Boycott Google!

I am a gal of inertia. When friends made the case for a Mac, I stuck with PCs. When tech sites lauded the advantages of Firefox and Opera, I stuck with IE. So it would take something major to pry me away from Google and into the hands of Yahoo/Bing, etc.

This is it: http://www.webpronews.com/google-preventing-u-s-users-from-disabling-safesearch-2012-12

Last straw. I will never use Google again.

Pls join me in making this a Web-wide movement. This has GOT to be repealed.

 

Like Tim, I almost never use Google.

I've been trying out DuckDuckGo (yes, that's actually the name of the search engine). It has no sponsored search results.

For giggles, I typed in "boobs". With safe search on, it generated zero results. Click the "off" button for safe search (the option comes up automatically on the results page) and the results pour in.

If you want to try it out, the website is www.duckduckgo.com.

 

I guess I'm confused. I have safe search disabled. All you have to do is go to search options. Just use the button next to the one labelled "safe search", and go to "search settings". It'll open a new tab. Uncheck the box for "filter explicit results". Voila! Nipples! Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Besides, I'm with Laura...seeing a bunch of porn when I'm trying to search for something legitimate is pretty annoying. I'm actually kind of glad they don't include it by default any more.

Actually, just checked, and you can also disable it from the drop-down. Just click on "filter explicit results". If there is a check mark, it'll go away. If there isn't a check mark, it'll put one there.

 

I don't object to it, I just hate having to hunt through multiple pages to find the setting I want. Used to be nothing more than a drop down, not that it ever remembered it.

 

Agree. I've been using them since scroggle.com bit the dust...

 

If I have a complaint, it is that the US "Safe Search disabled" setting seems to be as strict as the UK "Safe Search on Moderate". Not that I feel an urgent need for very explicit images to show up on my searches, but it always bothers me when someone else thinks they have a right to tell me what I am and am not allowed to view on the internet. Regardless of who they are.

So yes, I agree that being fed pornographic images when I'm searching for little blue birds can be annoying. Yet, if I ever do feel an urge to search for genuine porn online, it's probably going to piss me off that google is actively trying to prevent me from finding it. Who gave them that right?

 

apparently so. uncheck NO LONGER WORKS in the US and Canada.

either you are using Google UK/Google Oz etc or you haven't looked closely.

to the others commenting: it is not a question of the default setting - the option of turning it off is 100% gone. you cannot turn it off.

original thread: http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=272264

 

Test-searched for boob images on Bing, and that is definitely a lot more NSFW than Google's image search was. I may have given myself a slight inferiority complex. LOL

So.

Can anyone please recommend a thorough and versatile search engine that works like Google did before the morality police decided to make my decisions for me?

 

to expand on TimW's comment:

"You can have my boobs when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!!"

 

Well firstly the option on the drop down bar is in tact in Canada.
Secondly, unless you are looking for porn, what difference does it make?
Thirdly, if you are looking for porn then just use a standard search and don't be lazy.

Unless I'm missing something, I really don't see a point either way.

As for a company telling us what we can look at online, well really isn't the fact that we can look for absolutely ANYTHING a little flippant?
More laws need to be in place, you should not be able to find immoral material with any search, and if you want to look at porn it seemed to work well for many before the internet, magaines and movies... the difference is you mostly had to pay for them.
Personally I wouldn't care if they wiped out ALL searches to anything of that kind, maybe it needs to happen, far too many kids are seeing things they should not be seeing and all too easily.
The internet needs laws, there are not enough as it stands and that fact is allowing soooo many bad things to just grow and spread like wild fire.
Trouble being... it's world wide and all nations will never agree on whats bad and whats good.
It's simply a matter of levels or moral beliefs.

Edit: Actually I back Google in this, the image search is the way 95% of kids search for this stuff, so maybe look at it from that point of view, it might help

 

Why not?

 

"When boobs are outlawed, only outlaws will have boobs"

sorry, i'm on a roll here.

but yeah, i do look at it from the perspective of my kids. i would rather they know what boobs are than know what government censorship is.

ok, so google is a private company, i suppose they can do what they want. but i don't want me -- OR my kids -- supporting wannabe dictators. if i, as an adult female in the land of the free, am not worthy of seeing what i choose to see, then i am not worthy of seeing anything else on that site either.

i'm with mimsy. there's no place for morality police on the net.

