have vetted your provider appropriately, to the extent that accidentally typed passwords or other secrets that may wind up in a search box are not a concern for you. Personally, I do not make these assumptions about every user of Google's autocomplete. I think the majority of them, if pressed, would give an answer that comes down to appeal to common belief/popularity as their reason for trusting Google.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Results for "trump is":
trump israel
trump is a chump
trump is awesome
trump is good
trump israel news
trump is love trump is life

I'ma going to go out on a limb and say, there is some intentional manipulation going on there. And it's not being done by Democrats. At least, not successfully.

Re:What did you expect?

[tsqr]

You say my opinion doesn't mean much to you, but then you describe your use case.

Actually, I described my use case before you mischaracterized my perception.

So, I'm going to assume you do want an opinion after all.

Bad assumption.

accidentally typed passwords or other secrets that may wind up in a search box are not a concern for you

As I said before, what other people type into a search box is not something that matters to me at all.

Please feel free to have the last word. In fact, why don't you just type it into a search box?

Re:What did you expect?

[Gr8Apes]

You could just not have certain subjective phrases combined with other subjective phrases. Yes, people will find creative ways around whatever filters you put up, but eventually your weighting system will generally represent non-inflammatory searches unless you specifically type them in. Which is likely what should be happening anyways, but for reasons other than to not offend some specific snowflake. It should be easy enough for there to be a child-safe layer for those under 8 and between 9 and 14, for example. If your search shows up in porn or hate related searches, it likely shouldn't show up for those 2 classes. Why Google hasn't figured out how to do this is truly beyond belief as it's actually a simple application of weighting applied to their current data that they already have in hand.

Re:What did you expect?

[Gr8Apes]

And now you need to tell us how to identify these terms. Is the cult of scientology a church?

You're asking the question wrong: is a church a cult?

Answer: yes, by definition.

Re:What did you expect?

[Gr8Apes]

I'd have a better question - since the response was modded up drawing attention to your post, why are you worried about it? I have posts that were modded negatively, in several cases merely because the moderators didn't like the sentiment. In several cases those negatively moderated posts generated additional postings of which some were thoughtful or good. It's irrelevant if they were moderated highly or negatively, what matters to me is the discussion is interesting, which is the only reason I still read /. The stories themselves are usually already known, it's the commentary that makes it interesting.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I recognize you. You are that idiot who constantly pops up here spouting about how the fact that you are Greek somehow makes you superior to everyone else.this despite the fact that since your civilization's brief shining moment 2500 years ago, you promptly descended into pettty internicene squabbles leading to millenia of domination by the Romans and Turks, and your high point intellectually has been the debate over whether it was OK to leaven the bread you used in worshipping a mythological deity, followed closely by the brilliant ways you have come up with to avoid the taxes you agreed to pay as EU members.

Also, your rhetorical skills are really quite poor.

Re:What did you expect?

[Riceballsan]

First off I do think google bombing does happen on pretty large scales, because it doesn't take that big of a scale to tweak things. No it isn't secrete neonazi groups usually, it's 4chan jokers and kids. Sometimes kids because they are trying to troll, sometimes kids because they don't understand what they are searching for. (they heard some guy in the background of a youtube video say all jews are evil, young kids don't even know that jews are just a race of humans, so they google search the question etc...).

Re:What did you expect?

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Word.

Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Blacks are not oppressed" is vile?!
And "Google search still drags up a range of awful autocomplete suggestions for queries related to (...) Adolf Hitler" makes it sound like the author pines for pleasant suggestions related to Hitler.

Re:Wait a minute...

[jellomizer]

Normally this leads to vile thinking to express this statement as true.

Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas.
1. Racism isn't a problem
2. The minority group wants more then it deserves
3. We should stop such groups from demanding more.
4. We should role back any special considerations for them
5. We should give preference to the majority group

Re:Wait a minute...

[DaveV1.0]

You don't understand the meaning of the word "racist".

Re:Wait a minute...

[RightwingNutjob]

Equality under the law means that no animals get to be more equal than any others. If you think that line if thinking is racist, then you've got the problem, not me,

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Racism is only a problem when it is carried out against whites.

See farmer murders in South Africa. Same thing happened in Zimbabwe, and in the end the result will be the same. White genocide and black misery.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Racist" is anything he disagrees with.

Re:Wait a minute...

[GameboyRMH]

No, he gets it, you demonstrate why the modern racist line of thinking is effective at spreading their views. A cursory examination finds nothing inherently, blantantly racist about any individual part of it, but the components work together to form a racism-rationalizing machine.

Re:Wait a minute...

[farble1670]

Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas.

1. Racism isn't a problem ...

This is a polarizing, divisive statement. You are telling everyone that doesn't feel racist, and doesn't experience racism that THEY are racist. I am not sure if you are trolling or what, but if you have an interest in actually effecting change you should change up your tactic. Accusing and blaming people just makes them defensive and closed to your ideas.

Re:Wait a minute...

[aicrules]

And you can't do anything but suppress overtly racist content, if it's in your purview to do so. Anything beyond that is out of bounds and should not be suppressed no matter how sure you are that it is somehow part of a larger racist message. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater, you've gone too far.

Re:Wait a minute...

[sexconker]

Normally this leads to vile thinking to express this statement as true.

Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas.
1. Racism isn't a problem
2. The minority group wants more then it deserves
3. We should stop such groups from demanding more.
4. We should role back any special considerations for them
5. We should give preference to the majority group

1: Racism isn't a problem that justifies treating people unfairly, it isn't a problem that justifies censorship, and it isn't a problem that justifies altering or "correcting" the truth.

2: Many minority groups do want more than they deserve. (Hint: What you deserve for being a member of a minority group is nothing more than fair consideration and treatment.)

3: We should indeed put an end to entitlements and get people used to the idea that fair consideration and treatment is what they are owed, not equal (or better) outcomes.

4: We absolutely should get rid of unfair treatment that exists only to benefit specific groups.

5: We should not give preference to the majority group. We should give fair consideration and treatment to all groups and, ideally, stop thinking of people as members of specific groups. Note, again, that this does not mean equal (or better) outcomes.

This applies to race, sex religion, etc.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Archangel Michael]

RACIST is simply a tool to dismiss something that one doesn't like. However, crying racism often leads to actual racist thoughts, like this video exposes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Voter ID laws are racist because they (particular race) don't know where to DMV is. They don't have the knowledge. They aren't aware or uninformed. They don't have ID. They ....

Categorizing all people one way. THAT is racist.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally this leads to vile thinking to express this statement as true.

Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas. 1. Racism isn't a problem 2. The minority group wants more then it deserves 3. We should stop such groups from demanding more. 4. We should role back any special considerations for them 5. We should give preference to the majority group

I am not a racist, but I agree with part of this list. For all intents and purposes I am white (I have negligible traces of Native American blood). My wife is Latina with 20% Native American and 9% African blood.

