Madeleine McCann horrible jokes on Google

[Siane]

Hi - I recently missed the news headlines and knew there was one about MM, so I went to Google and tapped in her name into the search engine. As you know, as you begin to type, suggestions drop down below. The first one was obviously her full name. The second one is, 'Madeleine McCann Jokes'. I nearly fell off my chair. I am aware they are on the web, but this is Google, actively directing people towards this self contained category. And - Google should direct people to the most searched option. However, there is 136,000 of these pages compated to over 3,000,000 for Michael Jackson. They have taken down that category (i.e. Michael Jackson Jokes) as it is inappropriate. They have removed any suggestions for porn sites, or other offensive material. However, when I got in contact with them they will not stop directing people to Madeleine McCann Jokes. I am furious with them - just because they are massive and corporate...can they not apply some BASIC ethics? Anyway, the only way they'll listen is if other people come forward. I've got a petition set up but only 6 friends have signed it! Please help me and sign. Imagine if your child was missing and when you or your mum, or husband tapped her name into Google to find out any developments, the category 'Jokes' appeared immediately under her name, before 'news' or 'own website' or anything.
Here's the link.
Please help - I'm determined to remove this material just to take away one other source of angst from her family, tiny in comparison though it might be.
thank you.
www.petitiononline.com/nohateMM/petition.html

You seem to lack any understanding of the fact that morals and standards are relative and you are one voice. You do not embody the moral code of the world and I find your repeated assertions of what is and is not offensive both tedious and naive.
My 4 year old understands that people think differently from one another, better than you do. I am arguing against you, it just appears that nuance and moral ambiguity go over your head.

siane explores a valid point.where is the line,is there a corporate responsibility about what sites google display.or is the dollar, king and one has individual choice not to click

many others start petitions or campaign about content they dont like.here on MN people exercised their individual choice and there were complaints on Mumsnet about Madeleine McCann advert

no one is compelled to sign Siane petition but she is expressing her concerns

whether or not you agree with that is your choice

And whether to find something offensive or not is my choice, a choice siane seems to want to make for everyone by asserting her own opinion as am unarguable fact. That is what I have a problem with, though I disagree with her petition, I defend her right to act as she sees fit, its called freedom of expression.

Thanks Scottishmummy.
Proverbial, aren't sites which pedal hate as content usually considered offensive to a body of people? I feel like I'm in a parallel universe where it's as if we're arguing whether asparagus tastes nice or not - or something completely subjective. I don't think I'm a lone voice in saying joke sites about killing children are offensive. I'm pretty confident others agree and I'm sorry but that doesn't make me tedious, naive or whatever else you want to say. I think it's a pretty normal reaction and it's also one I should be allowed to hold. I am not advocating Google monitor content. I am asking that they refrain from suggesting certain sites when an unrelated search is typed in. I understand that you feel differently so why don't we just leave that there? Thank you.

I don't think you have understand what I have said. Sites which pedal racial hatred are of course offensive to most people (inc me), but that is not the same thing as jokes about a news item.
You can hold whatever opinion you like, as can I, as can anyone. Unless it is something you can hold to tested standard (there are laws against inciting racial hatred, for example, which makes for a far stronger case for censorship of related sites) you are on a very shaky basis for requesting censorship of such sites. And since the search prompts are set by volume of data available and frequency of searches, the very fact that it comes up as a suggestion means that people are both providing those jokes you find so offensive and are searching for them. So you therefore are advocating that google go with your opinion over theres, and you may well be in the minority.

But the underlying point is that it is all subjective, from asparagus to murder to everything else. There are no moral absolutes and what you think of as normal reaction may not be to someone else. You may be pretty confident that others agree, and you are probably right, but the fact that the search suggests the thing at all means many many people do not.

Is that a little clearer?

