4 ms·

Is Google Image Search really a significant component in many people's adult entertainment process? If so, gosh, that's like a step up from using Wikipedia, but

by chias 4y ago

Is Google Image Search really a significant component in many people's adult entertainment process? If so, gosh, that's like a step up from using Wikipedia, but not a very big step.

knaik94 4y ago
Yes it is, I think it's unfair to dismiss literally the biggest search platform in the world. The image search tab isn't the destination, it can be, but it's also easy to find video thumbnails that take you to somewhere you can watch things or download things. It's also a very powerful search tool for Tumblr blogs. I enjoy reading stories as well and so Google Search as a whole plays a big part. I have found alternatives, but there's a reason Google stays at the top despite these kinds of decisions. This kind of move makes me wonder when text results will also become locked down. It's now a question of when, not if.
- version_five 4y ago
  I don't agree with any censorship, but in this case I find the idea of text censorship especially scary. It's a short trip to google not letting you see "misinformation" without being logged in
  - knaik94 4y ago
    I agree and while search results are censored already because of DMCA or to remove personal info, it feels really different when the reasoning becomes moral judgement. I understand the goal and I can even believe that is being done with good intent, but it feels like there's a shift in how proactive Google will be in hiding explicit or sensitive results. Does something like evidence of police brutality count as explicit content? This policy isn't targetting just NSFW content but also NSFL content, like video released of the savage killing of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police and the SCORPION unit. Those videos are extremely disturbing and would easily have been at home on a place like LiveLeak. If someone searches police brutality without being logged in, will links to the real video be blurred/hidden? I have a feeling this was a response to the Louisiana ruling on porn and the continued fight by current President Biden to weaken Sec 230. This would make sense if it was in response to a new definition of companies acting in good faith to remove illegal content. There hasn't been anything explicit about Sec 230, a critical court hearing is happening later this month. I hope this isn't a signal that the weakening of Sec 230 is likely going to happen. This kind of censorship will be a direct consequence if it does, and this'll only be the beginning. https://www.axios.com/2023/02/07/tech-firms-section-230-supreme-court-small-midsize https://www.axios.com/2023/02/07/tech-firms-section-230-supr...
flkiwi 4y ago
This was my immediate response as well. My explicit content consumption is effectively nonexistent (an entirely neutral statement; I don't judge anyone else's, and it's just where I am in life), but it would not even occur to me to use Google for the purpose of consuming, rather than finding, this content. And I would probably stick to relatively trustworthy resources in the first place rather than wading into whatever malware-soaked options the ol' G Spot would suggest. If other people's experiences are different, I mean, that's totally cool. On the more general topic, I think I like the idea of being able to do an image search at work (where I cannot login to Google) without having an accidental goatse show up unmasked. But I also don't like private companies making editorial decisions on my behalf, so I'm torn.
- knaik94 4y ago
  I think there's a disconnect about why image search is useful. Google image search will link directly to websites that illegally post paid content using Keep2share links. Thumbnails from places like pornhub also show up in the results. It's also really useful if you care to consume curated content via Tumblr. Tumblr's search is hot garbage, maybe intentionally, when it comes to searching for adult topic blogs. Tumblr reblogs link back to the original poster as well as everyone who also interacted with it by liking or reblogging. Crawling and mapping those relationships is the core of search algorithms. And you won't accidentally get goatse to show up. Content is already filtered, you currently have to opt in to adult content. Safe search already defaults to strict, I don't believe you can directly change that even if you wanted to. There's been tons of complaints of people who toggle safesearch off but it makes no difference in results until you log in. If you are intentional about finding it, I am sure it will pop up. It's a toggle/warning sign not a cop. I don't expect the audience of hacker news to fall for the kind of malware you're describing. And Google is still responsible for filtering out links to literal malware, regardless of context.
  - flkiwi 4y ago
    I appreciate that response. I was just sitting here wondering if this was at least partly motivated by (a) specific legal requirements in more restrictive jurisdictions and (b) anticipating anti-Big-Tech attacks from populist elements of political parties over the next few years. But! (hehe) I have absolutely been accidentally goatse'd or nippled or whatever even with SafeSearch. I have no idea if a SafeSearch that missed an explicit image would be smart enough to blur the image in question, so back to square zero.
Havoc 4y ago
Advanced search still lets you force minimum resolution, unlike say bing which just has large/medium/small. Helpful if looking for something very specific in 15MP

by chias 4y ago

Is Google Image Search really a significant component in many people's adult entertainment process? If so, gosh, that's like a step up from using Wikipedia, but not a very big step.

