Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Seven Words You Can't Say On Google Instant

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the cockney-slang-works-fine dept.

Censorship 257

theodp writes "Back in 1972, Georgle Carlin gave us the Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television. Thirty-eight years later, Valleywag reports on The Definitive List of Words Google Thinks Are Naughty. You've probably noticed how the new Google Instant tries to guess what you're searching for while you type — unless it thinks your search is dirty, in which case you'll be forced to actually press ENTER to see your results. Leave it to the enterprising folks at 2600 to compile an exhaustive list of words and phrases Google Instant won't auto-search for."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Extension (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732146)

Can somebody make a Chrome extension to get the data automatically (without pressing enter), pretty please?

From the article (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732152)

white Power (but not "Black Power" - it's all in the marketing, after all)

OK, it's not a bug (4, Funny)

Darri (948351) | about 4 years ago | (#33732154)

Guess I'll discard the "always have to press ENTER" bug report.

Re:OK, it's not a bug (4, Interesting)

SimonInOz (579741) | about 4 years ago | (#33732792)

Some years ago, I wrote an Internet chat system for a major Australian bank (which bank? No comment). Ok, innovative enough at the time, but not too exciting.

But here's the interesting bit - they sent me a list of words they considered offensive. I had to write a special scanner to handle this - the most challenging part being dick. I was supposed to reject "dick", but accept "dick smith" [which is a major Australia techie shop, equivalent to Tandy or Radio Shack, perhaps] .

So anyway, I was left in possession of a list of words banks don't like. Maybe I should publish it.

Re:OK, it's not a bug (1)

kill-1 (36256) | about 4 years ago | (#33732914)

I once read a similar story about Bloomberg filtering emails. The result was that users couldn't enter completely legitimate company names like "FAG Kugelfischer" (from Germany).

Dear Puritans (3, Insightful)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 4 years ago | (#33732178)

Please stop trying to make everybody a victim of your own personal frustrations.
It's not our fault you can't get laid.

Re:Dear Puritans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732260)

I sometimes search for porn in languages other than English. The filters are always tuned to the country's primary language.

Re: Dear Puritans (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732380)

Why does everyone assume that Puritans never got any?

"On many questions and specially in view of the marriage bed, the Puritans were the indulgent party, ... they were much more Chestertonian than their adversaries [the Roman Catholics]. The idea that a Puritan was a repressed and repressive person would have astonished Sir Thomas More and Luther about equally."

C. S. Lewis (1969). Selected Literary Essays. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052107441X. Page 116–117

As long as they kept it in their pants until marriage, sex was considered a Gift From God.

Seriously... RTFHB

Re: Dear Puritans (4, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 4 years ago | (#33732412)

Puritans are less repressed and repressive than Roman Catholics.
This is your endorsement? Hahahahahaha.

Re: Dear Puritans (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732422)

Why does everyone assume that Puritans never got any?

It's a fact. They are pure and abstinent, just like their parents, and their parents before them.

Re: Dear Puritans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732680)

Of course, you're quoting C.S. Lewis here... Not exactly my go to guy when it comes to the topic of sex... I somehow doubt he wrote the Screwtape Letters in assless chaps or visited the local swinger's club.

Re: Dear Puritans (2, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#33732916)

As long as they kept it in their pants until marriage, sex was considered a Gift From God.

I bet if you asked the Puritan's wives, you'd get a different story.

Anyway, C.S. Lewis is not known for truth-telling so much as comforting fairy tales, and yes I'm referring to his non-fiction essays.

Re:Dear Puritans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732444)

This slashdot story was only put up to induce exclamations of superiority from the leftoid assholes that most slashdotters are... and over and over you're too happy to take the bait.

Is tit wrong.... (5, Funny)

MountainMan101 (714389) | about 4 years ago | (#33732190)

I just love the endless amusement of typing "Is it wrong..." into google and seeing the list (to sleep with my dog/brother/mother).

Well done Google.

Re:Is tit wrong.... (1)

ZeRu (1486391) | about 4 years ago | (#33732602)

I just love the endless amusement of typing "Is it wrong..." into google and seeing the list (to sleep with my dog/brother/mother).

