91–100 of 103 posts
Everyone knows exactly why they don't make search recommendations, and is there really anything we can say about it that won't devolve into trolling, flaming, and deliberate misunderstanding?
It's a bug. It will be fixed.
Everyone knows exactly why they don't make search recommendations, and is there really anything we can say about it that won't devolve into trolling, flaming, and deliberate misunderstanding?
Maybe if it came from a muslim himself. Google is just being wise here. Why would they risk offending people who are already offended? Not many would be offended when the completion suggests "niggers are.." - it is a thing of past; "jews are.." - they are sane and educated enough not to go batshit; "indians are.." - pretty well integrated with the western society. Muslims are neither that educated nor integrated well…
So, you're saying terrorism works. It's ok to offend groups who don't resort to terrorism to destroy freedom of speech.
That Google operates censorship in China and India is bad enough. Now you're saying the number 1 search engine in the west is right to censor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe if it came from a muslim himself. Google is just being wise here. Why would they risk offending people who are already offended? Not many would be offended when the completion suggests "niggers are.." - it is a thing of past; "jews are.." - they are sane and educated enough not to go batshit; "indians are.." - pretty well integrated with the western society. Muslims are neither that educated nor integrated well…
why would they even risk it at all? So, you're saying terrorism works. It's ok to offend groups who don't resort to terrorism to destroy freedom of speech. That Google operates censorship in China and India is bad enough. Now you're saying the number 1 search engine in the west is right to censor.
Everyone knows exactly why they don't make search recommendations, and is there really anything we can say about it that won't devolve into trolling, flaming, and deliberate misunderstanding?
Maybe if it came from a muslim himself. Google is just being wise here. Why would they risk offending people who are already offended? Not many would be offended when the completion suggests "niggers are.." - it is a thing of past; "jews are.." - they are sane and educated enough not to go batshit; "indians are.." - pretty well integrated with the western society. Muslims are neither that educated nor integrated well…
That is an interesting comment.
I dont think your right BTW (generally in your comment). I expect it is simply Google is avoiding any fall out. It's one of those current affairs terms that eventually somone would think to Google then write a blog post titled "look what Google suggests for islam is..."
Lose-lose all round. Best to go for the option the least amount of people would give a crap about.
EDIT: google doesnt offer suggestions for any of your other examples either btw.
I haven't seen it pointed out yet that it doesn't actually block searches for "Islam is". It only blocks recommendations. It's not like they're censoring actual results here. What they're doing is simply disabling a minor feature for a small number of potentially inflammatory use cases at the expense of about 10 seconds of amusement for you. If this offends you, I would think it says more about you than Google.
It doesn't exactly offend me; I just find it interesting and potentially troubling. It's part of a trend of going out of the way to avoid offending Muslims specifically. I fear that things like Ireland's new blasphemy law, which came into force a few days ago, are the result of this trend. (Of course, it applies to mockery of all religions; in the West at least one can hardly get a law passed outlawing just mockery o…
A lot of other " is/are" terms are filtered too. I dont think this is specifically about offending Muslims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My reaction to this is that people who are easily offended must have some insecurity. Where this insecurity is not justified, it reduces my respect.
To be fair, religious affiliation seems unusually tightly bound to some people's sense of who they are. What's unclear to me is why certain religions have this worse than others, e.g. compare Muslim reaction to the Muhammad cartoons with Christian reaction to "Jerry Springer: The Opera".
It was groups of hardliners with their own agenda (aka not representing the religion) who, for the most part, provided the extreme reaction. The majority showed roughly the same response as to JS:TO.
A [Google] spokesperson tells us: "This is a bug and we’re working to fix it as quickly as we can."
I submit something that may be potentially useful, a guy who is going to open source out something that might be real interesting -> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1032278 and I get no love and this ahem "sensationalist" blog with no proof whatsoever for the claims gets so many points - wow!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's removed for the reasons you think it is. It seems to be driven by what people search for. First option under "dead b" is "dead baby jokes". Try "death and r" and "death and return of superman" is above "death and resurrection of jesus". And one of the options under "death squads" is "death squads health care" If people don't use "Islam is ..." all that often it's not going to be part of their sugge…
"I am extremely" provides further amusement as a search suggestion prefix.
Top results from "Islam is *": "Islam is both a religion and a complete way of life" "Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs" "Islam is violent" "Islam is spreading among Thousands black South Africans" "Islam is spreading across Europe among descendants of Muslim immigrants" (The preceding word is "Radical") "Islam is intolerant, militant, supports terrorism" (This is from a site discussing contrasting vi…
Not for me. I see the behavior mentioned in the article.