

Google tweaks image search and SafeSearch to show less explicit content - thejteam
http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/12/12/a-change-in-googles-us-safesearch-option-appears-to-be-blocking-all-explicit-content-for-image-searches/?awesm=tnw.to_b0Smu

======
yohui
It was a bit unclear from the initial reporting what Google had in mind. But
given time to reflect, I think the changes were made so that Google can focus
better on giving users what they want, pornographic or otherwise. Same as with
any other query, Google will present what it thinks you're looking for.

Arguably, the default results are now _more_ explicit, since you are allowed
to stumble across porn if your query is suggestive enough. (After the warning
you get the first time this occurs, that is.)

I remain a little concerned about whether Google will become more conservative
in their results, now that they're forced to judge user intent by default. The
filtering of (most of) the obvious single-word pornographic triggers is one
example of how the lack of a explicit SafeSearch-Off mode changes the user
experience.

The internet outcry so far focuses on how the results are less explicit, which
to me is a good sign; I'll worry more if now or in the future mainstream
channels start to highlight how you might theoretically stumble across porn by
default now (after all, nobody reads popups, right?).

------
jewbacca
Google Images (currently) behaves as before (able to completely disable safe
search) on other google domains (personally tested
<https://www.google.ca/imghp?>, <https://www.google.co.uk/imghp?>).

\----

Across the handful of official Google representative responses that have
emerged so far (mostly listed in the linked article's updates), there is every
indication that these changes are behaving exactly as intended.

I find it hard to believe there won't be massive back-pedalling here, but far
more intelligent, informed and long-sighted people than me must have done the
calculations for this to have happened, which is very scary.

~~~
wmf
I don't foresee any backpedaling since few people want to stand up for porn
and the principle of filtering search results has been established for years.

~~~
jewbacca
> I don't foresee any backpedaling since few people want to stand up for porn
> and the principle of filtering search results has been established for
> years.

Absolutely, good point. I suppose why I'm so riled up about this is that I
can't think of a single plausible development that could have as effectively
induced opposition to these things as this... and the story doesn't seem to be
catching. It had a chance, it was starting to gain momentum, but...

One of the largest organized places without this stigma, and one of the few
places which wider opposition or outrage could have very quickly formed
around; which all major news organizations regularly plumb for content, and
which serves as one of the primary canonical barometers for (knee-jerk) public
reaction to political technology issues -- Reddit -- has had its two largest
initial threads on the subject removed from public visibility. Both of which
were at the top of the default front page at the time of their removal, with
2200 comments between them.

I'm not sure of the actual mechanism for removing them from their previous
places on their respective subreddits' and the collective front page. The
threads still exist and are active, but are not readily discoverable. I'm
successfully fighting the natural reaction attributing this to a malicious
conspiracy: most likely, each was removed for breaking its respective
subreddit's rules on editorialized headlines, self-posting, and subject matter
-- r/wtf, the host for the larger of the two, explicitly forbids political
content.

But, as of the posting of this comment, those two threads were the only place
I've found on the internet where anywhere near as large a discussion as this
warrants was happening (seriously, how is this very HN thread still so dead? 3
posts as of an hour+ on the front page). And no other discussion yet, even
within Reddit, has taken their place. This is still very niche news, barely
known even to communities whose bread-and-butter is outrage over far less
extreme instances of creeping... however you want to characterize this.

Very unfortunate decision on the part of whichever moderators removed those
threads. I hope this comment will be an embarrassing overreaction I'll wish
desperately I could wipe from my HN history, but if nothing else picks up
their momentum while this story is still fresh, that could be a decision that
has subtle consequences on a historical scale.

At the very least, I've not seen, in any of the conversations I've read so
far, a moderating voice of reason explain why this story isn't as big a deal
as the common reaction to it, among people aware of it at all, seems to be
(which is something that usually emerges from the froth). Can anyone help
frame this as something less important than I seem to see it as?

~~~
saryant
This thread?

[http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/14q6ir/censorship_as_of...](http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/14q6ir/censorship_as_of_past_two_hours_google_images/)

Still up and with about 1500 comments.

Some posters there suggest that more explicit search terms will still bring up
explicit material. I'm at work so I'm not going to test that right now. I'll
leave the final word to someone smarter than me but it appears this may be
more of an attempt to prevent people from stumbling onto porn accidentally
than outright censorship.

~~~
jewbacca
That thread is one of them, yes. As I mentioned, it does still exist, it
wasn't deleted. It can be linked from comments in other stories. But it was
removed from the global front page, and from the r/wtf and r/technology
listings, and from their internal search results (which I believe is standard
for removing stories, which is not uncommon in general).

\----

The canonical test terms seem to be "blowjob" and "anal sex", though it will
be interesting to see what else emerges as effected.