Well done Google.

And my favourite is: "is it wrong to sleep with your step dad after your mom dies"

Re:Is tit wrong.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732994)

why, thank you. i guess i'll waste some tome in this now. i actually started with "is it", and got some gems like

is it possible to have purple eyes (after observer has taken some drugs ?)
is it easy to be young (ok, this at least is the name of a movie...)
is it friday yet
is it monday (gotta be a hard day)
is it just me
is it getting better

interestingly, "should i" gives "should i write him" as one of results. "should i write her" is not there.

plus 5, Troll) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732196)

megs of ram runs to stick somCething YES!

I'm surprised. (3, Interesting)

stimpleton (732392) | about 4 years ago | (#33732210)

I read the list. I was expecting words that usually mean something everyday but have broadened to include potential offensive material. Amateur for example.

What surprises me is the list includes words where the definition would have to be known, and the person consciously wants to find the subject matter. a2m for example.

But its broader. A few choice ones on the list: fecal(legitmate medical/anotomical usage), lesBian, and finally, redtube gets the censor treatment.

I like the comment next to "cucold" - this one dates back to 1250, but it dies here.

And google has the gaul to climb on a soap box about censorship, the great wall filters of Australia etc.

Re:I'm surprised. (5, Insightful)

Necroloth (1512791) | about 4 years ago | (#33732244)

is it censorship when they still allow you to search the terms?

Re:I'm surprised. (2, Interesting)

jimthehorsegod (1210220) | about 4 years ago | (#33732304)

is it censorship when they still allow you to search the terms?

Yes, in some cases - FTFA:

However, even when your request isn't blacklisted, you're not getting the SAME results that you would get by hitting return. Entering "murder" into the search bar gets you suggestions of mostly band names. It's only after you hit return that you can learn the other sinister meaning of the word.

Re:I'm surprised. (4, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33732624)

But the point GP was making is, if you want the full list you just have to hit enter. Effectively you just have to do what you would have had to do a couple of weeks ago before the new service launched. If we're already so accustomed to using live search that the gargantuan effort of having to hit enter to see results which some people might find offensive (and let's face it, the whole reasoning behind this is to prevent the even bigger public outcry we would see when little Jimmy starts typing his search for "cuneiform" for his school history project and risks going blind three letters in) is considered "censorship", then we probably have bigger things to worry about. Either that or someone with an agenda - a competitor or someone trying to sell clicks with censorship horror stories - is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Re:I'm surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732740)

Even if it is well-intended, it IS still censorship. It's just that we think it is perfectly normal to censor what kids are allowed to see/read.

Thus, it is hypocritical of us to argue that this censorship (think of the children) is OK while the other (China needs to do it for national security reasons) isn't. Simply put, it is hypocritical to define censorship in terms of whether you agree with the censoring or not.

Re:I'm surprised. (5, Insightful)

Stile 65 (722451) | about 4 years ago | (#33732636)

I'm pretty sure this is a feature, not censorship.

Imagine being at work and searching for something like "white power cord" or something. Now, yes, you could go to Google Shopping to search for it, or turn off Instant if you're going to be searching for things like that, but most people won't, and do you really want your company seeing you search for "white power?"

As an example, I'm going to be raising some chickens in a while so I was looking up "how to test for salmonella." The instant search suggestion when I typed the "s" in "salmonella" was "STDs." I'd rather not be seen searching for *that* at work.

It just makes sense that Google would avoid doing things that'll trip up your company's web filters if you're searching for innocuous things that temporarily turn less innocuous due to Google's own features and default settings.

Re:I'm surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732786)

You're weird. I often google stuff I'm curious about. Yes, I googled several of the words listed in the article and in comments. At work. So what? If my boss has an issue with me wondering what the hell "cucold" is, but won't mind me reading slashdot on my lunch break....well, let's just say *I* refuse to feel ashamed about it and I'll be mad at him for spying on me.

Then again, I'm not american...

