Google purchases ad explaining offensive First Lady photo

[sabra]

Source: Chicago Trib

In an effort to explain why an offensive image of First Lady Michelle Obama is ranked so highly in its Image search results, Google has purchased online ad. The picture, which appears on Google Image Search, shows the photo of a monkey superimposed over the face of the First Lady.

As Search Engine Land reported last week, Google had removed the Obama image saying that the site hosting the image violated Google’s guidelines by serving malware to visitors. But the same image remained available on other sites.

The Google ad says this:

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


Read more: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/2009/11/google-takes-out-ad-explaining-offensive-first-lady-photo.html

[lapfog_1]

1. Not good enough Google, not good enough by a long shot.

Exceptions can and should be made for photos (any content) like this one. It costs next to nothing to add such content to an exceptions list that probably already exists for images of child porn or other offensive material.

She is the First Lady of the United States, not a University President or city council member. (not that such an image of people in those offices should be tolerated either)

[chapayev]

2. Hmm

Were you this up-in-arms when people were comparing Bush to a chimpanzee?

[SkyDaddy7]

3. Totally Different Meaning!

Making fun of Bush is one thing but using a monkey for an African American is completely differnt!

I can't believe you don't see this?

[twitomy]

45. Your right, the next time they ought to superimpose

a horses head, or perhaps Chewabacca, so they can dehumanize without being racist. Then all will be
fair and equal per how Bush was portrayed. :sarcasm:

[SkyDaddy7]

63. I did not like the Bush/Chimp thing!

It was simply not fair to all the Chimps!

[sarge43]

4. No, because there were no racist implications.

And please don't try to scam us by claiming you don't know about the implications.

[lapfog_1]

5. Well...

Let's see...

if you google image "George W. Bush" right now, you have to go three pages deep to find this image:



Second, I'm sure you are aware of the racial aspect of the First Lady's image. While comparing George to a chimp was somewhat humorous, it never had the racist KKK component.

Welcome to DU, I think.

[chimpymustgo]

38. B*sh IS an effing chimp - if I may say so myself!

[Soylent Brice]

8. do i smell pizza? and just in time for lunch...

[Demit]

11. Yes. We thought it was offensive to chimpanzees.

[KansDem]

12. Considering Bush was acting just like a trained chimp...

No, I didn't see any need to be "up-in-arms."

Bush on 9/11...


Chimp on 9/11...


...see?

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Pepperoni?

[gratuitous]

16. Nope

Because what I really wanted to say about Bush probably would have earned me a visit from the Secret Service or the FBI, considering what happened to Richard Humphreys and his inocuous comment about a "burning bush." Of course, I didn't see any of the stalwart tea party defenders of free speech up-in-arms about that.

So comparing Bush to a chimpanzee was what I felt safe in doing, and though the USA PATRIOT Act tried its best, Bush's Justice Department wasn't able to reach into my brain and jail me for unvoiced thoughts. But I'm pretty sure they would have wanted to.

[Judi Lynn]

18. No photoshopping was necessary with your former pResident.

http://www.michaeltotten.com.nyud.net:8090/archives/images/George%20W%20Bush.jpg http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com.nyud.net:8090/Olympics+Day+3+Swimming+6dV6Fd4zfx9l.jpg

ETC.

[AngryOldDem]

20. Oh please...

Are you just trying to pick a fight, or do you truly not see the offensive, racist implications here?

[mitchum]

27. Break on through for pizza delivery, Jimbo!

[Gormy Cuss]

35. Monkey face on an African-American is a bit different.

Think about it.

[sudopod]

41. The point is that it isn't Google's job, or right, to censor the internet. nt

[JonQ]

67. Well but what if something on the internet offends people

and they click on the link and get even more offended and then they download the material and get really offended, then forward it to their friends who get extremely offended?

Surely our right to never see offensive material trumps our right to free speech.

[Egnever]

76. Life is offensive

http://www.discogs.com/Pankow-Life-Is-Offensive-And-Refuses-To-Apologize/release/260030

[fascisthunter]

59. yes... because he is dumber than one

chimps deserve better!

[JonQ]

68. That's different, bush was unpopular here

hence anything done to him is acceptable.

