3 ms·

I don't see why this comment is downvoted, it makes a valid point. The only problem with it is that it equates inaction (Google's) with deliberate intent, i.e.

by Jun8 15y ago

I don't see why this comment is downvoted, it makes a valid point. The only problem with it is that it equates inaction (Google's) with deliberate intent, i.e. it may have been that nobody actually asked Google to remove these links. That having been said, these two attempts at crude humor and the one for Michelle Obama are kind of different: In the Santorum case, it's nothing but a bit of high-school naughtiness, pretty juvenile stuff over a made-up word. I don't think it hurts him in any way. The Romney one is also juvenile but is much more damaging because it has a true story behind it that is quite damaging to Romney (you know, if you thought he was a warm, caring person before). In the Obama case, because of the racial connection the humor had deeply offensive harmonics. People who +1 these should know that they're actually playing into the hands of the Rebuplicans, because for every casual +1 clicked with a smirk, you'll get 10 Rs who hate liberals' (their term) guts and totally believe in the Democratic bias in big media and Internet content companies.

joejohnson 15y ago
>>> The Romney one is also juvenile but is much more damaging because it has a true story behind it that is quite damaging to Romney Spreadingsantorum.com has a true story behind it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neo... Dan Savage started the campaign because of anti-gay comments Santorum made as a Senator. While Romney clearly acted in a less than humane manner toward his dog, I think this re-definition of his name is trivial in comparison to how homophobic and anti-human rights Santorum's record is.
- Natsu 15y ago
  The odd thing about their refusal is that Google does now have a policy concerning for removing sites from the index where "My full name or the name of my business appears on an adult content site that's spamming Google's search results" http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=name_on_adult_spam_page http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/request.py?hl=en&#38... I guess the question there is one of "spamming." Googlebombs have previously been considered to be spam, but that line is really blurry. The real problem with the Santorum thing is that it draws attention away from the issue of how Santorum treats homosexuals and turns it into a juvenile prank. People don't mind that because they hate him, but it's a bad way to win over people who don't already hate him. The people disgusted by the term are going to want to vote for him, not against. That's not really what you want.
  - joejohnson 15y ago
    I'm not trying to defend either googlebomb. I just wanted to point out that there is a true story behind Santorum's site, and that this story is probably more telling of a candidates true nature than one anecdote about Romney and his dog.
anamax 15y ago
> People who +1 these should know that they're actually playing into the hands of the Rebuplicans, because for every casual +1 clicked with a smirk, you'll get 10 Rs who hate liberals' (their term) guts and totally believe in the Democratic bias in big media Are you claiming that there's no such bias? > and Internet content companies. Financial contributions are seen as proof of Repub bias. Is it evidence of bias if we find financial contributions in the Dem direction?

by Jun8 15y ago

joejohnson 15y ago

>>> The Romney one is also juvenile but is much more damaging because it has a true story behind it that is quite damaging to Romney Spreadingsantorum.com has a true story behind it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neo... Dan Savage started the campaign because of anti-gay comments Santorum made as a Senator. While Romney clearly acted in a less than humane manner toward his dog, I think this re-definition of his name is trivial in comparison to how homophobic and anti-human rights Santorum's record is.

Natsu 15y ago
The odd thing about their refusal is that Google does now have a policy concerning for removing sites from the index where "My full name or the name of my business appears on an adult content site that's spamming Google's search results" http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=name_on_adult_spam_page http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/request.py?hl=en&#38... I guess the question there is one of "spamming." Googlebombs have previously been considered to be spam, but that line is really blurry. The real problem with the Santorum thing is that it draws attention away from the issue of how Santorum treats homosexuals and turns it into a juvenile prank. People don't mind that because they hate him, but it's a bad way to win over people who don't already hate him. The people disgusted by the term are going to want to vote for him, not against. That's not really what you want.
- joejohnson 15y ago
  I'm not trying to defend either googlebomb. I just wanted to point out that there is a true story behind Santorum's site, and that this story is probably more telling of a candidates true nature than one anecdote about Romney and his dog.

anamax 15y ago

> People who +1 these should know that they're actually playing into the hands of the Rebuplicans, because for every casual +1 clicked with a smirk, you'll get 10 Rs who hate liberals' (their term) guts and totally believe in the Democratic bias in big media Are you claiming that there's no such bias? > and Internet content companies. Financial contributions are seen as proof of Repub bias. Is it evidence of bias if we find financial contributions in the Dem direction?