Re:I'm surprised. (3, Insightful)

fbjon (692006) | about 4 years ago | (#33732818)

How difficult is "hitting return to get full results"? Stop with the censorship bandwagon already, it's embarrassing when there is actual censorship going on in the world. And no, it's not a matter of varying degrees of it, this is barely even a metaphor for censorship.

Re:I'm surprised. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 4 years ago | (#33732860)

So your claiming that censorship is defined as; any search engine interface that uses more than the absolute minimum number of keystrokes?

Re:I'm surprised. (3, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about 4 years ago | (#33732670)

it's basicaly a feature; What if you had to check something for school about different sexualities but before you finnished typing you get a list of all kinds of gay porn shit. Great succes when somebody else might be watching...

That said you can still just hit the fucking Enter button and search it -_-'

Re:I'm surprised. (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33732986)

VINCENT (1105021) wrote:

it's basicaly a feature; What if you had to check something for school about different sexualities but before you finnished typing you get a list of all kinds of gay porn shit.

Um, isn't "gay porn shit" perfectly valid in the context of "different sexualities"?

To me, it looks like you're fine with hiding what you are prejudiced against (else, why bring up the word "gay" at all?). Which is up to you, of course, but then you have to allow for others to censor based on their prejudices.
So it would be fine with you if the Google Taiwan hid search results if the user typed Falun, or Google Israel hid search results for Vayoel Moshe or Shatila?

What's wrong in all cases is enforcing one's own convictions and morals on others. People have a right to live by their own standards, not what well-meaning politicians or trailer trash voters want for them. Let everybody have their own moral standards and prejudices, but don't ever let them enforce them on others.

Re:I'm surprised. (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33732788)

Yes, it is still censorship when you hide something. This is very much analogous to the situation a few decades ago where some public libraries removed the card from the customer accessible index for "Lady Chatterley's Lover", and only lent it out if customers asked for it directly. That was deemed to be censorship even though the book was technically available.
What Google does is almost identical -- you can only get the results by asking directly, where you can browse everything else.

The big difference is that Google is a privately held company, which protects it for now (but its size and near-monopoly situation might cause this to change).

Re:I'm surprised. (1)

Dr. Smoove (1099425) | about 4 years ago | (#33732944)

no, it likely has more to do with compute power, or possibly instant using a separate hash for searching than the regular search. Typical arm flailing about how evil google is.

Re:I'm surprised. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732312)

And google has the gaul to climb on a soap box about censorship, the great wall filters of Australia etc.

Grammar Nazi says: That's gall not gaul. Gauls are French people (technically some Germans are Gauls as well, but I digress).

It's really not censorship, as they still allow you full access the content. They are just making sure that you have a chance to save yourself if you type 'goat selection' and miss the space :)

Re:I'm surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732358)

Grammar Nazi says: That's gall not gaul. Gauls are French people (technically some Germans are Gauls as well, but I digress).

What's that got to do with grammar?

Re:I'm surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732446)

Well, it'd be a spelling error if it was no word at all, but since 'gaul' is a word it's closer to a two/too/to situation.

It's a pain telling the difference between the two, and it's got gray areas all over.

Personally I use this Rule of Thumb: if your spell checker catches it then it's a spelling issue, if not it's a grammar problem.

Re:I'm surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732892)

I'd say word choice is more a matter of semantics than of grammar. A sentence can be grammatically perfect while still using the wrong words to convey what was intended.

Re:I'm surprised. (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about 4 years ago | (#33732676)

stimpleton has got a human spell checker slave... great succes...

If I were to guess (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33732328)

They just took terms that have a high probability of having something many would consider offensive showing up in the first few results. You have to remember they haven't disabled the searches, just disabled the instant search (which I hate anyhow). So you can type in the search press enter and Google will search as normal. What it won't do is instantly search.

That might be why there are some normally benign terms there, because when searched for they come up with potentially offensive links.

I'm ok with this idea. They aren't stopping the terms from being searched for, they aren't reordering their search. They are just trying to make sure people don't accidentally see things that would get them mad at Google. While I'm a proponent of the idea that people should stop being so whiny and easily offended, that doesn't mean Google shouldn't be pragmatic about it. This doesn't really affect anything in the big scheme of things.

