I repeated your experiment and do not see the news box. I see those articles if I select the News tab. Otherwise the results match my findings. I'm willing to c

I repeated your experiment and do not see the news box. I see those articles if I select the News tab. Otherwise the results match my findings. I'm willing to concede that those articles can show up to certain users, however they are definitely not the first results, which is important to note. I am certainly less informed than yourself about the Australian lexicon. I was wrong to jump to the most widely recognized example and should have picked a different one which matched my point more closely, and one on which I was more informed. My point was not that "cunt" is acceptable in businesses meetings, my point was that it was comparatively _more acceptable in common parlance_ than in other cultures. The message being that the words themselves are not innately offensive, but the meanings attached to them that can vary with time and context, and their impact can be lessened by repeat exposure in a non-offensive setting. I believe that is preferable to outright banning certain phonemes and maintaining their offensive power. You can see this in action in our Google example - the image editor has the top results and the offensive term is in the newsbox (which we've proved is not universal), and lower down on the search page. The more popular the editor gets, the less prominent the other results are. I think that's a good thing.