1. Racism IS a problem.
2. Many minority groups DO want more than they deserve
3. Anyone should be able to demand anything they want, but that doesn't mean we should pander to them.
4. We SHOULD roll back Affirmative Action type programs which are racist by design. Racists will find ways around the regulations while the regulations actually hurt white males for nothing more than being white males.
5. NO individual should receive preferential treatment / consideration based on race or gender.

Do you feel that my views of these 5 talking points make me a racist?

Re:Wait a minute...

[GameboyRMH]

RACIST is simply a tool to dismiss something that one doesn't like.

Deplorable nonsense, "racist" means "unfairly discriminates based on ethnicity," which you demonstrate your knowledge of by using it later in your own post:

However, crying racism often leads to actual racist thoughts,

Thoughts you don't like and would like to dismiss? Or thoughts which unfairly discriminate based on ethnicity?

Re:Wait a minute...

[dextarz]

5++

Re: Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that it's racist to say that black people cant get driver's licenses. And you're right. It is.

But the fact remains that a rule that says you need a driver's license to vote DOES disproportionately affect minorities.

And it's also a fact that that's the primary driver of the push to require licenses is to make it harder for people who vote democrat to vote. Most of the impacted are minorities.

So it's racist to push the policy, and it's racist to explain why the policy is racist. Everyone's a winner!

Re: Wait a minute...

[Bryansix]

You know, assigning motive to some other entity is almost always doomed to fail. Unless you've developed an acute ability for mind reading, you will never know a person's true motive for doing anything and trying to say you do is a waste of time.

Re: Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not racist. It's an opinion that tons of people disagree with, including the courts who generally find that if the intent and effect is to correct a systemic problem or encourage greater participation, the law can treat races differently. You get to discriminate to be kind, but not to be a dick. It's a pretty decent system.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Bryansix]

Please tell me more about unintended consequences. I'm sure the DNC would like to hear all about it.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Voter ID laws are racist because they (particular race) don't know where to DMV is. They don't have the knowledge. They aren't aware or uninformed. They don't have ID. They ....

In and of themselves, voter ID laws aren't racist.

But if you combine voter ID laws with closing DMV offices in areas with high minority populations, then it starts to look a bit racist:

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

Yes, there are other ways to get acceptable voter ID aside from going to a neighborhood DMV office, but human nature being what it is, if you close a local office to get ID, people living nearby are less likely to have ID.

Many will still drive to the nearest office, but by selectively closing some offices it will have a disproportionate impact on people (regardless of race) who live close to those offices.

Re: Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if I want to be kind to white people only? Thatâ(TM)s a âoepretty good systemâ to you?

Re:Wait a minute...

[serviscope_minor]

You are telling everyone that doesn't feel racist, and doesn't experience racism that THEY are racist.

No, the problem is you;re such a precious snowflake that you go into a blind tizzy when someone so much as mentions racism just in case someone accuses you of it.

The fact that you cannot even cope with the idea of racism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Archangel Michael]

If you can show actual linkage between closing of offices and voter ID laws, specifically that they are more than just coincidental in nature, I'd be all ears to hear it.

From the Article ... "To be fair, the state’s listed reasons for closing these offices seems more economical than anything else."

A full and complete sentence, that indicates that the closing of offices was not racist in nature. IF there is an absence of racial motivation, then the result cannot be racist. Then you get to the rest of the paragraph to get the "real" story (not the hyperbole)

"The Law Enforcement Agency rolled out a few new online applications earlier this year that can assist in getting people IDs and driver’s licenses. And the agency did the math on how many people were actually using the part-time DMV offices and found low usage."

Part time offices, closing due to low usage. Narrative is everything, facts don't matter.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Hognoxious]

You don't understand the meaning of the word "racist".

... or "role".

Re:Wait a minute...

[farble1670]

The fact that you cannot even cope with the idea of racism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Did anyone say it didn't exist? You see, the alternative to "everything is racist" isn't "nothing is racist". Most things in the real world (to which you clearly are lacking experience) operate in the gray area between the two.

No, the problem is you;re such a precious snowflake that you go into a blind tizzy when someone so much as mentions racism just in case someone accuses you of it.

Unfortunately for you, the evidence of certain people going into a blind tizzy is forever memorialized on the internet now for all to see.

Re: Wait a minute...

[RightwingNutjob]

Court rulings are not right by virtue if being court rulings. They are right by virtue if being right, only if they're right. A rather infamous court ruling held that black people couldn't be citizens, and another held that segregation was A-OK.

Thought Police

[Calydor]

Google is not and SHOULD not be the thought police. If their algorithms show these to be common search queries, take that as a hint that we need to DO something - as long as that something isn't to sweep things under the rug by censoring the results.

Yes, censoring. I don't give a rat's ass about the argument that it's only censorship if the gubbermint does it. The internet is the new town square, deal with it. Circumventing censorship laws by "suggesting" to private companies what is and isn't appropriate things for people to see is bad.

Re:Thought Police

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many customers do you have and how much do they spend in advertising?

When your numbers look like Google's, then people will start paying attention to what you think.

Re:Thought Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, "Islamist" is a term that generally means radical practitioner of Islam (I've seen the word "Christianist" for a Christian version).

Likewise, "blacks are not oppressed" is probably a true statement. If you want oppression, compare the number of lynchings during the '30s to right now and factor in segregation.

Re:Thought Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they oppressed in countries other than the United States?

Re:Thought Police

[liquid_schwartz]

...factor in segregation.

Segregation is such a dated word. The proper term is "POC Only", which sounds much more exclusive. Good thing they redefined the word racist to only apply to white people, otherwise this would qualify for certain.

Citations:

https://www.dailywire.com/news... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

Re: Thought Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Google decides what you see on its platform, intentional or not. Thus, your censorship argument is moot because Google curates each and every single thing that is seen on Google's website. Such is the nature of a ranking algorithm. The results ARE censored, completely and without exception, by Google's algorithms already, and cannot, by the nature of what a ranking algorithm is. The only thing left to decide is *how* to censor the results, because they are censored by definition.

Re:Thought Police

[RightwingNutjob]

Yes they are. In some African countries, by other black people.

Re:Thought Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Mainly by the Chinese.

They want their old masters back after they get a taste of life under a people who don't give a fuck about them and are completely immune to guilt, even when they are themselves guilty.

Re:Thought Police

[ranton]

Google is not and SHOULD not be the thought police. If their algorithms show these to be common search queries, take that as a hint that we need to DO something - as long as that something isn't to sweep things under the rug by censoring the results.

That is a very easy ideology to maintain if you don't think too hard.

Google's search engine by definition censors what you see on the Internet when using their service. Even limiting your results to popular sites, or the ones Google thinks you probably want to see, is censoring out plenty of other results.

Circumventing censorship laws by "suggesting" to private companies what is and isn't appropriate things for people to see is bad.

No one is doing that here. Google will still serve up results for "Hitler is my hero" if the user types that in. What Google doesn't want to do is suggest that search query because they feel a sizable number of users simply don't want to see those suggestions. You will also note they don't offer up pornography related search suggestions for similar reasons. Nothing is being censored, they are just keeping things PG-13 until the users initiates a search on their own.