Re:If I were to guess (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732504)

They aren't stopping the terms from being searched for, they aren't reordering their search. They are just trying to make sure people don't accidentally see things that would get them mad at Google.

They are heavily whitewashing search results. Most people won't even know about it. Therefor for all people using Google Instant, they are censoring search terms.

I ask myself, will they stop there? Will every new Google product be sanitised for prudes, the politically-correct and religious fanatics? I find this troubling because it advances the trend to turn a once free medium into another "family-friendly", sterile abomination, for the sake of religious assholes, soccer-moms, corporations and politicians.

Re:If I were to guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732656)

How did people previously search if they don't understand the concept of hitting enter - did they just type in the input field then dumbly sit there wondering what all the fuss about Google was? Besides, it's their search results, they can show whatever they please - if they just wanted to serve a single page result for every possible search which was a link to buy Google products, they're well within their rights. It's not censorship for a company to show you a restricted subset of its data - if the government was forcing them to do this then it would be censorship, or if there was no way to see the full results, then it would be censorship. Having one extra key to press to see your results is as close to censorship as newsagents placing adult magazines on the top shelf.

Re:If I were to guess (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | about 4 years ago | (#33732622)

It's a hack. Here they have this idea they can't use to its fullest extent because of societal "norms". Rather than putting out a dumb system that's predictable, they're having to put in all these exceptions.

Right at the top of the list they have "are".

Yes, as in "Are we there yet?" and "You are going to hurt yourself."

Here's the entry from TFA:

are (this is a VERY interesting one. if you stick "are" after the following words, the blacklist kicks in: jews, christians, catholics born-again christians, evangelical christians, atheists, muslims, blacks, italians, mexicans, chinese, japanese, germans, arabs, french. the blacklist does NOT kick in when these words are entered before "are": terrorists, scientologists, agnostics, seventh day adventists, jehovah's witnesses, mormons, protestants, evangelists, pentecostalists, columbians, panamanians, iranians, iraqis, koreans, persians, turks.)

I don't even know what to say. It just seems arbitrary and... I don't know. The closest word that comes to mind is unequal. You can argue that it doesn't block searching for any of those terms but just tries to keep google from looking bad. From my PoV, it feels like limited protection for some and light censorship for others. They can tweak the list 'til the end of time but people will still game the system and vulgar shit will slip through.

Re:I'm surprised. (5, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | about 4 years ago | (#33732332)

It is not protection from naughty stuff, it is protection from embarassing searches.

Say you are googling "Amateur Astronomy" with someone looking over your shoulder - do they really need to see "Amateur As" partial result (lots of porn links on that page)?

They don't, neither do you. If you really want that result, press enter.

Pretty much all of those terms lead to porn results on first page of searches (lots of seo power...).

Re:I'm surprised. (5, Interesting)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 4 years ago | (#33732432)

Say you are googling "Amateur Astronomy" with someone looking over your shoulder - do they really need to see "Amateur As" partial result (lots of porn links on that page)?

I actually played around with this. If you pause, whatever google instant is suggesting that you search for becomes part of your browser history. So yeah, that could be a problem, especially at work.

Re:I'm surprised. (1)

DarkIye (875062) | about 4 years ago | (#33732652)

True - and exactly the same thing could lead to varying degrees of trouble at work, due to automated systems or passers-by. Why hasn't Google made a statement to this effect, though? 'Trying to not offend people like pussies' was definitely the first impression I got.

Re:I'm surprised. (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#33732852)

Imagine now doing a search for "amateur pole vaulting"...

Re:I'm surprised. (2, Insightful)

Hope Thelps (322083) | about 4 years ago | (#33732940)

It is not protection from naughty stuff, it is protection from embarassing searches.

Yes, but not embarrasing for you, embarrasing for Google. Google doesn't want to have suggested to your children that they should be searching for "amateur ass". Google doesn't want to have suggested to your children that they search for "God is evil" in case some group is outraged at them for doing so - nobody is likely to have typed in "god is evi" if they weren't going there anyway, it's not going to embarrase you at work (or if it was then you wouldn't be typing it), but it's not something Google wants to have suggested.

