Santorum: Please Don’t Google
posted by Derek Bambauer
If you Google “Santorum,” you’ll find that two of the top three search results take an unusual angle on the Republican candidate, thanks to sex columnist Dan Savage. (I very nearly used “Santorum” as a Google example in class last semester, and only just thought better of it.) Santorum’s supporters want Google to push the, er, less conventional site further down the rankings, and allege that Google’s failure to do so is political biased. That claim is obviously a load of Santorum, but the situation has drawn more thoughtful responses. Danny Sullivan argues that Google should implement a disclaimer, because kids may search on “Santorum” and be disturbed by what they find, or because they may think Google has a political agenda. (The site has one for “jew,” for example. For a long time, the first result for that search term was to the odious and anti-Semitic JewWatch site.)
This suggestion is well-intentioned but flatly wrong. I’m not an absolutist: I like how Google handled the problem of having a bunch of skinheads show up as a top result for “jew.” But I don’t want Google as the Web police, though many disagree. Should the site implement a disclaimer if you search for “Tommy Lee Pamela Anderson”? (Warning: sex tape.) If you search for “flat earth theory,” should Google tell you that you are potentially a moron? I don’t think so. Disclaimers should be the nuclear option for Google – partly so they continue to attract attention, and partly because they move Google from a primarily passive role as filter to a more active one as commentator. I generally like my Web results without knowing what Google thinks about them.
Evgeny Morozov has made a similar suggestion, though along different lines: he wants Google to put up a banner or signal when someone searches for links between vaccines and autism, or proof that the Pentagon / Israelis / Santa Claus was behind the 9/11 attacks. I’m more sympathetic to Evgeny’s idea, but I would limit banners or disclaimers to situations that meet two criteria. First, the facts of the issue must be clear-cut: pi is not equal to three (and no one really thinks so), and the planet is indisputably getting warmer. And second, the issue must be one that is both currently relevant and with significant consequences. The flat earthers don’t count; the anti-vaccine nuts do. (People who fail to immunize their children not only put them at risk; they put their classmates and friends at risk, too.) Lastly, I think there’s importance to having both a sense of humor and a respect for discordant, even false speech. The Santorum thing is darn funny. And, in the political realm, we have a laudable history of tolerating false or inflammatory speech, because we know the perils of censorship. So, keeping spreading Santorum!
Danielle, Frank, and the other CoOp folks have kindly let me hang around their blog like a slovenly houseguest, and I’d like to thank them for it. See you soon!
Cross-posted at Info/Law.
February 29, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Posted in: Advertising, Architecture, Bright Ideas, Culture, Current Events, Cyberlaw, Education, First Amendment, Google and Search Engines, Humor, Innovation, Just for Fun, Law Talk, Media Law, Politics, Psychology and Behavior, Technology, Web 2.0
Print This Post
Responses (7)
Todd Klimson - February 29, 2012 at 7:36 pm
I just did.
Maggie - March 2, 2012 at 9:36 am
What this article leaves out is that Dan Savage’s campaign against Santorum back a decade ago was driven specifically by Santorum’s politics and beliefs (he was, at the time, a US Senator in a well-populated state). It didn’t come from nothing, and Mr. Savage didn’t merely blindly choose his name out of a governmental handbook. That he is running for President now shouldn’t erase any negative thoughts or smear campaigns against him in the past (especially because a large group of people think it is either a) funny, or b) valid retaliation.) There are SEO companies who could probably assist Mr. Santorum in pushing those results farther down the chain and bringing up more positive search results, and I’m not sure if he’s tried that option. It seems like lots of people want to start with the search engines without looking at other, less media-driven options. If he wins the nomination (doubtful, but possible), he would be smart to look into other options that attacking search engine sites that mostly pride themselves on staying neutral.
JoeJP - March 2, 2012 at 10:54 am
I don’t expect librarians to red flag me if I ask for a book by certain disreputable authors and search engines shouldn’t be in the practice of doing so. There are enough troubling implications with them guiding searches as it is.
I am sympathetic to Dan Savage’s general views but am not a big fan of his technique here. Someone with some more nefarious beliefs could very well sometime do the same thing. Also, looking up members of Congress, even those with views we don’t like, shouldn’t require us to skip over R rated websites. But, society survives either way and there is some humor to it, obviously.
Ron Miller - March 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm
I’m not a fan of Santorum. But, yeah, Google should step in and do it. They are so random – maybe understandably – in stepping in so I’m not sure it is political.
Ken Arromdee - March 4, 2012 at 10:17 am
People believe that attacks against their political opponents are funny. Saying that there should be a Jew warning but not a Santorum warning because the Santorum search “is darn funny” is equivalent to saying “there should be warnings for causes I disagree with”.
I’m sure that Nazis were laughing their ass off about searching for Jews and getting the Jewwatch site.
Derek Bambauer - March 7, 2012 at 9:42 pm
@JoeJP: it’s worth noting that American political criticism has long been a bit R-rated. See, for example, the political attacks on Andrew Jackson’s wife Rachel regarding her divorce.
@Ken: sorry, you need to think harder. Santorum entered political life willingly. He assumed the risk of funny and off-color criticism. Jews as a religious group have not. And comparing the history of anti-Semitism (in particular under the Third Reich) to the mild criticism Santorum is receiving only embarrasses you.
JoeJP - March 7, 2012 at 10:23 pm
The Google thing is a tad more explicit than the sort of thing Jackson had to deal with, don’t you think?
Also, Jackson was attacked for what very well might have technically been true: Rachel might not have been technically divorced. He wasn’t, to my knowledge, targeted (explicitly) for certain sexual acts performed or anything.
Santorum to my knowledge did not do the acts connected to the satire. They are the sort of thing he would find immoral and if given his druthers, probably criminal.
Leave a Reply