Re:Thought Police

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Suggesting to private companies what they should do is called free speech. If private companies choose to protect their brands by listening to feedback from the public that is also called free speech.

So you want stop the thought police by first stomping on freedom? How is that going to work out?

Re:Thought Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Alphabet is run by a bunch of pussies that will cave in to the request.

Otherwise, youtube would have told the advertisers "Where the hell are you going to go, TV?" when they threatened to pull there ad's over some bullshit showing on a youtube video.

Re:Thought Police

[bluefoxlucid]

That's not censoring any more than a city is censoring your exposure to farms.

Censorship requires the intentional curation of content to remove certain elements. You can intentionally curate content without removing those elements (by portraying other elements more-strongly--propaganda), and you can unintentionally over-represent some content (by collecting information for a purpose and by a method, which incidentally ends up over-representing the view as per the collected data and under-representing anything else).

Think about climate change science. Climate change science generally involves discussions and papers written from the current methods and consensus views of climate change scientists in the broad field. A study of climate change generally won't take the time to point out emerging research methods, older research methods, other specifically-notable but not-mainstream science, or an enumeration of opposing views among a minority of climate scientists.

Why?

Because many of these support the current climate change consensus, some oppose it, and nobody is really asking about any of that.

When people read up on current climate change consensus and the state-of-the-art, they're asking about what we currently accept as climate change science, and how we generally reach those conclusions. They're not asking about leading-edge research methods or the minority of scientists who are detractors; they're asking about what we're confident in today. Why would you waste time sticking that stuff into a general climate change discussion?

That's not censorship; it's education. You can educate yourself further by looking specifically for these other things and learning about them. If you want to discuss climate change today and make future projections, you use the mainstream research; if you want to discuss the future of climate change study, you look to the pioneers; and if you want to discuss flawed science, unanswered questions, or any other legitimate or illegitimate claims and research by detractors, you look to those detractors.

At any moment, you can only look at a subset of all information. The information most-agreed relevant--in Google, this is by an algorithm--generally shows up more than what is considered less-relevant. Nobody's gagging it; they're just typically not interested in that.

What Google doesn't want to do is suggest that search query because they feel a sizable number of users simply don't want to see those suggestions.

Who searches for "Hitler is"? Maybe "Adolf Hitler rise to power", "Hitler mein kampf", "Adolf hitler death", "was hitler jewish", etc. By the time you've gotten to "hitler is", you've excluded most things folks would search for. Now you're looking at the majority of a minority.

Re:Thought Police

[chispito]

Google is not and SHOULD not be the thought police

Well, if they have no hand in what the algorithms produce, they'll be even more gamed than they already are. I'm sure trolls and political operatives would love that.

Sometimes I get Hirsuties coronae glandis

[Anonymous Coward]

When typing out en.wikipedia.org in Chrome. I wonder how that gets there

Oh noes!

[nwaack]

Google showed me something I don't agree with! Better run back to my safe space and hide with my teddy bear. - smh

People in general are vile and disgusting, this is just another attempt to hide the real world from people and make them snowflakes.

Re:Oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google showed me something I don't agree with! Better run back to my safe space and hide with my teddy bear. - smh

Also worth noting that Google customizes its completions and suggestions based on what you look at. If you're getting results that include "kill all the jews" and "why are jews evil" - it's because Google has recognized that you seem to search for stuff like that a lot.

This trips people up a lot when they post "hilarious" Google autocomplete results where Google recommends really weird fetishes related to some benign search - not realizing that what they're actually showing the world is that they frequently search for some bizarre fetish, so Google thinks they're always interested in it.

Re:Oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowflakes? That's name-calling, right?

Re:Oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in the sense that simple categorization is name-calling.

Re:Oh noes!

[serviscope_minor]

People in general are vile and disgusting, this is just another attempt to hide the real world from people and make them snowflakes.

Your hypothesis seems to be that anyone who doesn't want to be subjected to the more vile aspects of humanity is a "snowflake". That's facile.

I don't want to be subject to endless streams of porn either (you know like search engines pre google). I know in abstract that there's a lot of porn on the internet and I know in very less abstract terms that there's a lot of porn on the internet. Doesn't mean I want it.

Likewise, I know that planty of people are racist shitheads, but I'd rather not be subjected to endless streams of racist shitheadery.

You can call me a "snowflake" if you like, most people would call such inclinations "totally normal".

Re:Oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google showed me something I don't agree with! Better run back to my safe space and hide with my teddy bear. - smh

People in general are vile and disgusting, this is just another attempt to hide the real world from people and make them snowflakes.

Not wanting "Hilter is my hero" or "how to have sex with children" show up as the first suggestion on a search engine that nearly everyone uses (including kids) turns people into snowflakes. Got it!

Considering you aren't joking or just being ironic your post might be in the top 10 stupidest things ever posted on-line. I will never figure out what the hell is wrong with people like you. Disgusting perverts and pedophiles.

Re:Oh noes!

[nwaack]

Your hypothesis seems to be that anyone who doesn't want to be subjected to the more vile aspects of humanity is a "snowflake".

How do you figure? My post says no such thing. What it says is that forcing Google to censor their autocomplete in an attempt to hide people from the real world is turning humanity into snowflakes.

Don't like autocomplete? Turn it off! I don't need other people determining what I can and cannot see when searching the internet.

Re:Oh noes!

[serviscope_minor]

What it says is that forcing Google to censor their autocomplete in an attempt to hide people from the real world

It's no more the "real world" than people talking about kittnes. The real world consists of both nice things and bad things. Nastyness is no more real than any other aspect of life.

s turning humanity into snowflakes.

You have cause and effect back to front. google are only hiding it because people don't want to be subject to racist bullshit.

Don't like autocomplete? Turn it off!

Autocomplete's fine on the whole. What I don't want is racist shit coming up any more than I want porn coming up all the time.

I don't need other people determining what I can and cannot see when searching the internet.

WTF you're talking about using google. Literally the entire point of google is to determine what you see.

Re:Oh noes!

[nwaack]

Wow, calling me a pedophile as an anonymous coward. You must be a real big man. Google tailors its suggestions to your general searching habits, so if you're getting stuff about children in your suggestions, then maybe the police should be checking into you, you piece of shit.

Re:Oh noes!

[nwaack]

Go away you whiny SJW. You completely twisted both my posts to fit your silly world view and I'm done trying to reason with you.

People just love the bad stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

No real surprise. Look at all the hate speech and fake news out there. Google is only making suggestions based on the titles and content of the most relevant or popular or personal searches (lots of people seem to love the bad news) to autocomplete.

A suggestion to Google could be to make a happiness filter for autocomplete. Rate all the dictionary words with a positive/negative "happiness" rating then use that or let people decide what sort of mood they'd like or are in, for autocomplete. Google???

(ConceptRat)

SJW Google To the Rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

Help! Help! I can't think for myself and my eyes are sensitive!