[bitchkitty]

71. Big dif there, pilgrim.

Bush actually looks very, very much like a chimp. Michelle does not, she looks like what she is, a very beautiful woman, and superimposing a chimp on her face is racist.

It's not racist to compare Bush to a chimp, it's common sense. You have to believe what you see - he is chimpiness personified. Makes me believe in evolution.

[Paladin]

75. This Is A Democratic Site, Enjoy Your Stay....... (n/t)

[alfredo]

77. Men don't mess with other men's families. It's a cowardly act to do so.

[Arkana]

78. Bush wasn't black.

It carries a rather special meaning when you start comparing a black guy to a chimp, asshole.

[chapayev]

6. Thank you for the welcome!

Thank you for the welcome! I appreciate it.


I understand the implications, I just don't think they're significant to the argument. I think comparing any human to an ape is wrong. Any time a human being is compared to an animal, the implications are dehumanizing. I don't support dehumanizing Michelle Obama any more than I support dehumanizing Bush. Or at least if you're OK with dehumanizing one, then be OK with dehumanizing the other as well.

If you want my frank opinion, both of them look like monkeys. Wanna know why? Because we're descended from apes.

[Soylent Brice]

9. you should support dehumanizing bush. he spent eight years attempting

to turn the american public into cattle, to be herded for the slaughter.

can't get any more dehumanizing than that.

[chapayev]

10. Turn the other cheek, don't wish ill on those who wish ill on you

etc.

[Soylent Brice]

15. that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

and thanks but no thanks for the sermon today.

you are defending a photoshopped picture of the first lady, a black woman, that has a monkey face superimposed on it.

your argument is some kind of pseudo-nonsense about "well, folks did it to bush too..."

apples and oranges, and you know it. you are fully aware of the racist implications.

[chapayev]

19. You're welcome.

You're welcome.


What I'm saying is that I don't believe racism is any more evil than any other type of dehumanization which is based on a superficial characteristic. For instance, in my eyes me saying that Michelle Obama looks like an ape because she's black is no worse than saying Bush looks like an ape because he has big ears. I don't consider racism to be inherently more evil than a lot of other meaningless distinctions made on the base of something that people are born with.


Think about that one.

[Soylent Brice]

22. "think about that one". LMAO i don't know what i would do without you pointing out

a totally irrelevant point to your already ridiculous back-pedaling.. er.. um, argument.

enjoy your stay.

[chapayev]

24. lulz

Thanks! But you should really try to read my posts over again. We could all learn a lot if we were more sincere in our efforts to understand another person's argument. See you around, man.

[Soylent Brice]

28. yeah. don't forget about the DU x-mas party.

SEE YA THERE BUDDY!!

...

[sarge43]

33. Don't forget to tip your waitperson. n/t

[northzax]

43. there's defending it

and then there's defending someone else's right to make it. the above comparison to child pornography is absurd, in most jurisdictions, kiddie porn is illegal. in no US jurisdiction is racism illegal. it is perfectly legal, indeed, constitutional, to be a racist. Stupid, limiting, ridiculous, but legal. This image is distasteful, offensive and the like, but the image isn't illegal. legal/illegal should be the google standard, nothing else.

it's not Google's job to screen the potentially offensive crap you might see online, that's your job. you'll find racists, holocaust deniers, and yes, Republicans. we're all grownups here. (and if someone isn't a grownup, they shouldn't be searching by themselves, right?)

but do you think that Google should set some standard for online activity? maybe hire a couple thousand people to search the web nonstop looking for things that offend them? or just have a committee that reviews complaints from the results of several billion searches a day, globally? how many complaints should it take before Google decides something is too offensive for the web? 10? 20? should they put it up for a global vote? or use local community standards? (how local? state? national? city? block?)

[Ignis]

40. We're not all Christians here in the Homeland, sorry.

So we don't all feel the need to conveniently forget that 2000 - 2008 period.

[fascisthunter]

60. take the christian pap and stick it

if you are a Bush supporter you have no leg to stand on when it comes to being a christian.

[Robb]

17. If you don't think the racial implications are significant to the argument...

...you are either the most ignorant person I've met this year, or full of shit.

To be fair, it doesn't have to be either/or.

[Soylent Brice]

23. LMAO. my vote is for both.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Sigh.

We share a common ancestor. We are not descended from apes.

