"did the holocaust happen" connotes that the Holocaust didn't happen and therefore results relevant to that appear in the search. Further, most people who believe it did happen and want more information will just search "holocaust".
You can't change human nature (at least you can't do so with search results alone). You don't stop abhorrent ideas by trying to censor them (it only emboldens these people and their response to the censorship is that they must be right because then no one would try to hide "the truth" from them)
>If Stormfront is back at number one when you read this, it’s because I’ve run out of funds. Each click through costs £1.12 and I have a £200 per day limit. @carolecadwalla on Twitter for more information.
>>"did the holocaust happen" connotes that the Holocaust didn't happen and therefore results relevant to that appear in the search. Further, most people who believe it did happen and want more information will just search "holocaust".
Exactly! I was just about to post something similar myself.
That the holocaust did happen is accepted as fact by the vast majority. So, by definition, the only people writing who are going to be even considering the question will be people claiming that it didn't. Likewise, anyone using the search term "did the holocaust happen" is [for whatever reason] seeking out an alternate view.
It's like someone searching for "Is the Earth flat". As most sane people already know the Earth is not, it's a non-issue. The only people taking to the internet to debate the shape of the Earth, therefore, are highly likely to be Flat-Earther lunatics and hence those results are likely to come top of the Google rankings. It doesn't mean there's suddenly a huge wave of people worried about taking a boat journey over the horizon.
>>>If Stormfront is back at number one when you read this, it’s because I’ve run out of funds. Each click through costs £1.12 and I have a £200 per day limit. @carolecadwalla on Twitter for more information.
Just for 'the LULZ', I'm tempted to take out a Google Adsense on "did carole cadwalla actually happen"
This is a slippery slope which, as ever, is wrapped up in "Won't somebody think of the children?!" type outrage.
Isn't the whole point of an allegedly free society that we're supposed to be able to hold opposing and unorthodox opinions?
Stormfront, with its repellent views and its discussion forum with the collected IQ of a cashew nut is just an obvious 'low hanging fruit' target. But what's really being asked for here? Of late, seemingly intelligent people are increasingly demanding that Google and Facebook [and others] start censoring 'fake' news and 'fake' search results.
So we want to swap a world where we occasionally see controversial or unorthodox views for one where anything that might offend someone is filtered out and entire future generations grow up with a collective weltanschauung decided upon by two or three huge capitalist American corporations –and no opposing views are tolerated?
That sounds a bit like something else to me... but, having got this far, I'm not going to invoke Godwin's Law at the last minute!
> So we want to swap a world were we occasionally see controversial or unorthodox views for one were anything that might offend someone is filtered out
That's what the sheltered "safespace" generation is being taught.
Misleading headline (so what else is new?). OP describes buying an Adsense ad that appears above the (unchanged) search results.
That said, I think Google should make the ads a bit more visually distinct from the results to make it even less likely that unsophisticated users can be confused (whether accidentally or willfully).
>>I think Google should make the ads a bit more visually distinct from the results to make it even less likely that unsophisticated users can be confused
Given Google make their money from people clicking on ads, whether intentionally or not, it's not in their interest to make the ads too "adverty" looking. Just think of all the lovely $$$$ they must make from people accidentally clicking on an ad, thinking it's a search result.
I don't think it should be up to google to decide of what is History and what is not.
France (and probably other countries) did something similar, where the parliament made it a criminal offense to deny the existence of the holocaust. As a libertarian, I don't think either judges, politicians or google have any legitimacy to dictate History. Free speech means letting people express their idea, primarily ideas that you think are wrong, stupid or distasteful (letting only people you agree with express their ideas is the very definition of intolerance). I don't think censoring on google is the solution.
Spielberg's project of recording testimonies from hundreds of holocaust survivors is a much better way to oppose holocaust deniers.
Fun fact, if you use google.de you won't see the holocaust deniers result. So I assume google knows it's holocaust denying and that in Germany it's illegal.
"did the holocaust happen" connotes that the Holocaust didn't happen and therefore results relevant to that appear in the search. Further, most people who believe it did happen and want more information will just search "holocaust".
You can't change human nature (at least you can't do so with search results alone). You don't stop abhorrent ideas by trying to censor them (it only emboldens these people and their response to the censorship is that they must be right because then no one would try to hide "the truth" from them)
>If Stormfront is back at number one when you read this, it’s because I’ve run out of funds. Each click through costs £1.12 and I have a £200 per day limit. @carolecadwalla on Twitter for more information.
Asking for money...