Re:SJW Google To the Rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's worse is that this SJW doesn't seem to know the difference between an Islamist and a Muslim.

mangoes in a heatwave

[religionofpeas]

When I tested this by entering "you should not eat", I got the helpful autocompletion "mangoes in a heatwave".

Re:mangoes in a heatwave

[Anonymous Coward]

When I tested this by entering "you should not eat", I got the helpful autocompletion "mangoes in a heatwave".

Everyone knows that. The real question is what does Google feel we should eat? Jews? A Snickers?

How often? Daily? Every two hours?

Color me naïve...

[DrTJ]

... but I fail to see the problem.

Those who search for "hitler is my hero" will find the results anyway and will not hindered by the completion removal.

Most others are not likely to be converted to die-hard nazies because they see a completion alternative.

The minuscle part of humanity that are, probably have worse problems.

Re:Color me naïve...

[Calydor]

I'm actually tempted to go look up what that search result contains ...

Who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the Internet. Sack up and deal with it.

Islamists ARE Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the poster doesn't understand the difference between "Muslims" and "Islamists." Islamists are those that believe in an religious dictatorship under Sharia law. Iran and the Islamic State are two examples of state founded on Islamist principles.

They are evil and are not our friends. Why object ton these very common-sense statements believed by the vast majority of citizens in western democracies?

How to be offended by an algorithm

[Anonymous Coward]

2-2=0

What? I'm offended!!

You could also use a pair of binoculars to watch your neighbour doing something you were not supposed to watch, be offended by that, and blame the manufacturer of the binoculars: How dare they? And after one year they still show the same stuff when I watch, outrageous.

Re:How to be offended by an algorithm

[Anonymous Coward]

In one of the first apartment complexes I live in there was this old lady who felt it is her job to police the complex and report everything.

So, she calls the cops on someone exposing themself in the view of the public. When the police arrived she took them down the ally, opened her step stool and stepped up on it so she could see over the fence. Then pointed to the bedroom window and explained that when standing there she couple see the couple naked and having sex. She was offended that they would do that in public where anyone walking by could see.

The police arrested her for peeping. lol

Daisies Please Go

[Anonymous Coward]

Google search still drags up a range of awful autocomplete suggestions for queries related to gender, race, religion, and Adolf Hitler.

If you cannot handle this shit, you should not be on the internet. Period.
Go read a book. Seriously.

Islamists are not our friends

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't say I disagree.

What's your fancy with islamists?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it be wrong to state that islamists are evil and unfriendly? Educate yourself.

Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give a rat's ass about the argument that it's only censorship if the gubbermint does it.

That's such a retarded argument that people make. Similar to free speech only applies to government. The 1st amendment to the US constitution only applies to the US government, but censorship and free speech are concepts that apply to everybody.

Re:Yep

[sinij]

When 1st amendment was written, private entities that could control so much of our communication did not exist, not even in concept. Government was called out because it was the only entity that could limit speech in a meaningful way. 1st amendment core intention isn't about Government actions, it is about limiting free speech.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

you need to take a break from slashdot and go read about what the first amendment DOES protect.

Because, you know, search terms in google are not protected, by any stretch of the imagination. As well, they aren't restricting free speech at all if they remove those results, even if it did apply, as those are merely suggested searches based on what you are typing compared to what others have searched, they aren't actively stopping you from searching for that, and likely aren't removing the results returned either.

i don't think they should alter anything myself, just sick of people who shart out "free speech, first amendment" when it clearly doesn't apply.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

1st amendment core intention isn't about Government actions, it is about limiting free speech.

If you want it to mean something else, there is a built-in process for changing an amendment. Please do not try to bypass that process, or else it will come back to bite you in the ass.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

You're clueless. When the 1st amendment was written, private entities could control almost all communication unless you're referring to standing in the public square frothing at the mouth or had sufficient funds to pamphleteer. Presses were expensive. The ability to widely spread your ideas was cost prohibitive and at the whim of the publishers of the broadsheets.

While large corporations still control mainstream press and broadcast it is far FAR easier to get your speech out to the masses today than ever before. Whether anyone cares to read it is another matter.

Re:Yep

[serviscope_minor]

When 1st amendment was written, private entities that could control so much of our communication did not exist, not even in concept. Government was called out because it was the only entity that could limit speech in a meaningful way. 1st amendment core intention isn't about Government actions, it is about limiting free speech.

This is an utterly specious argument. When the first amendment was written it was incredibly difficult to talk to anyone except a few people you knew. The options available then and vastly, vastly more are available now whether or not google decide to host or index them for you.

The options for speaking and being heard are unimaginably greater than at any previous time in history.

Re:Yep

[Hognoxious]

When 1st amendment was written, private entities that could control so much of our communication did not exist, not even in concept.

Yes they did. Unless everyone had a laser printer at home.

Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem?

[bradley13]

This is an impossible problem to solve. There will always be the next "offensive" sentence. And anyway, who gets to define what is offensive? The only solution to this problem is to stop showing other people's searches. Which, arguably, might be a good change to make.

Regardless, I'm not seeing the problem. These are search terms. What is offensive about searching for "blacks are not oppressed"? Are you looking for evidence to support that conjecture? To refute it? As a search term, why should anyone take offense?

Or how about "islamists are not our friends"? The term "islamist" refers to a muslim who believes that Islam should be not only a religion, but also a political system. In the West, we believe in a separation of church and state. So, in fact, islamists are not our friends. Where's the offense?

We'll skip the "Hitler" searches, because the vast majority of those are not serious. Bored teens on 4chan have to do something with their spare time.

What about "feminists are sexist"? In fact, modern feminism in the West no longer seeks equality for women, it now seeks special treatment. Just as affirmative action is by definition racist, so modern feminism is sexist. Even if you disagree with this, searching for the reasons that people may believe it, is a perfectly legitimate search.

Climate change? There is, in fact, still a great deal of debate. Not about the climate warming, perhaps, but certainly about the degree of warming, about the predictions being made, and the degree to which climate change is natural or anthropogenic. Again, why should search terms be problematic?

Re:Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as affirmative action is by definition racist, so modern feminism is sexist. Even if you disagree with this

Thanks for leaving some room for those of us who aren't racist or sexist to disagree with you. Arguing that trying to correct for the effects of racism or sexism is in fact equivalent to the harms sought to be remedied is bullshit. "It now seeks special treatment"?? Says who? Special treatment like wage parity? Special treatment like non-hostile workplaces? Special treatment like bodily integrity and autonomy?

Perhaps you mean to say "affirmative action is by definition race-conscious" and "feminism is by definition gender-conscious". If so, say THAT.

Re:Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, modern feminism in the West no longer seeks equality for women, it now seeks special treatment.

Careful there, you might summon AmiMoJo and his sockpuppet moderator army.

Re:Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lower standards for women, for example
http://popularmilitary.com/nearly-half-females-failed-graduate-army-infantry-training-standards-also-lowered/

Re:Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem?