Re:I'm surprised. (1)

urodawdziek (1911498) | about 4 years ago | (#33732354)

yes

Re:I'm surprised. (2, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 years ago | (#33732390)

There's no censorship here. Merely hiding potentially unsavory searches from people that aren't looking for them. You can still reach everything you want to about amateur porn in Gaul, for instance, while I make fun of people that have the gall to come down on one side of a topic without apparently understanding it completely.

Re:I'm surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732566)

gall not gaul

Re: Try 'Google Sucks' (1)

newviewmedia.com (1137457) | about 4 years ago | (#33732832)

Find it interesting that the term 'Google Sucks' is also not on instant. What happened to unbiased search results?

Test how much Slashdot allows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732214)

B*lg**m.

Re:Test how much Slashdot allows (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 years ago | (#33732330)

B*lg**m.

"Bill Gates" has two 'l' and ends in 's'.

Re:Test how much Slashdot allows (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about 4 years ago | (#33732682)

That's either Belgium, or B*l*g*0*m = 0

Fair enough (4, Insightful)

Nick Fel (1320709) | about 4 years ago | (#33732220)

Most people aren't going to want to accidentally see the contents of that list when they use Google at work, or with their kids. We've hit enter for years and survived, I think we can still manage it.

Re:Fair enough (1)

xSander (1227106) | about 4 years ago | (#33732440)

uh, was SafeSearch not enough? It's on by default.

This reeks of censorship -- they should have an option next to the box to turn it off, like they had previously.

Re:Fair enough (5, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 4 years ago | (#33732536)

Many people have SafeSearch always off.

This is to stop you getting porn when you're trying to look for something else - or someone is looking over your shoulder.

Assignment will get you quite a bit of stuff by the time you typed the first three letters.

And you can JUST PRESS ENTER. Wow, problem solved. Don't break your fingers buddy. Not censorship at all - its more a case of "Don't show me porn unless I ask for it".

Re:Fair enough (2, Interesting)

elewton (1743958) | about 4 years ago | (#33732592)

It's just too unpredictable.
The above-mention "a2m" could easily be a part of a serial code I'm entering, and I appreciate google's assuming that, if I want potentially embarrassing content, I can be bothered to press enter.

I also don't want to become sexually aroused during work, and appreciate this rare display of understanding of human nature.

This is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732224)

... I don't dare even to initiate a search on google for "child portraits"... by the time I finish typing all the letters, I'm afraid of my door being knocked-down.

Oh, well... I'm more into nature landscape photography anyway.

Re:This is why... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732338)

No, it's because you're a pussy.
Enjoy your freedom.

do77 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732226)

HoweveR I don't distributions

Nipples (4, Funny)

Inda (580031) | about 4 years ago | (#33732242)

I giggled like a little schoolgirl when I read that.

We, the family, were talking about nipples last Sunday at dinner.

Our guinea pig, Jason, died a few weeks back. We were never sure if he was a boy guinea pig or a girl guinea pig. My daughter, 10, said he must have been a girl as he had nipples. We all smiled and corrected her - boys have nipples too.

Nipples. I'm still giggling like a girl (with nipples).

Google Morality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732248)

I wonder what happens if someone searches for a word Google considers naughty, will they be categorized as naughty people?. Will they be subject to naughty commercials?

Hot grits (4, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 4 years ago | (#33732274)

Just checked "portman petrified hot grits" isn't blocked so obviously the censors are falling down on the job!

Re:Hot grits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732318)

Just checked "portman petrified hot grits" isn't blocked so obviously the censors are falling down on the job!

Ah, no. I asked them to whitelist that one.

Sergei

Filter on results (4, Interesting)

golden age villain (1607173) | about 4 years ago | (#33732322)

Could it be that this system blacklists the words based on the content to be displayed and not based on the input itself?

Re:Filter on results (2, Informative)

Hope Thelps (322083) | about 4 years ago | (#33732400)

Could it be that this system blacklists the words based on the content to be displayed and not based on the input itself?

