Jokes2 mins ago
Holocaust Denial ?
There is an interesting piece in the Observer today, about Google.
It said that if you type in " Did the holocaust happen ? " the top answer comes from a Neo-nazi website, so I tried it, and it did !
https:/
In fact, quite a few denial website feature on the first page.
Is it any wonder that the far and ultra-far right appear to be making inroads into our societies these days ?
It would be easy to just point out that most of these website are owned by uneducated and bigoted Americans, but in the age of the Global Village, this is very worrying indeed.
It said that if you type in " Did the holocaust happen ? " the top answer comes from a Neo-nazi website, so I tried it, and it did !
https:/
In fact, quite a few denial website feature on the first page.
Is it any wonder that the far and ultra-far right appear to be making inroads into our societies these days ?
It would be easy to just point out that most of these website are owned by uneducated and bigoted Americans, but in the age of the Global Village, this is very worrying indeed.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The problem I have with this is simply that you are searching for what you wanted to find in the first place. If you google "incredibly hot illegal animal porn complete with something nasty involving underage kids" I am fairly sure that the first few links would roughly correspond to that, but it doesn't seem to me that Google has anything to do with it directly, displaying a bias or some such.
Same with this. "Did the Holocaust happen?" is a leading question, or a question that begs the answer "no", anyway, so naturally it will lead to 'Holocaust-denying' site primarily. If you simply google "holocaust" then, as if by magic, the first page is filled with links from more reputable sources.So I think this demonstrates abuse of a resource, rather than flaws in the resource itself.
TL;DR learn how to search properly.
Same with this. "Did the Holocaust happen?" is a leading question, or a question that begs the answer "no", anyway, so naturally it will lead to 'Holocaust-denying' site primarily. If you simply google "holocaust" then, as if by magic, the first page is filled with links from more reputable sources.So I think this demonstrates abuse of a resource, rather than flaws in the resource itself.
TL;DR learn how to search properly.
The broader point anyway is that resources like search engines (which are really just massive libraries) ought to be relatively free from bias, or blocking resources on some political grounds. I don't want holocaust denial to be widely-publicised exactly, but on the other hand it is not a crime in this country, at least, to be wrong, or to research the wrong things. Freedom of speech seems to imply the freedom to say something that's "wrong" in that sense.
So no, I don't think that Google should block sites just because we don't like what they say. That risks politicising what's available. Never mind that it doesn't solve the problem anyway. The sites still exist, there are other ways to find them, and all you do is push the thing underground rather than keep it in the open where it can be exposed to criticism, ridicule and rejection openly if appropriate. There's also the more serious problem of -- well, I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but it's still true that it would set a dangerous precedent. What if Google didn't stop with blocking this stuff, and started blocking or censoring sites from its search algorithms based on a wider agenda? No-one should tolerate that, whether or not it supports their own views.
(Criminal activity, of course, is another matter entirely.)
So no, I don't think that Google should block sites just because we don't like what they say. That risks politicising what's available. Never mind that it doesn't solve the problem anyway. The sites still exist, there are other ways to find them, and all you do is push the thing underground rather than keep it in the open where it can be exposed to criticism, ridicule and rejection openly if appropriate. There's also the more serious problem of -- well, I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument, but it's still true that it would set a dangerous precedent. What if Google didn't stop with blocking this stuff, and started blocking or censoring sites from its search algorithms based on a wider agenda? No-one should tolerate that, whether or not it supports their own views.
(Criminal activity, of course, is another matter entirely.)
