Google have been forced to apologise (to the public? to Michelle?) for a search result. Apparently when one googles an image search for “Mrs Obama” one of the pictures in the resultant search is racially offensive. BBC reported that Google “apologised” for the result but what Google did is not exactly an apology. In fact what happens now when you search “Mrs Obama” in Google Images is that one of the paid ads above the search links to Offensive Search Results. If you click on that link Google provides this “explanation of our search results”:
Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.
Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.
The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.
We apologize if you’ve had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
It’s an interesting take on the responsibility for information carried within search engine results. Some would argue that forcing Google to remove the offending result from its results would be ridiculous. After all, all that the search engine does (or claims to do) is provide a faithful reproduction of the most popular sites that contain the information that the searcher is seeking. As Google states, even the most innocuous of queries could result in disturbing results. Even in that moral backwater that is Malta jokes about googling “pussy” have made it to the mainstream of mass entertainment that is panto (a forum where we tend to conveniently put aside our scruples just for Christmastime).
Even if we make an effort to avoid lawspeak and examine the issue with the purely deontological approach much favoured by islanders, I do find that Google could have a case here. The issue would only become a bit more complicated if we were to factor in the question of whether or not Google’s “computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query” include an algorithm related to payments made to Google in order to move up the search result ladder.
Interestingly the fact that Google has not removed the offensive picture plays on the big brother, voyeurist bug that affects everybody. It means that people who read the BBC article (and others) will immediately google “Mrs Obama” to find out what this is all about. Yes, that includes you.
Big Brother is controlling your search habits.