No. For example "amateur[anything]" is blocked. So "amateur", "amateur theatrics", "amateur night", "amateurish", "amateur diy" etc etc are all blocked. It's implausible to suppose that no combination produces acceptable search results. Also "[anything] is evil" is blocked. Thid is definitely a blacklist of search term patters, not results.

Re:Filter on results (3, Interesting)

Haeleth (414428) | about 4 years ago | (#33732464)

Blocking "amateur" is interesting. The first page of Google results I get for the word doesn't include anything remotely NSFW -- but the related searches list is almost entirely related to amateur porn. I wonder if that's what's triggering the block.

I certainly can't believe that Google would go with a static blacklist this complicated.

Re:Filter on results (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | about 4 years ago | (#33732772)

And"[anything] is evil"? e.g. "hatred is evil", "god is evil", "atheism is evil", "evil is evil", "slashdot is evil" are all blocked. Does absolutely any phrase ending in "is evil" always have undersirable related searches? It seems far more plausible to me for that one that they don't want Google to be seen to be 'suggesting' that something is evil when that something may be important to the person doing the search. Which suggests that at least part of this is a blacklist of search patterns.

(And personally I don't find their actions here objectionable, but I do think that if that is what they are trying to do then it is essentially unworkable - okay "allah is evil" won't be suggested but I start with "allah is " and it suggests "satan").

Stupidest censorship tag ever. (5, Insightful)

bistromath007 (1253428) | about 4 years ago | (#33732324)

This has nothing to do with censorship. They just don't want people searching "assignment" to have their screen jammed full of porn before you finish typing.

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33732410)

I read this story years ago, probably in Electronics Australia. A science museum set up a computer terminal so that people could type on it and play with the buttons. Unfortunately school children left the screen covered with naughty words so a clever admin created a blacklist of words which could not be typed. Unfortunately there had to be a way to display and edit the blacklist...

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732420)

Fair enough; "ass" is a proper prefix.

But what about terms like "bisexuality" that get censored as soon as you enter "bisex"? How many words starting with "bisex" that are NOT related to bisexuality are there? Checking Wiktionary [wiktionary.org] , for example, it appears that there's none.

Also, here's the current first page of results for "bisexuality", and as you can see, it does NOT contain any porn:

* Bisexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality
* Welcome To The American Institute Of Bisexuality - www.bisexual.org/
* Bisexual FAQ - https://www.msu.edu/~alliance/faq/faqbisexuality.html
* Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited - New York Times - www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html
* Bisexuality: A unique sexual orientation - www.religioustolerance.org
* The Bisexual Index | What is Bisexuality? - www.bisexualindex.org.uk/index.php/Bisexuality
* Bisexual Resource Center - Supporting Bisexual Community - biresource.net/
* Bisexuality - Wikiquote - en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bisexuality
* Bisexuality 101: Am I bisexual? - National Bisexuality | Examiner.com - www.examiner.com/bisexuality-in.../bisexuality-101-am-i-bisexual
* WHAT IS BISEXUALITY? By Kathy Labriola - www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef/Poly/Labriola/bisexual.html

So, what is the justification for censoring this term, given that A) there is no unrelated topic that you could be searching for when you type "bisex", and B) none of the results are offensive in any way, anyway?

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (0, Redundant)

dissy (172727) | about 4 years ago | (#33732544)

"So, what is the justification for censoring this term"

Because you can hit enter and see the search results on all of those terms.

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | about 4 years ago | (#33732434)

This has nothing to do with censorship. They just don't want people searching "assignment" to have their screen jammed full of porn before you finish typing.

I agree that it isn't censorship but I think it's harder to work out what the intention is than that, For example patterns like "[anything] is evil" are blocked - I don't think that really fits in with your explanation. Whatever they're trying to do it doesn't look like they've done it very well.

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (1)

tokul (682258) | about 4 years ago | (#33732502)

They just don't want people searching "assignment" to have their screen jammed full of porn before you finish typing.