[Bryansix]

Special treatment like wage parity? Special treatment like non-hostile workplaces? Special treatment like bodily integrity and autonomy?

Perhaps you mean to say "affirmative action is by definition race-conscious" and "feminism is by definition gender-conscious". If so, say THAT.

Cool strawman arguments. He never said any of those things. Nice job putting words into his mouth though. This is sometimes referred to as "Mansplaining".

Re:Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem?

[yndrd1984]

"It now seeks special treatment"?? Says who?

Anyone who pays attention. Your post is almost a parody of a "clueless tumblr feminist".

Special treatment like wage parity? Special treatment like non-hostile workplaces?

We've had laws to deal with both of those issues for decades.

Special treatment like bodily integrity and autonomy?

Since men don't have either of those, asking for them is by definition asking for special treatment.

Re:Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've had laws to deal with both of those issues for decades.

Yet they persist. Thus continued feminist agitation.

Anyone who pays attention. Your post is almost a parody of a "clueless tumblr feminist".

Your post is instead a classic clueless white male denial.

Since men don't have either of those

Funny. Men are totally raped to the same extent as women and have the same legal constraints on their reproduction, you're 100% correct.

Re:Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem?

[yndrd1984]

Your post is instead a classic clueless white male denial.

You probably think I'm male because I don't like some kinds of feminism - quite an assumption, but not an unexpected kind of stupid.

And you think I'm white ... because I use correct spelling? Damn that's racist.

Yet they persist. Thus continued feminist agitation.

No, the continued feminist agitation causes them to still be issues.

The wage gap is primarily caused by career choice, number of hours worked, and years of experience in the workplace. The remaining 3% - 6% is almost certainly caused by the other inconveniences men are more likely than women to accept in favor of higher wages - like longer commutes and risk of death.

Men are totally raped to the same extent as women

They aren't, but only because we don't count 'forced to penetrate' as 'rape'.

Also, how many women who were statutorily raped have to pay their rapists child support?

and have the same legal constraints on their reproduction, you're 100% correct.

Even if abortion was illegal, women would still have more choices and fewer legally-enforced responsibilities surrounding reproduction than men do.

Somehow I find enough sympathy for pregnant women to realize that they should have the right to abort (at least early in the pregnancy) even on a whim. You, on the other hand, will see a man who was coerced into sex at 12 years old by his 35 year old teacher, or one who passed out at a party and woke up to a woman he didn't know climbing off of him, and shout at him to "take responsibility".

But originally you said "bodily integrity and autonomy" - have you heard of the draft and circumcision???

Disable autocomplete

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, autocomplete is one of the worst features Google ever added. It makes search sites like startpage sooooo much easier to use in comparison.

Turn it off if all it does is show the world the results of past searches that you don't want people to see.

Vaunted AI

[g01d4]

You've got to wonder how their autocomplete algorithm works and even why it would bother with a ridiculously open ended, e.g. Are x question - unless such questions are not that open ended, which would be interesting.

Ummm ...

[Obfuscant]

I too felt a certain kind of queasiness

Then step away from the computer and read a book. The internet is not a place for people who are queasy when faced with opinions they don't agree with, ESPECIALLY AS AUTOCOMPLETIONS ON A SEARCH ENGINE. If the question "are jews evil?" makes you queasy, they you will not like the internet, and the rest of us do not want you to try to recast it in your limited vision of what is proper and correct.

I would suggest only reading books your mother picks out for you, since she will be able to filter those to prevent you seeing queasy-making things.

Re:Ummm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not wanting Google to suggest your kids reads a web page titled "how to have sex with children" makes YOU the bad guy.

Fantastic logic! Next you'll suggest we just keep kids off of Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc... because I'm sure they won't mind that.

Re:Ummm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is not a place for people who are queasy when faced with opinions they don't agree with, ESPECIALLY AS AUTOCOMPLETIONS ON A SEARCH ENGINE.

Moron. This has nothing to do with "opinions" that you "don't agree with", like whether mayo is better than ketchup (it is) and whether mustard is the devil's condiment (yup). We're talking about condemning an entire race/religion of people based on nothing but irrational prejudice. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THIS AS THE CAUSE OF THE HOLOCAUST AND COUNTLESS OTHER GENOCIDES THROUGH HISTORY.

So take your faux outrage elsewhere. When Google reveals the darkest, vilest racial hatred of large numbers of people, we SHOULD be disgusted and appalled that such asshats exist in numbers, lest we repeat the genocidal tendencies of mankind.

It has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with being able to "handle disagreement". This is not about "disagreement", like we're debating condiment choices. I know that racist asshats exist. I accept the Klan's right to free speech. That's fine. There will always be an irrational lunatic fringe. What sickens me and everybody else with a sense of decency is that such outright racial hatred is widespread enough to pollute Google's search engine with their garbage. It's not just the message, it's the popularity. That should make everyone sick. Unless you think that villifying entire groups of people for no rational reason is a good idea.

Take your faux-conservative rage back to the stone age and leave the rest of society the fuck alone. This ain't about politics. It's about hate and racial prejudice. Not the "Colin Kaepernick can't get a job kind". The "light up the ovens" kind. That has no place anywhere.

Re:Ummm ...

[Obfuscant]

We're talking about condemning an entire race/religion of people based on nothing but irrational prejudice.

No, we are talking about no such thing. An autocomplete suggestion is just that. It is not condemning anything or anyone. Who's the moron who thinks that an autocomplete suggestion is a condemnation?

As for the moron who commented: "Not wanting Google to suggest your kids reads a web page titled "how to have sex with children" makes YOU the bad guy." First, an autocomplete is not suggesting they read a page. Second, the "vile autocomplete" has nothing to do with sex with children, unless you think that the reason Jews are evil has something to do with them having sex with children. That one's on you, pal.

Queasy?

[Shotgun]

Google returning a suggestion for a search makes the author "queasy"?

Really, snowflake (in all of its derogatory connotations), you need to turn off your computer and go outside for a few minutes. You're not mature enough to use a keyboard.

Re:Queasy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, FFS, if the precious little snowflakes are offended by algorithmic suggestions they should just turn off Google's autocomplete. Problem solved. But then they wouldn't have something to whine about, would they?

Re:Queasy?

[Anonymous Coward]

That these are common searches really should make us queasy. Similarly your reaction makes me queasy -- and make me fear for the future of humanity since, sadly, the reality is that people who make these searches or who respond to discussion as you have are examples of humanity.

I think the problem is that google's completion algorithm is only focusing on what other people have asked. I think it would be interesting to try and add additional context to the question. So for example on "Islamists are [not our friends | coming | stupid | terrorists | evil]" the underlying context of the question is more like "islamist [relations|interaction] with [US | UK | christians]" etc. This improves the algorithm from "showing people what similar folks have searched on" to "showing people what searches provide the least biased results on a subject" while still reflecting the underlying questions others are asking.