So Google have interferred edited the pages for the search for Michael jackson, but not MM? How is that justified?

i imagine the MJ lawyers are very litigious,and that scares google into action

peddle

please can we use the right words

thank you

You're right, there's no moral absolutes. But Google have taken a position on one area and not another. And the area which they have filtered out of their suggestions is pornography, and that includes any pornography, even the legal stuff. So they have taken a judgement, based on presumably what they find unacceptable. What I'm arguing for is that they either leave it all alone, and allow the data to be streamed as you say, according to the number of searches, or they don't and they overlay a filter. The policy to which they adhere states that they will not suggest sites with pornography, racial hatred, other forms of hate or violence as their content. I'm arguing that 'jokes' or fake descriptions of what may have happened to MM fall into that category. Calling them jokes makes it seem trivial, but it's not. A lot of the content is vile. So I don't think it needs to be against a tested standard, or against volume as porn is legal and has the highest amount of traffic. I think they could easily apply a filter so that if you do want to access this material, or course you can, but they really don't need to proactively suggest it. Off for a large wine and a fag now. Thanks for the thought you've given it. I don't mean to sound self righteous, far from it. I'm wondering if I'm right or wrong. I'm just going on their logic, which I think is flawed, and my feelings as a mother which I wondered whether other mothers might share. I'm not trying to say it's inarguable, I'm going on the premise that if one feels offended, it's usually because something was offensive, at least to a minority.

I apologise if I came across as overbearing or agressive, I've had a loong day. Its just that this topic combines 2 of my personal pet peeves, moral relativity and censorship (I'm a philosophy student, I can't help it)
Anyway, lets agree to disagree. Good luck with your petition, I don't agree with it, but if you do, well done for acting on your principles instead of just complaining.

Thanks Proverbial. Thought you might be into philosophy when you talked about moral relativity! I doubt if I'll get far - I'm a little David against a big Goliath but we'll see. And I know there's worse things out there to get wound up about. (and I do!) They're writing to me tomorrow apparently. Night night. x

Siane I have just googled both , and jokes come up under both names , so I really don't know what you mean when you say google have taken this position for one and not the other ? Pornography is different in that there are legal age restrictions on who can look at pornography
I really don't know what the problem is ,you don't have to click on teh link if you don't want to.I really object to you deciding what I (or any other googler) might be offended by.
Am also surprised by your cooment about paedophiles killing children ,in relation to MM.Do you have some information the rest of us don't ?

Katiestar - Google decide what goes on, not me. Here's the paragraph from their policy.

I was seeing if other people agree with me. That's fine if you don't.
I'm leaving the thread now, I think the debate's been full circle - some agree, some don't, one or two are being abusive. Thank to all for the comments. I don't think it's clear cut and maybe nothing will come of it but I posted on here to hear both views and that's what I've got. Thanks.

Mumcentreplus....read my posting name!!!

Siane good luck with your petition, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Me too, well done Siane

Hello - thanks moonisatiredslayer and letsgostrawberrypicking. Really nice to get your posts. Ended up feeling a bit battered by some replies on thread and really questionning whether I was losing the plot but kept coming back to gut instinct that I just think it's unnecessary. Really don't think it's an enfringement of civil liberties to take off a suggestion from home page but others feel really strongly it is so guess there's two sides. Oh well! Thanks again,
S x

google are not suggesting anything. It is like a predictive text function - they autocomplete searches because that's what other people have searched for.

If you are searching for Madeline McCann there's a high chance it is for Madeline McCann jokes.

In any case, it is completely automated, Google do not do it, it is basically a snapshot of what the world is interested in, so it's silly to say that they are suggesting it.

Some things are censored:

wanking and masturbation
vagina
fuck
cunt, but not cuntflaps
penis
clitoris, but not "clitoral stimulation during childbirth"
shit but not shite

But TBH, the people getting upset about this sort of thing should probably be writing to Mary Whitehouse instead.

...we know what you spent today doing don't we Someguy? Where do they stand on cocksucker?

dunno, is it something you have expertise in?

And tbh perhaps the people who spend their time googling cuntflaps need to get a life.

Interesting what Google choose to censor out and what they won't consider...Personally, I find the jokes more offensive than vaginas or any of the other things that got googled. I would probably write to Mary Whitehouse - any old port in a storm - but she's, umm, dead.