> Google search results reflect what's in use on the web via PageRank and modern PageRank-like approximations.
PageRank is only a fraction of the total inputs to Google search. Once PageRank was described it was subject to being gamed at such a scale that it essentially destroyed the web, ironically making Google that much more a necessity.
> Google and its human staff does not apply human intellect to the problem of sorting, picking, and ranking each search result.
Yes they do. By tweaking the weights of certain output categories (such as evidenced in the article, a clear drop in the number of pornographic or semi pornographic results as a result of such a tweak) there is a large amount of influence exerted on the results.
> Moreover, Google has included "Safe Search" features for several years that would remove these types of results from search.
Safe search always was a weird one: You'd expect the opposite, a 'smut search' (Tom Lehrer would have a field day with that one).
> Before we condemn Google for the collective actions of the broader Internet community of websites (and the author's step of disabling Safe Search), we should take a moment to understand this point.
Before we invalidate the authors point by handwaving and purposefully injecting chaff into the conversation let's try to understand the actual point they are trying to make: That a query for an innocent term such as 'black girls' even with 'safe search off' should not result in a bunch of porn.
> Now, it is possible to create a search engine curated by humans or filters that remove objectionable content, and perhaps that approach might be desirable to some - a "MyGoogle" experience with search results customized based on Google's interpretation (or explicit settings) of the author's demographics, political beliefs, trigger words, and purchase history.
That's nothing to do with the authors point.