Islam is - a banned phrase by Google?

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china, hk.politics, soc.culture.singapore, talk.politics.china, soc.culture.malaysia
From: ltlee1
Subject: Re: Google has a bug. A censorship bug?

On Jan 19, 6:07 pm, RichAsianKid wrote:

> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 7:48 pm, RichAsianKid wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>> On Jan 17, 3:38 am, RichAsianKid wrote:
> >>>> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/11/google_islam_suggest/
> >>>>> ---------------------------
> >>>>> Google suggests Islam is nothing
> >>>>> Alert Print The metaphysics of search
> >>>>> By Cade Metz in San Francisco Get more from this author
> >>>>> Posted in Music and Media, 11th January 2010 21:09 GMT
> >>>>> Free whitepaper PowerEdge M-Series blades I/O guide
> >>>>> Google's search Suggest function treats Islam a bit differently from
> >>>>> the other major religions of the world. It's willing to suggest
> >>>>> "Christianity is bullshit" or "Judaism is false," but if you begin to
> >>>>> ask what Islam is, it won't suggest a thing.
> >>>>> Google says that this search oddity is a bug - and that its search
> >>>>> gurus are working to fix it. But several days have passed since it was
> >>>>> publicly uncovered.
> >>>>> As originally noticed by The Next Web blog, Suggest isn't shy about
> >>>>> suggesting search queries that put several major religions in a less-
> >>>>> the-favorable light. If you type, "Christianity is" into Google's
> >>>>> search box, for instance, the web giant suggests queries such as
> >>>>> "Christianity is bullshit," "Christianity is not a religion,"
> >>>>> "Christianity is a lie," and "Christianity This is only what you'd
> >>>>> expect. Suggest suggests queries based on what others have searched
> >>>>> for in the past. If you type "Judaism is," "Hinduism is," or "Buddhism
> >>>>> is," Google also provides a long list of suggestions - some with a
> >>>>> negative bent, some not. But if you type "Islam is," you get nothing:
> >>>>> Google has not responded to our request for comment on the matter. But
> >>>>> on January 5, it told Search Engine Land that its Islam Suggest block
> >>>>> is a bug, saying "We re working to fix it as quickly as we can."
> >>>>> Six days seems like an awfully long time to fix what would seem to be
> >>>>> a simple bug, but there you have it.
> >>>>> Google has long offered search suggestions from other parts of its
> >>>>> search engine. Then, in mid-December, it began offering real-time
> >>>>> suggestions from its home page search box - before you've actually
> >>>>> performed a query. These suggestions are based on what Google has
> >>>>> indexed and what others have searched for in the past, but they may be
> >>>>> personalized according to your particular search history.
> >>>>> People will search for anything and everything - and viral search
> >>>>> games can surely skew results - so Google's suggestions are frequently
> >>>>> rather bizarre. And amusing. If you type "can je," for instance, you
> >>>>> get "can jesus microwave a burrito." This points you to a page where
> >>>>> Yahoo! attempts to answer the question "Can Jesus microwave a burrito
> >>>>> so hot even he could not eat it?" - a metaphysical query first floated
> >>>>> by Homer Simpson.
> >>>>> Another paradoxical question worth asking: "If Google unblocks
> >>>>> suggestions for 'Islam is,' will they then suggest links pointing out
> >>>>> that Google blocks suggestions for 'Islam is?'"
> >>>>> One way or another, Google engineers will actively intervene - the
> >>>>> company has said they will - and when they do, you wonder how far they
> >>>>> will go. Just as you wonder how far they go in actively tweaking any
> >>>>> of Google's search or ad results. Google search is run by algorithms,
> >>>>> but algorithms are written by people. And these faceless engineers
> >>>>> have more than a little control over what so much of the world sees
> >>>>> when visiting the web.
> >>>>> A third metaphysical question worth asking: "If Google is
> >>>>> intentionally blocking certain suggestions for 'Islam is' - for
> >>>>> whatever reason - would we ever know?"
> >>>>> Update
> >>>>> Google has phoned The Reg to reiterate that the "Islam is" situation
> >>>>> is a bug and that the company is working to fix it. But the company
> >>>>> spokesman could not say when a fix might arrive.
> >>>>> ---------------------------
> >>>> History is still ultimately opinion that prevailed. And as for Islam vs
> >>>> Jews vs Christanity, that's been relatively millennial, there's no
> >>>> reason why Asians or just about anyone should dive into that conflict is
> >>>> there?
> >>>> What I would say though is I thought Judiasm featured quite prominently
> >>>> in that article you quoted above, perhaps more prominent than what I
> >>>> would expect.
> >>>> Maybe it's really true Jews don't quite belong?
> >>> One reason is this.
> >>> Neo-Nazism is still quite alive.
> >> Appreciate your sense of humor ltlee1!

> > Actually, I am surprised by the article. It seems to me it has missed
> > what should be the most obvious.

> > ALL SEARCH ENGINES CARRY OUT THEIR FUNCTION BY
> > FILTERING/CENSORING inappropriate entries.

> But the article didn't miss your 'obvious' point entirely. In fact it
> clearly stated:

> "One way or another, Google engineers will actively intervene - the
> company has said they will - and when they do, you wonder how far they
> will go. Just as you wonder how far they go in actively tweaking an of
> Google's search or ad results. Google search is run by algorithms, but
> algorithms are written by people. And these faceless engineers have more
> than a little control over what so much of the world sees when visiting
> the web."

Thank you for bringing up this point.
The above is certainly right. I will go one step further. First of
all, it is not just the enginneers. The concept of a good search engine is to creat
a separate reality. A perfect search engine creats an reality as real as
the real one. Users who find they are searching according to their own
criteria is deluding themselves. First and foremost, all search are accodrding
to google.com and its existence.

> The question then becomes not just why Islam was singled out, but also
> about overall context. And my first pass observation remains - as
> Judaism has way fewer adherents than either Christianity or Islam, as
> well as other religions mentioned.

My first reeponse is kind of flippant because I don't know what you
mean by "don't quite belong." If you say there is an abnomally between the
number of adherents and how the various religons were featured. You are right. By default such abnormally also means "not belong," correlationally speaking. But I can't draw more practical inference.

> >> But really, maybe if Nazism didn't exist, it would have to be created.

> >> I recommend Prof Kevin MacDonald's work (often free & easily searchable
> >> on the net) if you haven't read some of it already. Maybe you (or I)
> >> won't totally agree with everything there, but at least knowledge is
> >> preferable to ignorance, I still think....

Edward Ng wrote:
Actually, I am surprised by the article. It seems to me it has missed
what should be the most obvious.

ALL SEARCH ENGINES CARRY OUT THEIR FUNCTION BY
FILTERING/CENSORING inappropriate entries.

Tanki wrote:
You are implying that islam is an inappropriate entry?