 

Re:Queasy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"showing people what searches provide the least biased results on a subject"

Google shows the most popular results. You are telling them to change their entire business model. That will not happen. If popular searches go against your views (and I can agree that most of those autocompletes in the article are generally borne of ignorance) then you need to accept that other people don't share your view. Changing the results is no different than covering your eyes and pretending something isn't really there when it is.

Re:Queasy?

[Anonymous Coward]

That these are common searches really should make us queasy. Similarly your reaction makes me queasy -- and make me fear for the future of humanity since, sadly, the reality is that people who make these searches or who respond to discussion as you have are examples of humanity.

Or maybe, just maybe, the fact that these are common searches shows that people are more and more willing to question long-held opinions rather than accept them at face value. I'm not anti-Semitic and have Jewish heritage, but read up on the Bilderburg group and you'll see that Jewish people represent a majority in the high spots of media and finance, far more so than just about any other group. Does this necessarily make them evil? Perhaps not, but odds are good that you don't get that far without some deep connections or sociopathic behavior.

Re:Queasy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Changing the algorithm is only subterfuge, what the GP really wants is, as you allude, for everyone to think exactly the same way. Commies love the idea of treating people like ants or bees; fungible drone units to be moved around at will in the glorious planned economy. "Output in the farming sector is flagging, lets reallocate some idle drone units from the manufacturing sector to bolster farm production."

Commies are fucking disgusting. I am not an ant.

Re:Queasy?

[Calydor]

Or maybe people don't consider the phrasing of their Google searches.

Maybe they look for dissertations, in which case I can clearly imagine a thorough and indepth essay on what Jews are and aren't being titled "Are Jews Evil?" simply because of the Betteridge law of headlines!

Maybe someone told them, "I don't remember the title, but if you Google for 'blacks are not oppressed' you'll find it," and what they're after is a comparison of black life today compared to before Rosa Parks.

Consider the stupid, stupid things people say on a daily basis. Now apply that level of thinking to "I want to look up this topic on the Googles!"

Google Feud

[fahrbot-bot]

People type all sorts of things into Google and autocomplete simply reflects that. Ever played Google Feud?

Here are the answers to What is the number for .
Check out #8.

1. comcast
2. the irs
3. pi
4, marvin
5. autozone
6. time
7. cvs
8. 911
9. boost mobile
10. walmart

Re:Google Feud

[Lab Rat Jason]

By my keypad doesn't have an eleven... it only has numbers zero through nine... how do you dial nine-eleven???? Aaaa!

Re:Google Feud

[burtosis]

To be fair, I'm guessing most of those went from #1 straight to #8 after 3 hours on the phone with nothing to show for it.

Re:Google Feud

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's just the next word, there's contexts where it's reasonable. You might enter that if you're in another country and want to look up the local equivalent to 911.

Re:Google Feud

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Well that's an hour I won't get back. Unfortunately it's too American pop-culture oriented for me.

Re:Google Feud

[Anonymous Coward]

By my keypad doesn't have an eleven... it only has numbers zero through nine... how do you dial nine-eleven???? Aaaa!

Why do you think they promote it as 9-1-1? BTW, in additional to digits 0-9 my phone has A-D and the pound and asterisk.

How about Santorum?

[Wdomburg]

Due to a concerted campaign spear-headed by Dan Savage, putting "santorum" into Google not only returns a deliberately vile suggestion as the first result, it offers it as a "featured suggestion".

Regardless of what you think of the politician, should Google be held accountable or be compelled to alter search results? Not only is the result incontrovertibly vile (that was the explicit goal) but it was an engineered effort by an individual and his fans against another individual.

If this is okay, why are search results and search suggestions that denigrate an individual or group problematic, and who gets to make that distinction? The choice of search terms to illustrate "vile" results seems to betray the ideological moorings of the author, who cites the results for "feminists" and "islamists" but makes no mention that Google also suggests, for example, that conservatives are "stupid", "evil" and "racist".

I know plenty of people who believe that to be true, of course, but my circle also includes people (including many many and some second wave feminists) who believe third wave feminism /is/ sexist.

In the case of Islamist and Islamism, the term is usually used to differentiate oppressive, theocratic Islam from the broader religion.

Re:How about Santorum?

[ceoyoyo]

It certainly is vile: "santorum... rick."

When you click you find out that this some American politician who: "likened Obamacare to Apartheid in South Africa in a Nelson Mandela tribute speech" and "signed an online pledge vowing not to respect any law, including any decision by the United States Supreme Court, conferring legal recognition on same-sex marriage."

Now, the second suggestion is a useful noun describing a particular mixture of biological and non-biological products.

Vile is in the eye of the beholder. You can argue how much governments should legislate morality, but it seems like an exceptionally bad idea to have private corporations do it.

Re:How about Santorum?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's useful about a term describing a substance only a tiny proportion of the population will ever experience? Am I supposed to believe that anyone other than degenerate Ubergays are ever going to encounter a mixture of blood, shit and semen in their day to day lives?

Fucking grade-A retardation right there.

Re:How about Santorum?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the difference is that Savage was on the correct said. These Republicans have destroyed autocomplete by making it impossible for a thinking person to use without making them vomit.

Re:How about Santorum?

[Anonymous Coward]

cuz only gay people have anal sex?

hahahahahahahahaa

Re:How about Santorum?

[serviscope_minor]

The choice of search terms to illustrate "vile" results seems to betray the ideological moorings of the author,

You say that like it's a bad thing. I guess that's your ideology speaking.

Somewhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

basement-dwelling Slashdot-trolling underbiting alt-rightards dance with autistic delight!

HAVE YOU SEEN MY BASEBALL

Malicious training

[duke_cheetah2003]

This is the result of jokers, idiots and people possibly too smart (and hateful) for their own good.

Google is simply showing what it thinks you're trying to type, based on what others have put in. Now imagine a bored someone writes a script to peg Google search with some undesirable search terms and has the bot hammer Google 24/7/365. So Google naturally learns 'people like to search for this term, I'll suggest it to others cuz it's so popular.'

With botnet armies at their disposal, anyone with some know how can retrain Google's autocomplete. Working as intended.

Wired

[ruddk]

Has it ever been any good?

Re:Wired

[Anonymous Coward]

The only one I've ever read there was Declan McCullagh.

Niggaz

[Anonymous Coward]

Are nigguz evil? Do Jews have small dicks?

I asked google: Is google anticompetitive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is google anticompetitive?

no autocomplete results found..

Islamists?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I thought Islamists was a term created specifically to differentiate the bad Muslims. (e.g. Muslims aren't bad, it's the Islamists that are bad). I don't think this is unreasonable. I don't think it's fair to say "Christians are bad" whenever some Jesus cult does some crazy shit, but at the same time, I wouldn't expect google to come with good results for "christian fundamentalists" or similar terms.

Re:Islamists?

[ceoyoyo]

I was curious. Interestingly, the first suggestion for "christian fundamentalists are" is "not a separate denomination." Second is "stupid," third is "cults."

Seems reasonably on par with the results for "islamists are". I expected "...stupid" is probably a top five suggestion for any X is/are query because it's the internet.