 

Why not?... Mimsy really? I can search peoples personal information, pictures and videos of sexual abuse, how to make bombs, how to make weapons... incorrect information of health issues, I can buy a child from Russia or a Wife from China, how about I can find out how to make and distribute hardcore drugs to children and get maps to where would be the best places to sell, steals someones music, movie or art work... the list is absolutely endless and all... at the click of a button.

Most of the information I speak of should not even exist, let alone be available to you while having your morning coffee.

Rights play both ways, our rights to search... the affected folk's rights to not be abused for entertainment purposes or how about their rights not to be killed by a home made bomb?
Personally, this is one of the few "Red Tape" areas I agree should be heavily locked down.

The internet is a wonderful thing, but it's a very dangerous playground as you all well know, we know how bad things can get online... yet we complain when someone actually tries to do something about it?

It's one more thing where a small sacrifice for average Joe can have huge positive effects.

Remember, too much information, too easily available... a debt has to be paid in the end.

Of course this is just my own opinion

 

So you'd b ok with your kids looking at pictures of brutal executions and ****? Because that's up there just as easily.

There's a little too much concentration on the word "Boobs" here, that is the word the news article chose because it's light hearted, they would go with "Google Bans Shaved C***s" would they?

Think about the bigger picture and understand just what is out there.

Why do you need to look at executions or child porn etc etc? Anyone who wants to look at that .... shouldn't. But it's impossible to govern it that individually. So a blanket attack is needed, and that's exactly what they have done.

Edit: Also one other thing, out of curiosity, would someone affected by this please search "Naked Boobs" and "Naked Breasts" and also both with "Nude" instead of naked.
I think you'll be surprised

 

Yes, really.

I think you might have a better argument if Google had blocked any of that. But blocking pictures of naked boobs from people who actually do want to see them does not prevent a crime, nor does it protect an innocent person's rights from being violated. (Unless they were forced to pose naked, in which case their picture being available on the intern isn't in any way the biggest issue with that situation.)

Basically, removing the option to do a Google image search for naked boobs is prude, and serves no purpose other than to makes other prudes feel better and less scared of accidentally seeing a bit of skin when they didn't mean to.

Pornography is not illegal, viewing pornographic images are not a crime. None of your examples apply.

 

Of course not. Duh. The reason Safe Search exists in the first place is to stop just that.

Please try not to put words into our mouths and make us look stupid. Look at what I just posted and respond to that, not to what you'd have preferred to have me say that fits your pre-conceived notions about the morality/character of those who disagree with you.

 

Ok I must have misunderstood. I was under the impression they had removed the ability to turn safe search "Off".
Again as I understand it, it has little to do with "Boobs" and that was simply an example.
The nasty stuff doesn't come up unless you turn it off as well.

 

Yes, of course.

And who are you -- or a bunch of 30 yr olds in San Jose -- to tell me what my kids should or shouldn't see?! You had the OPTION to block this stuff. Wasn't that enough? Why do you have to go and deny everyone else who doesn't WANT it blocked??

Anyway, thanks for the tip about google.ca -- indeed still has the full-off option. Nice to know SOMEONE still lives in a free country.

 

That wasn't directed at you, hence the quote

And safe search is the easiest thing in the world to switch off.

How about this question.

Would anyone here like to actually give me an example of how this has directly affected them?... an example of a search that would be affected by it... other than "Boobs"?
This may help me understand the opposition to my opinion.

 

lol You're welcome.

I'm not telling what you can and can't view, you please yourself, it is of no consequence to me, I simply voiced my opinion which differs from yours.
But much of what I mentioned is actually illegal to view. So I think there's a chunky argument there too

 

The problem is that you can no longer fully turn it off. You can turn it to almost-off, which is nowhere close to the same.