Otherwise, I agree with your point, for the most part. Though, Bush has sure gone to great lengths to earn heaps of derision.

[Ian David]

21. Google "Santorum." n/t

[Realityhack]

53. Censorship is not the answer.

Just because you (and I) don't like racists doesn't mean Google should sensor them from the web.
Child porn is illegal, that is significantly different and Google would be the first to admit that.

I don't like a lot of web sites and images online but if Google started dropping them because they disagreed with the speech involved I would be quite upset.

Censorship is quite simply not the answer wither it is fox news or google. It protects the minority from the tyrant of the majority and we especially should be thankful for that.

Take it up with the creators of the image and those who linked to it thinking it was cool not the search engine that is essentially a reporting service on those behaviors.

[madrchsod]

7. fortunately we live in an open and free society.

whether or not we agree or disagree with the content of a message or image to censor is going against the what we stand for. they did remove the image but they can not remove the image from every site that published it.
should we demand the tribune pull the image from their article? if i had`t seen the image i would have never known just how offensive it is.


it is best that images like these are exposed to the light of day so their evil is`t hidden in the dead of night.

[Steerpike]

13. We should

Just look at this as a snapshot of our culture. I'm guessing that a good portion of the people that google this think it's funny, not for political or racist reasons, but just because it's a picture of someone with a monkey face. Of course that leaves the other 50 percent...but then, that's our culture, and sometimes we have to give it a good hard look...even as the face takes on a more primitive aspect.

[NJCher]

25. a comment on ignorance

First, seeing this picture, if you want to call it that, just makes me very, very sad. How ignorant some humans are. It depresses me because it means we have such a long, long way to go.

What a naive fool I was to think we were even part of the way "there."

It also made me think of this email I received from my brother this morning. While I live in a Democratic haven in NJ, in one of the most Democratic towns in the state, my poor brother lives in Nebraska. Here is what he says about the brainwashed people there:

A couple of nights ago I ran into a couple of people at the bar that I have not seen in a long time. The conversation turned political and I was really surprised to hear some of the crazy things I heard from them. Most of it easy to prove to be false or erroneous.

One point made was the size of the new health care bill. Why does it have to be so big, "is it like big government"? Well read this story on Yahoo Spin Meter...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_legislation_inflation

One more interesting theme hear from Nebraska, I would say almost 95% percent of the people here have never touched a political science book, know the difference from socialism and communism, yet they all know that socialism is bad and evil. But don't touch their social security checks!

So when you ask them where they formed their ideas on forms of government, most don't know or a couple of times I got "Uncle Joe" or or some relative.





Cher

[skyounkin]

26. Waitaminute

Google needs to apologize?

Why?

They are an internet search engine. That is all.

[TroglodyteScholar]

30. A lot of people just don't understand that...

Although it IS disturbing to me how many people here think is is not only okay, but necessary for Google to add this to some "exception list." What else isn't fit for public consumption, and who decides?

[undeterred]

29. Those damn algorithms.

Its like they have a mind of their own.

[47of74]

31. Miserable failure

[DavidDvorkin]

32. No matter how offensive the results

I don't want Google filtering them.

[Iowa]

44. +1

[Devil_Fish]

49. +2

[Realityhack]

54. I agree with one slight side note.

I would not have much of a problem with them pushing such an image down a bit in the results as it is not likely what the user is looking for when they type Michelle Obama into image search.

I certainly do not think it should be censored though.

[tkmorris]

36. Why should Google EVER censor ANYTHING?

Go after whoever produced the image. Destroy the websites that post it, if that's what you want to do.

Google however, is a search engine, a file system of a sort. I am not comfortable with it excluding any information from anywhere. That isn't it's business. Yes, we find an image of Michelle Obama with a monkey superimposed over it to be offensive. That isn't the point. The government of China finds coverage of Tiananmen Square to be offensive. You may think that's different but the reasons behind the censorship are really irrelevant. Once you permit it to happen at all you've already sacrificed the principle.

[DavidDvorkin]

37. I agree completely.

[jsamuel]

39. I think this is blaming Google for what the people who post and propagate the image are doing.

If you don't like it, go after those websites that host the image. It isn't Google's fault that there are so many horrible people out there.

[lapfog_1]

46. However, as a matter of policy they DO censor images

just not this one.