Re:Islamists?

[Bryansix]

Christian fundamentalists build replicas of Noah's Ark in the desert. Islamists do other things. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

Re:Islamists?

[fafalone]

People always talk about the small percentage of Muslims that are terrorists. Less spoken about is, depending on the country, up to 62% of all Muslims say suicide bombings against civilians are often or sometimes justified. Among Muslims in the US and western Europe, 13-35% support suicide bombings at least some of the time. Large majorities of Muslims support Sharia Law to be the law of the land (and large percentages support then having it apply to non-Muslims as well). From country to country, support for stoning as a punishment for adultery runs from 25% to over 75%, and at least 6 countries with large Muslim populations they support the death penalty for leaving Islam.

It's still not fair to paint everyone with the same brush, but support for extremism is a major problem in the Muslim faith, and it's not limited to a small minority. (And no, there's not parity with Christian support for their nutjob fanatics).
And you know what's sad? I think things don't have to be this way, and think we can move past it. But that begins with acknowledging the problem, and for refusing to stick my head in the stand and pretend this issue doesn't exist, I'll be painted as an evil racist.

Re:Islamists?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Some christian fundamentalists build replicas of Noah's Ark. Some Christian fundamentalists bomb abortion clinics. Some Christian fundamentalists commit genocide. Maybe you don't want to lump the genocidal christians in with the fundamentalists. Ok fine. I don't know what to call those people either. Shall we call them Christianists? This seems like a semantic debate.

Re:Islamists?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I never said anything about parity in extremist views between christianity and Islam. I am not a person who claims that all religions are equally dangerous, and I do think the polls you cite are indicative of a real problem.

I would like to bring up a couple points, however.

#1. Like all polls, there are probably polling errors. These can result from poor translations of questions and/or answers. They can result from the fact that people do want or feel comfortable answering questions honestly (e.g. due to living in oppressive countries, etc). These numbers are alarmingly high, to the point that I would doubt polling error could be the only problem, but I wouldn't treat these numbers as gospel.

#2. I don't think it's fair to take the country (or region) with the most extreme stat (gaza at 62%) and present that as representative. It may be representative of Gaza, but it's not representative of Muslims in general. I could say something like "Depending on the county, up to 90% of Californians believe president Obama is the antichrist." That might be technically true, but omitting the fact that the 1 country with 90% of people believing this also happens to be the least populous and most religious county is being disingenuous, and misleading people about the beliefs that are representative of Californians in general. I obviously made this example up. What I am getting at is that we should be sticking to averages of of the populations we are talking about, and not citing stats about the most extreme sub-populations unless we are referring to those sub-populations.

#3 We are all painted as evil racists by somebody. It's not the end of the world. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You don't need to let others' opinions of you carry any weight.

Re:Islamists?

[fafalone]

Funny, you accuse me of doing the same thing you did: Look at one sentence and ignore the rest. The 62% was followed by noting it's 13-35 among a large sample of Europe+US; does knowing it's higher than that but lower than 62 in the rest of the Muslim world reduce the problem as to indicate a biased presentation? No. The following was concerning a global average, and the one after that covered both the low end and high end. I could have made the point explicitly, but even the low end in the west is a widespread and massive problem.
For polling error, unless you're proposing there's huge errors exclusively in one direction that happen across multiple polls across the last decade... it doesn't diminish the problem.
And it's not that the racist label bothers me specifically, it's that it indicates societies desire to pretend the problem doesn't exist because trying to fix it wouldn't be PC.

Re:Islamists?

[TsuruchiBrian]

1. I wouldn't characterize what I did as making an accusation, so much as bringing up a point.

2. I did not ignore the rest of your post, as evidenced by the fact that I also referenced other parts of your post.

3. I do acknowledge that you brought up both the low and high ends, but I can see how someone reading this might come to the conclusion that the low and the high ends might be equally weighted, making the average somewhere in the middle. There are in fact many more Muslims in Western countries than in Gaza, and Gaza is in a very violent environment where tempers and emotions are high. I think if you had mentioned the the 62% was from Gaza, someone reading this comment might have a better idea of the reality without having to click your link.

For polling error, unless you're proposing there's huge errors exclusively in one direction that happen across multiple polls across the last decade... it doesn't diminish the problem.

I specifically said I don't expect the polling errors to be big enough to be the entire explanation. But I do think it's very possible they are not as high as they seem. It's also possible they could be even higher. My only claim here is that these numbers really do matter, and polls like this are usually not very reliable.

And it's not that the racist label bothers me specifically, it's that it indicates societies desire to pretend the problem doesn't exist because trying to fix it wouldn't be PC.

It's certainly reflective of the will of *some* people in society to pretend the problem doesn't exist. There is also a another segment of our society that thinks all Muslims are evil. I don't think fighting back against only one of these 2 irrational sides is productive. I think we need to effectively combat all forms of irrational ideology if we are to succeed. This means calling out all sides on their bullshit, and being as intellectually honest as possible.

Re:Islamists?

[bingoUV]

The poll on suicide bombings really seem off. Either the ethnicity of people matters more than the religion, or translation of questions into local languages was really bad.

Having talked to people from Pakistan, Bangladesh and some other of the places polled here - I find it extremely difficult to believe the extremely low numbers in Pakistan, as compared to others, especially Bangladesh. Pakistan :
1. is itself much more affected by terrorism, suicide bombing in particular
2. exports a lot of it to neighbouring countries
3. hid Osama bin Laden for a long time under the nose of its powerful military
4. citizens fund "charity" organizations like Jamaat-ud-Dawa publicly and in large numbers. Openly terrorist organizations like Jaish-e-Mohammed thrive with strong public support.
5. elected governments find it difficult to ban terrorist organizations, and enforce the ban once ban is effected. Only the army sometimes takes action against some of the terrorist organizations - note that army is answerable to people in a much much more indirect way than elected governments.

Since Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are missed - all interesting from Islamic or a war perspective, I wouldn't rule out a serious cherry picking going on in the poll to create a prejudiced impression.

The truth is never vile

[Anonymous Coward]

what a bunch of dopey empty virtue signalling nonsense

Stop acting like sanctimonious snowflakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a search engine. Its job is to show you what's on the internet and what other people are searching for. It is not to protect you from your own insecurities. Half the pages mentioned in those searches link to comedy sketches, rational discussions, historical documents, etc..

There is already FAR too much "filtering" going on.

The OP is to rational thinking like AIDS is to the immune system. Dealing with bigotry and injustice builds character. Hiding it from sight lets it grow and makes other more vulnerable to it. Grow the fuck up and stop trying to impose your insecurities on others (you don't even have the balls to do it yourself, you're just trying to pressure Google into doing it for you, for fear of negative publicity, by posting anonymously).