Then enable safe search for by default and require users to login in order to disable it.

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (1)

Stile 65 (722451) | about 4 years ago | (#33732644)

Some people don't like having their porn search history attached to their account.

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33732876)

Now that would be censorship, considering people generally don't want to be logged in and tracked while searching certain terms, requiring a login to search those terms would effectively prevent them conducting said searches. How is that better than just requiring that people hit enter?

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732542)

This has nothing to do with censorship. They just don't want people searching "assignment" to have their screen jammed full of porn before you finish typing.

They are suppressing information/search results, without the vast majority of people even knowing.

What makes you think they'll stop there? Why not make every service Google squeaky clean to only provide a happy funtime family Internet?

When THE search engine starts to sanitize web searches, you know the days of an open, free and varied Internet will be over. If Google hides content because somebody somewhere might object to it - due to their narrow-mindedness - it's as close to "removed from the web" as it gets.

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732704)

Can I have search that cen... removes the religious sites from my search. No, wait. I require that Google removes all religious search results.

Yes I know, but I still call it censorship. You cannot suddenly change to meaning of the word when you do not like the context.

Re:Stupidest censorship tag ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732918)

Am I the only one who read the list and learned new phrases? e.g. wrinkled starfish. I'd always heard of a chocolate starfish, which is not blocked.

Also, doesn't google have a safe search option that self-censors its output?

I don't know which is more sad... (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about 4 years ago | (#33732346)

I don't know which is more sad: Google thinking "lolita" needs to be protected or that the people keeping the list only know it as a reference to a film and never mention the book.

I also don't know which is more sad: that the Spanish word for "black" is considered so offensive just because it might be used by a racist or that a word for rooster is considered offensive just because it could be used sexually.

I just noticed, BTW, that even turning SafeSearch off doesn't prevent this particular Instant filter.

Also, I noticed that not only is "latino" okay and "latina" not, but although "negro" is filtered "negra" is not. Probably because the first page of results are a commercial product (Negra Modelo beer)?

I think their new addition is failing, too, because "marij" through "marijuan" give great results for "marijuana" even though "marijauna" itself is blocked.

Everyone is right but.... (1, Troll)

Alexvthooft (1798010) | about 4 years ago | (#33732364)

Okay I know they are putting this on the blacklist, but it isn't like you can't search for it anymore.
It's simply that 'instant' doesn't show it right away.
In my opinion a good thing so that any child misspelling anything (cumeleon --> Chameleon) and stuff like that, doesn't get inappropriate sites right away.
I think it's sort of a good thing.

Re:Everyone is right but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732414)

Porn does not harm children

Re:Everyone is right but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732530)

+1 Clueless.

(Child) Porn does not harm children?

Re:Everyone is right but.... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 4 years ago | (#33732848)

I would bet anything that if adults didn't make a big deal about sex (and porn), that child porn would indeed not harm them.

Re:Everyone is right but.... (1)

delinear (991444) | about 4 years ago | (#33732904)

It does if they're at school when they bring up a page full of pornographic results just as the teacher looks over. Similarly if I'm at work there are certain results I would rather live didn't return by default.

Blacklisted? (1)

nomad-9 (1423689) | about 4 years ago | (#33732368)

"Censorship", "Blacklisted", etc.. are too strong words to describe the simple act of having to type an extra Enter key.

AFAIK, you still get your search results, so what's the big fucking deal?

You want "pamela anderson" "naked" with her huge "titties" ? Press enter.

Also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732386)

"loli" is also blocked. This may be why "lolita" was included.

new porNographers (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 4 years ago | (#33732462)

browsed it briefly. Learnt a few new words.

Kind of dumb that "new porNographers" was listed there, as "porN" is already mentioned on its own.

Curious that "belgium" is deemed not offensive at all :)

Not a blacklist as such... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732524)

it strikes me that this is not a simple list of words. Google most likely has either a list of porn sites, or a nice algo for determining if a site contains porn or not (srsly, you could just use web traffic and probably get a 90% correlation with porn sites).

i think it's a matter of once your insta-search starts hitting known porn links (or other flagged sites) as suggestions, google chops the list off.

that's how i'd do it, rather than employing people to run words through google and log the sites that come up.