Whether you think anything should be censored or not, and whether or not it should be up to Google to do so, they, in fact, do.

And since they do, they should remove such racist bigotry from their search results.

[marshall]

52. It's already censored (if you turn your SafeSearch on)

That to me is a fair compromise between providing information freely and giving people an option to no see African Americans portrayed as monkeys.

[Realityhack]

55. That is a half truth at best.

Google sensors illegal content like child porn and sites with copyright issues. They also flag some content to filter using their 'safe search' toggle but that isn't outright censoring the content so much as letting people choose wither or not they want pornographic (and other rather disturbing) images/sites in their search results.

They most certainly should NOT be in the business of filtering out whatever THEY see as bigotry or racism from their search results.

[lapfog_1]

58. Not a half truth. Your statement is the "half truth"

They remove from their search results anything that violates their content policy. And they rely on consumer (and sometimes government) complaints. Talk to me about Google and China. Or even Google and their maps/street view edits. Or even their satellite view censorship.

Yes, Google censors content. And not just child porn and copyright issues.

[Realityhack]

62. "Talk to me about Google and China"

oh you mean the content that China has said they can not legally display in China... oh wait... that fit's my definition.

Google is not in the business of censoring hate sites, right wingers, left wingers, etc. etc. Yes they ban some people for trying to manipulate their search results. So?

Censorship is still not the answer.

[Realityhack]

56. BTW what if I am searching specifically FOR that image?

Should they sensor it then too?

[JonQ]

70. Yes, for your own good

also sites that are deemed on the fringe, politically (like this one under a republican) should be banned. They may be offensive.

[Devil_Fish]

50. +1

[Nihil]

51. Thank you.

> Go after whoever produced the image.

That is the correct and rational response to the problem.

Google did not produce the image, they simply found it on the web
(as they find the rest of their search results) and return the
data being sought.

If you find the image unpleasant, take it up with the site host,
not the producer of the link to take you there.

:eyes:

[Crabby Appleton]

66. I agree nt

[marshall]

42. Somebody needs to turn their Safesearch back on

At least set it to moderate.

[mcablue]

47. i will use Yahoo until the image is removed

The image is still there as I type this. Don't google.

[Judi Lynn]

48. Good idea, mcablue. You'll have company, believe me, at Yahoo, etc. n/t

[philly_bob]

57. REC & I don't understand why anyone would unrec this news.

[lynne]

61. Remember, this hammer swings both ways -

- you can't insist on retractions and censoring from Google for the Michelle image if you wish to retain the ability to view, use, create other similar altered images. To say that it okay for them to have a similar altered image of a white person - Bush - but is racist to have such an image of a black person - Michelle - is, in and of itself, a racist statement.

Equality across the board is what we need without regard to race, sex, creed or position in society. If you advocate the removal of the Michelle image, you also need to be advocating the removal of ALL such other altered images.

Anything less is hypocrisy at its finest.

[panzerfaust]

64. It is gone from the Goo-Image search results today (Thanksgiving)

but it was still there yesterday.

Clearly, it must be fairly easy to game to the Google search ranking - or, as have read elsewhere, the image appeared first because of all the people linking to it to (for the most part) condemn it.

Personally I found the image to be quite offensive, and I am glad that it is gone (from the Google search, expect it is still available on the original or other sites).

Yet, I am haunted by the daemons of being liberal.

Just because I find the image offensive, that does not mean that the image should be removed. If it truly was the top of the list resulting from Google's search, then why should not it stay there - the thumbnail itself could be replaced with a "Warning, offensive image" sign instead - then the fact of its existence would not be censored - but I would not have to look at it.

The basic problem is that of racism and hate: not of being made aware of its existence.

[Kshasty]

65. Probably someone has paid for this

[JonQ]

69. There is offensive and potentially racist material on the internet?!?!?

Surely you jest. Next you'll say that there is adult content and swear words also.


I remember back in the good old days when all you could find on the internet were bible verses and silent black and white movies of people doing the charleston.
Ah the good ol' days.

[Jack_DeLeon]

73. seriously...

I support all free speech.

[ZombieHorde]

72. The image is disturbing, but I don't want censorship.

Bigotry can most likely be found using any internet search engine, picking on google is not productive.

[w4rma]

74. Exactly. (nt)