4 ms·
This is standard operating procedure for Google, and presumably all other major search engines. They apply the same filtering to other "objectionable" content a
by Skunkleton 9y ago
This is standard operating procedure for Google, and presumably all other major search engines. They apply the same filtering to other "objectionable" content and are the sole arbitrators of what fits this definition. How is this news? Is there some other way to solve the very real problem that Google is addressing?
- Rebelgecko 9y agoIs there a list of software that search engines won't autocomplete? Bing and DDG gave useful autocompletes when I searched for Kodi, XBMC (still works in Google too), bittorrent, DeCSS, popcorntime, etc.
- greglindahl 9y agoYou could always support other search engines -- but as the former CTO of blekko, I'm not going to ever ship an autocomplete that by default returns nasty stuff for [blacks are] or [why do blacks] or a large number of other phrases which produce terrible, terrible autocomplete results.
- Skunkleton 9y agoYeah, that was my point. Why would google have autocomplete options that give them a bad image? Why should anyone other than google decide what a good image is?
- greglindahl 9y agoAh, I misunderstood your point. Yes, it's an editorial thing, and even as a personal fan of unfiltered results, I can't bring myself to ship horrific autocomplete suggestions. Unfortunately the existence of an autocomplete filtering system does lead to increased pressure to use it for more than just racism and porn.