Not if it's password locked, which has been an option from day one

I have a male friend who frequently uses the image serach to find pornographic pictures that he either bookmarks or keeps for his own viewing pleasure. He's an adult, his partner shares this hobby with him, and he lives in a part of the US where owning pornographic material is perfectly legal as long it doesn't feature children. He was initially relieved when I told him about this change to Google, right after I saw this thread, as he had some concerns that his ISP was monitoring and censoring his searches. And then he was livid.

After all, he is an adult and what he's doing is legal. What right does Google have to stop it?

As for me personally, I haven't been affected, but I am on general principle against censorship of any kind, and even more against the thought that anyone has a right to take a choice away from me for my own good. As CatT said, the option to block these images has always been there for those who want it. If they are too stupid or ignorant to use it, that's no one's fault but their own.

 

OK, clue us in. This entire thread wouldn't exist if this were the case.

 

Oh I agree, he is an adult and has every right to look at teh naughty stuff.
Problem being is in order to give him that small right, it automatically opens up all the doors that should be left closed.
Again, it's a small price to pay if you ask me.

Also like I mentioned in my first post, it's only the image search, type the same search into normal search and your choice is broadened.

I would think it works much better as a deterrent for youngsters, an adult should have no difficulty finding what they want through normal search, only difference is it's a little more work.

I can't say anymore on the subject, I think it's been blown way out of proportions with the fear of "Rights" being oppressed.
My views are my own and have been the same way for quite a while.

I'm sorry you guys are upset by it, CAT... don't really know you, hope no offence was taken, none intended.
@Mimsy... always respected the hell out of you and am not going to argue with you about something less important to me than my respect for you.

Peace out people

 

lol, you know what I meant :-D

Oh wait, did anyone test the "Naked Boobs" thing?

 

To be fair, my concern has a lot less to do with pictures of nipples, and a lot more to do with the worry that this is only the beginning. They've censored porn out of the image search, what is next? This first step could very well lead to similar actions taken against all other search methods, if the backlash is too mild to be a concern, and that is when things will go bad.

Right now, the internet is practically the only place in the world where you can find anything you want, when you want it, and without having to worry that a news network CEO who donated large amounts of money to a senator's election campaign will only let you see what he wants you to see. If that ever changes, it will start with the search engines. so yes, censoring any searches for any reason, is a bad sign. It implies a willingness to force the search engine creators' values and opinions on their users, and a belief that they should be allowed to do so, and there are all sorts of wrongs with that.

@Ned
The respect is mutual, and I agree that some things are not worth arguing over.

 

no, i don't know what you meant! i've been trying to SWITCH it OFF since the first post. that's pretty much ALL i've been trying to do.

 

The thought of censorship in a free society is something that makes me very angry.

If someone is afraid of what their kids might be seeing online there are plenty of options such as Windows Live Family Safety that will address the problem.

It's a bit like the "V" chip the FCC mandated on all TV sets about ten years ago. People whine about what's shown on TV; however I've yet to meet one person who set up their TV to block adult content shows.

 

given the current mood, i'm surprised they didn't begin by blocking photos of GUNS. and then other "violent" images, as ned would have them do.

it is particularly ironic, given the big anti-censorship "stand" google made in pulling out of the PRC. guess we're not worthy of the same freedoms.

come to think of it -- canada, mexico, UK, germany, france, Oz, NZ, japan, hong kong, singapore...are we the ONLY country denied free googling now?!

:mad

 

That would at least have made logical sense.

Yes. Why do you think this bothers me?

 

MMM, someone said boobs. :-D:-D

 

More censorship is needed... if you Image search "Lady"... guess what you get?... Now THAT should be blocked :-D

 

I don't see a problem with this...

 

I'm slightly curious. How can Google Chrome manage to not be able to open google.com? And then proceed to offer me the option to search for it. Via google search? I chose to believe this is a symptom of Chrome Rebelling against the lack of boobs on the google search.

Also Yahoo did something similar to this a few years ago, which is what caused me to abandon Yahoo Search. (In addition to being progressively less helpful.)

Also, in the first three pages of google image results for boobs, I found precisely 1 image which would be NSFW. Of course, safe search on returns zero results at all.