(lol, my recaptcha is "drilled". i wonder if that triggers it?)

hmmm (1)

ampathee (682788) | about 4 years ago | (#33732572)

I wonder whether it's actually a manually maintained blacklist, or whether the decision to block the search is made after (automatically) examining the results generated by it.

Re:hmmm (2, Interesting)

sam_handelman (519767) | about 4 years ago | (#33732606)

I doubt the second - very processor intensive.

  However, I propose a third option, that the blacklist is automatically maintained.

  That is, they classify web-pages: offensive, Y/N? And then their index automatically tags terms strongly associated with offensive web-pages, which are automatically blacklisted. This is how you'd get "white power" (present on many offensive webpages), but not "black power" (present mainly in scholarly articles, let's be blunt). This is why you'd get "futanari" and not "hermaphrodite", this is why "schoolgirl" is offensive, etc.

Can't Search Family Now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732598)

Great, now I can't find my Uncle Gay Man Anal Sex Insertion on the Web through Google! My grandparents admitted it was a poor choice for a name, but they never would have guessed this.

Hit Enter? (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 4 years ago | (#33732692)

Don't you mean Return, bitch?

finally an effective to disable google instant (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732732)

sweet now I just have to begin all my searches with '-a2m' and finally never be bothered by google shitstant search.

# of 'banned' words books thoughts increasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33732768)

at least we're safe from being bombarded with the dirty truth?

This is not bloody censorship (1, Insightful)

GauteL (29207) | about 4 years ago | (#33732782)

Sometimes I get sick of the Slashdot knee-jerk mentality about anything that is remotely connected to free speech or censorship.

First, many, many people surf the net with safe search OFF. This does not mean that you want porn showing up on every search, it doesn't even mean you want to get porn at all. You may simply want to make your own mind up about your search results. This works completely fine when you have to press enter to get your search results, because you can make a reasonably sound judgement about whether your search is safe before you press enter.

When Google introduced instant, however, it suddenly wasn't so clear-cut. It would be ridiculously annoying if I had to make that judgement before every single letter I typed. It would also completely ruin the point of Google Instant, which is to make life easier for me.

Google clearly decided that the most convenient thing for the vast majority of their users would be that they filter out naughty searches until you press enter. Perhaps they should have advertised this a bit more clearly, and perhaps they should allow you to turn it off, but overall this is a sensible solution and they can, in good conscience, claim that they still allow you to get all the naughty searches you want. You just have to press bloody enter.

I actually hope Google doesn't give a toss about the tiny minority that gets worked up about this.

oh shit oh shit (1)

eyenot (102141) | about 4 years ago | (#33732854)

Oh shit is this about my RIGHTS, online?
Oh hell let me read this shit... alright...
yeah... uh-huh... okayyy... soooo Google's
search engine was masquerading as a tool of
censorship the whole time? ... wait... noooo
that's not it... alright... no it's just a
measure of legal protection on their behalf.

WELL WTF... my rights weren't even involved.

Well at least /. helped me demonstrate my
online right to freely click-through and
waste my time on the internet! Thanks!

They missed some (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 4 years ago | (#33732928)

If you just type dyk, it still autocompletes dykes on bikes

Also darkr and leather roo still yield the expected completions.

And fann, ...

quick search in browser (1)

slyrat (1143997) | about 4 years ago | (#33732952)

Am I the only one who never goes to the google page for searching and instead always uses the google search through the search bar in the browser? It just seems so much easier and quicker, especially when you know the keyboard commands to jump to that text entry. I guess I'm just in the minority.

goat.se (1)

Smask (665604) | about 4 years ago | (#33732980)

Why does 2600 hate Göran Persson?

Useless blog (1)

Fizzl (209397) | about 4 years ago | (#33733004)

And you just have to post a link to the useless blog post instead of the actual list at the more respected source, 2600 [2600.com] .

whats the approach? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33733016)

Is it definitely a search term blacklist, or might they be filtering based on the results?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?