After work, you can test for yourself [NSFW]:

[https://www.google.ca/search?q=blowjob&tbm=isch](https://www.google.ca/search?q=blowjob&tbm=isch)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=blowjob&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=blowjob&tbm=isch)

Make sure to turn "Safe Search: Off" for .ca -- you will notice there in no
longer any such option for .com

~~~
jeffool
Tvs option still exists. The "safe search" option will have a check mark
beside it if on. The problem is that if you turn it off... If you explicitly
ask Google to not filter your searches on the basis of explicitly sexual
content, and then search for "blowjob", it thinks you want funny pictures in
the "thick bordered meme" template.

So, you have the option, Google just doesn't care so much if you exercise it.

~~~
jewbacca
Tvs option?

~~~
jeffool
Sorry, "The". Swype kills me sometimes and I never notice.

------
casca
One of the frustrating things for those of us who want to provide a way to
limit access to undesirable content for minors is that Google presents the
image search in a very opaque way.

For example, say that I want to protect a junior school and I know that I want
to block everything from pornhub. Google Images (and Video thumbnails) will
not display the source of the images in the code. So must I therefore block
all image search? And because image search is a URL off the main Google search
(rather than images.google.tld), I need to block SSL access to Google search
too?

It's great that Google is providing the option to allow people to control the
content they get, but it still has a long way to go.

~~~
confluence
Is there a law somewhere that says some things must be blocked at school? I
still don't understand what the point of it was. I could always easily get
around it, and all it did was piss off the people who were doing perfectly
legitimate work.

Blocking content is another exercise in trying to keep good people honest -
it's pointless. If people want blocked content then they will have it, and
those that don't want it will get hit by all the crap designed to get the "bad
guys".

It's a classic case of adverse selection mixed with security theatre.

It's just like what happens with copyright piracy and DVDs. Any pirate can get
the latest blockbuster in less than 10 minutes with no locks, restrictions,
warnings or other bullshit.

But "woe is" the person who actually goes out and buys a DVD legitimately. By
the time they get home, all they want to do is watch the damn movie and
instead they are faced with:

> 10 different copyright warnings accusing them of being criminals for
> legitimately buying the DVD.

> Trailers and advertising they can't skip to get the movie they want

> A bunch of region restrictions.

> Other annoying crap.

And in the end, all of this is stopping them from enjoying the media they
bloody well paid for in the first place!

Talk about stupid.

~~~
IheartApplesDix
On blocking content @ school, IMHO kids should not be using the internet at
all in school, unless it's a class specifically tailored for that topic. Kids
are not going to know a valid source of information from someone's blog or a
corporate advertisement site.

There is already curated sources (such a libraries and digital library
catalogs) that should be the go to source for all research anyway, academic or
otherwise. Blocking other content within a school network is a trivial
whitelist process, if there is internet access at all. Cell phone policies are
already in place at schools as well.

This may seem like a bit extremist position to take, especially considering
all the good content that is out there, but when is a grade school student
really going to have time to go internet surfing between normal school
activities? Curated content sources such as professional encyclopedias,
periodicals and text books offer more than enough content for children to sink
their teeth into, no matter how ravenous their appetite is.

------
tass
If you have any problems with compiling your typescript, and google 'ts
compilation' to help, the only help you'll get is a whole lot of unrelated
(quite NSFW) video links.

Nothing comes up in image search, at least (not with SafeSearch on, anyway) so
their recent changes probably don't affect their regular web search.

------
dendory
I've noticed a looooong time ago that Google has always tried to censor
nudity. This is just a continuation on the same path. All you have to do is
load Bing image search next to Google and do the same searches. It's pretty
self evident. And also pretty freaking lame, because it doesn't reflect
reality at all, just modern day US centric political correctness. Part of the
US public is up in arms about breasts the same way EU is about Google News or
corporate America in general. Different traditions. Google should be neutral,
but it clearly isn't.

~~~
chc
This goes back to the idea that there is a set of "natural" search results
that Google is deviating from. I don't think this is a realistic way of
looking at things. Google's results are essentially a list of sites curated by
an algorithm to be maximally relevant to the interests of the person
searching. Curation implies discrimination.

Assuming Google is behaving as a rational business, discriminating against
nudity means that Google thinks most users don't want nudity in their search
results. This may or may not be an accurate assessment of user preferences,
but the idea that Google should be "neutral" just doesn't make sense. Google
will always promote some results above others, and it will always view some
sites as irrelevant to the user's intent. It can't not do that. Discriminating
against nudity is not inherently any more "false" than discriminating against
Viagra spam.

------
thejteam
Also: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4911747> has a few links to Google
discussion forums.

------
andrewflnr
That's good, I guess? The other day I google-imaged "planar spring" and got,
among other things, a picture of a topless woman. I have not attempted to
replicate this result.

------
rymith
It doesn't seem to be working very well. I googled tit (it's a bird) and the
only birds that showed up were of the human variety, sans tops.

