Google bans dogfighting videos, keeps offensive image of First Lady
Image via CrunchBase
Update: The offensive image has been removed.
Wondering why Google hasn’t removed the offensive blog that depicts First Lady Michelle Obama as a monkey?
Simple. They don’t want to. My guess is that they think such an action will sully their reputation in the tech community.
Under the Terms of Service for Blogger (which Google owns and where the offensive image is currently hosted), Google could immediately revoke the blogging account which hosts the offensive image of Mrs. Obama:
10. Termination; Suspension. Google may, in its sole discretion, at any time and for any reason, terminate the Service, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate your account. In the event of termination, your account will be disabled and you may not be granted access to your account or any files or other content contained in your account although residual copies of information may remain in our system for some time for back-up purposes. Sections 2, 3, 5 – 8, and 10 – 15 of the Agreement, along with applicable provisions of the general Terms of Service (including the section regarding limitation of liability), shall survive expiration or termination.
That’s the beauty of Google (and their insightful legal counsel): they don’t even need a reason to revoke your blog account. The real challenge is that the company doesn’t want to be seen as “corporate.” Google doesn’t want to ruin its “tech cred” and take the heat that will come from the tech community if they start taking down blogs because of external pressure.
Even worse, their so-called explanation (which appears in a link above the offensive image in Google image search) focuses on their refusal to remove the image from search results—as if that’s the only issue:
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.
Actually, maybe Google needs to hire new lawyers, because the search results don’t have to be the issue at all. Here’s an idea: remove the blog which, when viewed, has only one ostensible purpose: to depict Mrs. Obama as a monkey. Then, eventually, it “disappears” from search. Ta da! Problem solved—at least for the time being. And they’re still abiding perfectly by the Blogger Terms of Service.
And really, why does Google not just drop the pretense of being against censorship, because it’s kind of obvious that they engage in it when it meets their two-part test. Because if they’re going to use censorship, it has to be: i) in their best interest as well as ii) in their best interest. Whether that means getting into a new market, appeasing angry locals, or mollifying a special interest group.
Consider:
1. Google already censors sites. Look what they’re doing in China. They changed their beloved search results!
2. YouTube (now a subsidiary of Google) reportedly banned a user who uploaded dogfighting videos—for life.
3. Google has erased images from Google Streetview. Multiple times.
4. Google has removed advertising that was critical of former President George W. Bush. And others.
I think they’re banking on the fact that the Obama Administration probably doesn’t want to be seen asking them to remove the image. So they’re holding out for as long as they can and trying to reclaim part of their renegade image at the same time.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
This is a bit confusing. As I think you acknowledge in the piece, there’s a difference between a blog that Google hosts and one that comes up in their search results. The “explanation” you’re linking to has to do with Google search results, but the TOS you link is for their hosted blogging.
But how does the resultsinfo.html page relate to the offensive blog? Was there some kind of statement from Google that pointed concerned people to that page? What makes that page constitute an explanation from Google with regards to their declination to censor the blog?
Okay, two things:
First: about the search/blog issue:
Google is addressing the issue of the image as it relates to their search results, instead of as it relates to their hosting of the blog (something they totally neglect to address). Their explanation focuses on the integrity of their search function, partially in response to those who want the image removed from Google’s image search results.
But they actually don’t need to address it through the search function at all–they could simply remove the blog under the Blogger Terms of Service (the image is currently posted on a blogging service owned by Google; the name of the blogging service is Blogger). And then, eventually, the image would disappear from search because the page would be “gone”. (This is imprecise technically, but you get the idea.)
Second: The resultsinfo.html is a link in a Google Ad that appears when the offensive image of the First Lady appears. Google put these ads up to explain why the image is still in the search results.
In response to another comment. See in context »The irony here, if you have a rudimentary idea of how how google’s search algorithms work is that this post only serves to reinforce the “Michelle Obama as Monkey” meme. This post has caused at least one person to to type “Michelle Obama Monkey” into google and view the “offensive image” which pushes the image up in the search rankings. So really Jessica is playing right into the hands of whatever assclown in responsible for that lame photoshop. Unless of course Jessica’s real goal is to show the world what crap digital imaging skills racists have.
Ah, if only ignoring an issue would resolve it!
In response to another comment. See in context »Ok it looks like this is what happened:
First, a blog hosted on Google’s Blogger service posted the image, which was discovered through a google image search. This was then reported to Google, who did actually take down the image.
Unfortunately, it was not taken down before it had the chance to be re-posted on non-Google-hosted sites, and because of this it now does still appear in Google’s search results. Here’s a story from ABC that runs down the situation: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/google-explains-offensive-michelle-obama-image-search-results/story?id=9165099
This probably was the right thing for Google to do. Censoring the content you host is both good business and good sense. But, as many of us use Google as one of our primary tools with which to get information, I would not want them, as a profit-driven corporation, to be expected to morally approve web content before they allow me to find it.
Donald, I already know what happened. My post was responding to Google’s discussion of the issue which related to search and not to its hosting of the blog at issue.
The whole point of what I wrote is that Google claims that it doesn’t want to censor search but that is NOT the issue here–Google is merely trying to frame it that way. They don’t need to censor their search function to resolve this issue. They can remove the blog as they have done in the past with offensive or unwanted blogs/images.
The question is why Google refuses to remove this blog when they have been so perfectly willing to engage in censorious behavior in the past.
In response to another comment. See in context »A depiction of a dog fight shows physical violence and death, a depiction of racism makes people emotionally uncomfortable. I would draw the line at the promotion or depiction of physical violence (lynching an effigy). The Obama depiction makes me uncomfortable but ultimately represents the inherent racism in our society, and does nothing more to me than to negate the arguments of those who would choose to show this image. I would be hesitant to remove a blog in the case that you could elevate the blogger as a martyr for free speech, and also it would just hide the racism in our country. It is not a simple matter of out of sight, out of mind, we need a reminder of the problems we face and perhaps a symbol of what we need to be aware of. Solfish posted about the irony of this article, equally to me the Obama image would reduce the reputation and legitimacy of people use it, and people who have it shown in their causes.
It saddens me that America’s idea of “progress” and a “post-racial society” is manifested right here today with a lead post that asks “how black is Barack Obama?” and your blog discussing a google post that depicts Michelle Obama as a monkey. This isn’t a criticism of the posts; it’s just deeply discouraging that they still have a prominent place in today’s society. Bigotry always seems to stem from the same roots, economic dislocation and a perceived loss of power. When jobs get tight, when money gets tight, America looks for scapegoats. And those scapegoats more likely than not are immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, the poor and just about anyone else with less money, less power and far, far less responsibility than society’s rich and powerful for the mess we’re in. Now America has its first two-fer, a powerful couple who also happens to be black. And so the hate-mongers can really have a field day. Forget the fact that their hate, their venom, their paranoia makes the country worse off and makes solutions harder to find. It’s the American way.
Thanks for your comment, Jerry. I wish we didn’t have to discuss these kinds of issues at all. Part of the difficulty is that it is the first time the President and First Family have been of African descent and a backlash was inevitable.
I don’t expect that these kind of issues will go completely away, but hopefully over time we’ll see a lessening of these types of incidents.
In response to another comment. See in context »i agree with the topic above.. should be ban, because nothing goods come out from it
http://www.corporate-videos.my