Google censors autocomplete but refused to censor anti-Semitic search results

Evidence

What is telling here is that Google, which has historically been adamant in refusing to censor the search tool itself, is much more willing to censor the autocomplete function. Since becoming the most dominant search engine, Google has run into the occasional controversy when a particularly offensive result has come up prominently in searches. Google was criticized when users discovered that the first result to a search for the word “Jew” was a rabidly anti-Semitic site called Jewwatch. Despite the criticism, and cofounder Sergey Brin’s admitted displeasure about this particular result, Google refused to censor it. Instead it inserted an explanation that emphasized the neutrality of the search tool and Google’s strict policy not to intervene, explaining that search results reflect the politics of the web and the vagaries of language, not Google’s opinion. — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet, 561

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the earlier chapter’s point that platforms disavow moderation while engaging in it — Google polices suggestions it offers (putting words in your mouth) but claims neutrality over indexed results. — connects to: Analytic detection of porn keywords can produce accidental homophobia — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 559; Google claimed to have ‘fixed’ the issue by simply removing the auto-tag term ‘Gorilla’ — Google news: ‘Gorilla’ word banned from company’s racist photo app; Search engines filter porn even from users who turned safesearch off — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms,…, 569 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Invisible content filtering is more dangerous than content that is visibly withheld #responds-to (0.80) — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet, 552
• Search engines filter porn even from users who turned safesearch off #qualifies (0.75) — Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet, 569