Comments on: Google’s Secret Sexual No-Fly List

By: Bacchus

Bacchus — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:13:00 +0000

Cosmicdan, appreciate the input but you’re not understanding precisely what is being complained about.

There was a time when Google search was excluding various adult sites from the search results, and that problem has (somewhat) been resolved. But we’re not talking about that.

We’re talking about the little autofiller tool that proposes various searches while you type. That little tool won’t propose any searches about [eros] to people who begin typing. The *reason* may be that ErosBlog is a search the tool-authors don’t want to offer, but the *result* is that people who are reading old poems and wondering “What is Eros” are not helped by the tool.

This is objectionable not because they can’t find my blog (all they have to do is finish typing “eros blog” if they already know about it) but because it’s using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. The tool is broken for huge swaths of human knowledge, because of Google’s apparent prudishness.

Tony Comstock has done a great job of explaining why this is objectionable.

By: cosmicdan

cosmicdan — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:58:43 +0000

Apparently you’re not on the “no fly list” anymore. I just put “eros blog” on my Google bar and it directed me to your site.

By: newblog

newblog — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:09:06 +0000

Holy crap.When I saw Comstock’s name,I thought I had gone back to the dark days.I find it annoying to stumble onto a salacious site by accident,but it is nice to know I can visit these sites if I wish.Banish the comstocks of the world and leave us our freedom.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:37:50 +0000

Are you really unhappy that it does not auto complete to find your web site? Or that it filters out sexual sites? I love this web site and I am glad I stumbled on it from Daily Bedpost, but I would rather stumble on it that way than have kids find it so easily the other way. How many web sites have you found just by playing in the search engine and being surprised by what comes up? (Pun not intended.) It is a wonderful serendipity. I think it is poor thinking on their part to block out such sites if you stop safe searching though. If I am actively hunting for some really good salacious porn, then please do not censor me. But I did not create Google and am not Google millionaire, so I do not get to make the rules. I am going to browse your site now…

By: Tony Comstock

Tony Comstock — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:07:12 +0000

Thanks Bacchus for this post. Nothing from Google yet, but a few new observations and thought

And as our culture moves headlong into the digital realm, the work of the censors only becomes easier. No longer must the work be “taken as a whole” for judgements to be made. Like the the moralist of old, who dogeared a few juicy passages, then dragged writers and publishers to courts; today’s digital censors – Google, St. Bearnard, ACMA, others – pluck a few keywords from a website to render their verdict – unsafe.

Google Update (Is it safe?)
http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/11/20/google-update/

By: Cabin Boy

Cabin Boy — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:35:11 +0000

To Alex Botts: Google is not reporting to the government–they are reporting to anyone who wants to know. Search statistics are readily available to anyone who wants them; there is no factual basis for conspiracy theories of this kind. Censorship, though, is evidently a problem.

By: Lestamore

Lestamore — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:48:12 +0000

I wonder if they are trying to make the autofill compatible with the safe search filtering. It seems that your search preferences don’t effect this, but it also seems as though they should.

Maybe there is something more acceptable in progress, or in line to be in progress. That is what I would hope. (Because lots of people probably wouldn’t want to mis-click and see something that would make them feel bad, but it does seem unfair to restrict a useful tool to ‘approved’ topics of interest).