knaik94 4y ago

Yes it is, I think it's unfair to dismiss literally the biggest search platform in the world. The image search tab isn't the destination, it can be, but it's also easy to find video thumbnails that take you to somewhere you can watch things or download things. It's also a very powerful search tool for Tumblr blogs. I enjoy reading stories as well and so Google Search as a whole plays a big part. I have found alternatives, but there's a reason Google stays at the top despite these kinds of decisions. This kind of move makes me wonder when text results will also become locked down. It's now a question of when, not if.

version_five 4y ago
I don't agree with any censorship, but in this case I find the idea of text censorship especially scary. It's a short trip to google not letting you see "misinformation" without being logged in
- knaik94 4y ago
  I agree and while search results are censored already because of DMCA or to remove personal info, it feels really different when the reasoning becomes moral judgement. I understand the goal and I can even believe that is being done with good intent, but it feels like there's a shift in how proactive Google will be in hiding explicit or sensitive results. Does something like evidence of police brutality count as explicit content? This policy isn't targetting just NSFW content but also NSFL content, like video released of the savage killing of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police and the SCORPION unit. Those videos are extremely disturbing and would easily have been at home on a place like LiveLeak. If someone searches police brutality without being logged in, will links to the real video be blurred/hidden? I have a feeling this was a response to the Louisiana ruling on porn and the continued fight by current President Biden to weaken Sec 230. This would make sense if it was in response to a new definition of companies acting in good faith to remove illegal content. There hasn't been anything explicit about Sec 230, a critical court hearing is happening later this month. I hope this isn't a signal that the weakening of Sec 230 is likely going to happen. This kind of censorship will be a direct consequence if it does, and this'll only be the beginning. https://www.axios.com/2023/02/07/tech-firms-section-230-supreme-court-small-midsize https://www.axios.com/2023/02/07/tech-firms-section-230-supr...

flkiwi 4y ago

This was my immediate response as well. My explicit content consumption is effectively nonexistent (an entirely neutral statement; I don't judge anyone else's, and it's just where I am in life), but it would not even occur to me to use Google for the purpose of consuming, rather than finding, this content. And I would probably stick to relatively trustworthy resources in the first place rather than wading into whatever malware-soaked options the ol' G Spot would suggest. If other people's experiences are different, I mean, that's totally cool. On the more general topic, I think I like the idea of being able to do an image search at work (where I cannot login to Google) without having an accidental goatse show up unmasked. But I also don't like private companies making editorial decisions on my behalf, so I'm torn.

knaik94 4y ago
I think there's a disconnect about why image search is useful. Google image search will link directly to websites that illegally post paid content using Keep2share links. Thumbnails from places like pornhub also show up in the results. It's also really useful if you care to consume curated content via Tumblr. Tumblr's search is hot garbage, maybe intentionally, when it comes to searching for adult topic blogs. Tumblr reblogs link back to the original poster as well as everyone who also interacted with it by liking or reblogging. Crawling and mapping those relationships is the core of search algorithms. And you won't accidentally get goatse to show up. Content is already filtered, you currently have to opt in to adult content. Safe search already defaults to strict, I don't believe you can directly change that even if you wanted to. There's been tons of complaints of people who toggle safesearch off but it makes no difference in results until you log in. If you are intentional about finding it, I am sure it will pop up. It's a toggle/warning sign not a cop. I don't expect the audience of hacker news to fall for the kind of malware you're describing. And Google is still responsible for filtering out links to literal malware, regardless of context.
- flkiwi 4y ago
  I appreciate that response. I was just sitting here wondering if this was at least partly motivated by (a) specific legal requirements in more restrictive jurisdictions and (b) anticipating anti-Big-Tech attacks from populist elements of political parties over the next few years. But! (hehe) I have absolutely been accidentally goatse'd or nippled or whatever even with SafeSearch. I have no idea if a SafeSearch that missed an explicit image would be smart enough to blur the image in question, so back to square zero.

Havoc 4y ago

Advanced search still lets you force minimum resolution, unlike say bing which just has large/medium/small. Helpful if looking for something very specific in 15MP