I know

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a reflection of us and many people don't like what they see. I call those people "Christians living in their Jesus bubble"

Re:I know

[Anonymous Coward]

I call them snowflakes. They may or may not be Christian.

answer engine

[Anonymous Coward]

Way too many are seeing Google Search as an answer engine, not search engine. The problem only appears if you consider results the search gives you to be the answers (and for supremely stupid - answers supported and vetted by Google itself). If you're smart enough to understand what they actually are - pieces of text some other dude of unknown authority decided to made publicly available - you can't really complain anymore.

Problem is that Google isn't trying to fix this confusion. Google is more than happy to become a place where people come for reliable and truthful answers. And this is very, very bad - for company, for users, for internet.

PLEASE??!??!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please Google, tell me what to think! I just can't do it on my own!!!

Most evil suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

"hitler is pewdiepie lyrics"

Not because of Hitler, because pewdiepie.

My attempt was relatively tame...

[hyades1]

I tried "Jews are". Google auto-completed it as "Jews aren't white".

Re:My attempt was relatively tame...

[PPH]

And I didn't get anything remotely racist or anti-Semitic. But what I have gotten (in the past) is auto-completes related to my recent searches. So perhaps the author of TFA spends too much time digging around for racial slights.

Re:My attempt was relatively tame...

[hyades1]

I got this, and I spend literally zero time looking for racist stuff.

Tosh.0

[Zorro]

This is a regular gag on Tosh.0

You should try Tijuana sometime and try NOT to get a suggestion for a Donkey Show.

Autocomplete Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally wish they would just remove the autocomplete function. It lags on slower computers most likely due to the ajax calls associated with every keystroke. I shouldn't be able to type faster than the "puter" can read. I already know what I want to search for and I don't want help.

Vile?

[computational super]

"Blacks are not oppressed" is now vile? You can say that you disagree, but this appears to be suggesting that you can't even ask the question. Talk about wrongthink.

Re:Vile?

[fafalone]

It's like looking into the racial disparity in IQ or violent crime... you can't investigate the causes and possible solutions, because even looking at the size of the effect you're a vile racist troll for even posing the question since it suggests that "there is a difference" might be a possible answer (notwithstanding that, whatever the reason, there *is*).

Most of those "vile" suggestions...

[e_pluribus_funk]

Are really just "objectionable" from a particular point of view.

Can we please stop with the sanitized world?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is people somehow thing Google is some kind of Oracle, rather than a mirror. Google isn't a person that has an opinion on things, it's just a freaking search engine that shows you what other people search for. If you don't like that, go live in a cave rather than expect it gives you a nice sanitized view of the world.

The current need to "sanitize" the world for easily digestible, perfectly acceptable behavior has gone too far. Gee, maybe sometimes you might see things you don't like. That's why I don't watch the evening news. I think it's horrible, decrepid, and incredibly stupid. But I also haven't (voluntarily) watched it for about 25 years.

Autocomplete for president!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it would be hard to distinguish from the incumbent one. In the U.S., that is.

Be Glad Someone is Searching "Are Jews Evil?"

[eepok]

Why the hell would searching "Are Jews evil?" a bad thing? Is it showing one of those Google answer summaries saying, "Yes"? Chances are that it's not and that it's showing the historical issues of antisemitism, prejudice, stereotyping, and scapegoating.

I'd be more concerned if the widely spread issues of antisemitism weren't being combated by people going to Google and asking if what they've been told as children or are being told by their peers is true.

I searched "Is God..." and the first option is "Is God Real?". Great question!

I searched "Are all criminals... " and the first suggestion was "Are all criminals mentally ill?" The second was "Are all criminals bad?" Again, great questions!

Questions are good. Especially when they are intended to seek truth and combat prejudice.

Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

[Anonymous Coward]

Orwell said it all long before you.

Stop Being Pussies about EVERYTHING

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop, society. You're too much. You bitch and moan about everything. You police every little thing, and we have had enough... Shut up, fuck off, get a life.

I didn't find those results but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I did find "Democrats Like Their Farts' Smell More Than Republicans Do"

Do you agree?

Would you like to know more?

Some of that are serious questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Islamists our friends? Do your friends blow themselves up daily?

Why don't they allow you to turn it off?

[sims 2]

A cookie setting is not an opt out when you have an account.
There should be a way to turn it off so it stays off everywhere you are logged in.

Um... no

[rsilvergun]

Racist is a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races.

Voter Ids laws are racist because the people who came up with them did research beforehand that showed they would hurt minorities, particularly blacks.

Words have meaning. Besides the occasional internet troll the word "racist" is usually not a blanket insult. The person in question has generally done specific things. Where it gets complicated is that racists have learned that their behavior is no longer tolerated (and no, just because you oppose racism doesn't mean you have to tolerate everything, everywhere). Racists now hide their behavior. It's called Dog Whistling.

Re:Um... no

[Hognoxious]

Voter Ids laws are racist because the people who came up with them did research beforehand that showed they would hurt minorities, particularly blacks.

Do we really know that for a fact? Especially the emphasised bit?

Re:Um... no

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. This article specifically points out a court making the claim that the racial targeting in a specific voter ID law is intentional.

of course

[Anonymous Coward]

who is searching for anything nice with the word "jew" ??? if your using that word to begin with your searching for hate.

To be fair...

[Locke2005]

The Trump White House staff still makes some pretty vile suggestions too!

"Racism" is an anti-concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist is a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races.

No. "Racist" is a hate-term for 'White':

https://blog.jim.com/culture/racism-is-an-anti-concept/

When a young white woman gets her faced slashed by a black man for no legitimate reason on the border between the ghetto and some middle-class housing development, how come you never hear the black man called a "racist"?

Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like Google autocomplete is just recognizing the writer as a muckraking news media shill writing a biased story, and it's providing the answers he wants to hear. Seems to be doing its job just fine.

I was ready to come here for an argument

[AbRASiON]

but it seems, fortunately today, the sane slashdot posters got modded up.

If people are typing in

"Donald Trump is a fucking idiot" then I want to see that, if it's so common, it's quite possible, I MIGHT want that suggestion too, saving me time, that IS the purpose of the suggestions right?

I could type a plethora of other examples, all horrible and nasty, but I'm sure y'all get it. I WANT to see nasty shit, it's part of life.

Also, google fucking destroyed the images search about ... 8 or 9 years ago now. As someone who ..frequents adult material, google was amazing, you could type in the name of someone and see all kinds of things, including what they were famous for, instantly, if this person is a bukkake queen or a fisting godess or who knows, it would show those pics first, because that is what they're known for.
That's never been the same since, even with safesearch off.

Autocomplete is rude

[Anonymous Coward]

I sometimes try to autocomplete the sentences of others -- it's rude and unhelpful of me.

It's no less rude and unhelpful when Google does it, and I really wish it would stop. Speaking for your users is not something you should be attempting to automate. You are wrong on auto-complete, now and forever. Please turn it off.

Well, it got one thing right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Islamists are evil. They've perverted a religion and do unspeakable evil things in its name.

Are people dumb?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you just stop taking offense over something stupid such as automated search suggestions there is no problem. You are not a bot and should be able to understand that these things are accidental, laugh about it.