 

I too use DuckDuckgo as my default search engine and Pale Moon as my default browser.

My Google boobs search (I use encrypted) got 341k hits - if I click the safe search button, I get a 'filter explicit results' as the only option. Other options may be available using the settings button.

Note that you may get very different results to mine - I use DoNotTrackMe so the results shouldn't be weighted by my web history.

So, if I enabled tracking now, next month's search for boobs may only show the shape/size/colour/adornments/whatever that I like? Stay tuned...

 

boobs at least gets you OTHER pictures of boobs (covered up). the real problem is when you search on something which is inherently explicit. like the bl0wj0b example elsewhere in the article.

i'm not convinced their description of "explicit images" is even accurate. if you google on a porn star's name, you'd normally get a whole RANGE of photos, maybe 1/5 of which are actually lewd (rest harmless head shots, vid covers, etc). but with moderate safe search on, i get like NO results for such people.

so it seems to me that once the TERM is flagged as "often explicit", it's just filtered out wholesale. nothing about filtering out specific IMAGES as they claim.

and how would they DO that anyways? is pattern recognition really to the point where a search engine can distinguish a "bare nipple" from, say, a caper atop a heap of mashed potatoes?

methinks not.

 

mor·al
/ˈmôrəl/
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Noun
A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.

the human body is immoral? so I took a shower and that was immoral since I saw your mom nude? that's hilarious thinking.
I have a tendency to use "damnit" or "fcuk" when I play sports. I get told to watch my language,rarely.
huh? I have to censor my language? yet when I walk into stores,I still have to endure people smoking and physically harming my health? THAT's immoral!
by what I bolded.

I was raised in a home where the word, "the" is an offensive term, like the F-word or the N-word. so I get offended all the time. but I've learned to transpose "the" into something not offensive.
Too bad I cant turn 2nd hand smoke into gold.


I do agree with not liking cenorship on the internet. I know some chat sites(pogo.com) change word into **** when yuo curse.
That violates my 1st admentant right to free speech? no, it's their site.
If you dont like Gooogle censoring anything, then dont use google. much in the same way if I want an eggwhite omelete, waffle house will charge me 50cents/egg more to just get the eggwhites.
so I have to go somewhere else...or... find money to fund my reserch to breed chickens that only lay yolk-free eggs
http://thegirlsstuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/best_of_the_best_205.jpg

 

so i guess turning filter "on" in your own household was too much trouble for you? you prefer to WELD IT to the on position for the entire rest of the country?

 

:-D Your turn Laura

 

i dunno why you keep repeating "changed their search parameters". they had THREE settings -- off, filtered "moderate", and filtered "strict". now they have TWO - filtered "moderate" and filtered "strict". as Triaxx2 pointed out, filtered "moderate" represents something like 99% filtration.

the algorithms for moderate and strict will presumably stay the same. they have just REMOVED the "off" option. they most certainly DID "take something away"!

i dunno which setting you had it on for your daughter, but if it was already on strict and you were getting pictures of vag-o-kitten, then you will continue to do so. if you had it on moderate or off to begin with, then the fault was your own. depriving me of my own "off" will not change your search results.

 

and all YOU had to do was check "filter" in the first place, rather than having the rest of us parent your kid!

:mad

 

what gets me MORE is that google is labelling the reduction from 100% filtration to 99% filtration as "filtration OFF".

i smell a lawsuit in the offing here....

 

Some people just like to stir up the pot even more, don't they. Why?

Not you Laura.

 

you are giving so much misinformation it's making the rest of us dizzy. the "no reason" your kids stumbled across pron is that you HAD FILTRATION OFF!!!!

if you had it on and STILL got random pron, well then, surprise surprise, you'll still get it...NOW.

what am i missing here? who fixes a "defective" filtration by making it MANDATORY?! if it's defective, you should be looking for ways to DISABLE it, same as me.

it's like finding out the nonfat milk in the local supermarket is actually 1%...so we're gonna respond by taking WHOLE MILK off the shelves instead.

oh, yeah, and LABELLING the 1% "whole" from now on. google-style!

:cool