Page 4 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

globalwolf2010
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 106

07 Mar 2013, 10:24 am

I don't know that I disapprove of it being taken down, but that's mostly because I feel like Google needs to work on auto-complete to avoid "oddball" search phrases in general. No matter what you type, once you get past three words, you start picking up bizarre search suggestions that probably feed off of themselves to go higher and higher in the rankings. Who can resist the temptation of clicking on "Is bigfoot real?"

To put it into perspective, it's really necessary to think about why this probably shows up. The more bizarre results almost always link through to one website with the phrase, and a hundred others documenting the fact that Google suggests the phrase. This has turned into that, but in this case, even the original phrase appears to have been rhetorical. "autistics" is not a common word, and "autistics should" is probably not a common search. Therefore, anything involving that exact phrase is going to end up in the Google search bar quickly. The more extreme and offensive suggestions are going to get the most clicks, and so they're going to be more likely to show up in the future. By that point, even if the original statement was innocuous (ie., "some horrendous people think autistics should be killed"), the phrase is going to take on a life of its own.



Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

07 Mar 2013, 11:50 am

globalwolf2010 wrote:
I don't know that I disapprove of it being taken down, but that's mostly because I feel like Google needs to work on auto-complete to avoid "oddball" search phrases in general. No matter what you type, once you get past three words, you start picking up bizarre search suggestions that probably feed off of themselves to go higher and higher in the rankings. Who can resist the temptation of clicking on "Is bigfoot real?"

To put it into perspective, it's really necessary to think about why this probably shows up. The more bizarre results almost always link through to one website with the phrase, and a hundred others documenting the fact that Google suggests the phrase. This has turned into that, but in this case, even the original phrase appears to have been rhetorical. "autistics" is not a common word, and "autistics should" is probably not a common search. Therefore, anything involving that exact phrase is going to end up in the Google search bar quickly. The more extreme and offensive suggestions are going to get the most clicks, and so they're going to be more likely to show up in the future. By that point, even if the original statement was innocuous (ie., "some horrendous people think autistics should be killed"), the phrase is going to take on a life of its own.


This might be plausable except for the fact that the term "autistics should" isn't what was searched, it was "autistic people should", and that is a common term that people use. There's no way to know if what you're suggesting could be the case, but it sure as h**l didn't happen until people started with this mob mentality, and frankly in my book, that's good enough to suggest that people searched for that specific phrase, even if it was an "innocent" search, it was right to have it removed from auto-fill because in the long run it would have only caused problems. The auto-fill is determined by the frequency of the term(s) being searched for in the past and how many times it has been searched overall, which means that people have typed in those exact phrases enough to make them the primary auto-fill results.


_________________
Writer. Author.


globalwolf2010
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 106

07 Mar 2013, 12:32 pm

Jaden wrote:
This might be plausable except for the fact that the term "autistics should" isn't what was searched, it was "autistic people should", and that is a common term that people use. There's no way to know if what you're suggesting could be the case, but it sure as h**l didn't happen until people started with this mob mentality, and frankly in my book, that's good enough to suggest that people searched for that specific phrase, even if it was an "innocent" search, it was right to have it removed from auto-fill because in the long run it would have only caused problems. The auto-fill is determined by the frequency of the term(s) being searched for in the past and how many times it has been searched overall, which means that people have typed in those exact phrases enough to make them the primary auto-fill results.


Alright. For some reason (probably all of the other posts here), I thought the OP said "autistics" rather than autistic people. Still, the point I made doesn't really rely on the exact phrasing. I actually ran the search, and once I got past all of the posts about the auto-fill entry, there weren't any pages seriously suggesting that autistic people should die. Most of them were the opposite, and the rest just happened to have the words "autism" and "killed" on the same page. The only page that even seemed like a cruel joke was on Wiki Answers, and might actually be the originator of the entire thing (since it goes back to 2011). The one word answer "No" was given about three minutes after it was asked. After what happened at Sandy Hook, and with the publicity that autism received in the news after that, that bizarre and offensive question probably got a lot more hits than it ever had before just because people were looking up words like "autistic", "killed", "killer", and others that would bring it up. People look it up later with the exact words (very slightly modified from the actual question), and it ends up on auto-fill.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

07 Mar 2013, 4:49 pm

globalwolf2010 wrote:
Jaden wrote:
This might be plausable except for the fact that the term "autistics should" isn't what was searched, it was "autistic people should", and that is a common term that people use. There's no way to know if what you're suggesting could be the case, but it sure as h**l didn't happen until people started with this mob mentality, and frankly in my book, that's good enough to suggest that people searched for that specific phrase, even if it was an "innocent" search, it was right to have it removed from auto-fill because in the long run it would have only caused problems. The auto-fill is determined by the frequency of the term(s) being searched for in the past and how many times it has been searched overall, which means that people have typed in those exact phrases enough to make them the primary auto-fill results.


Alright. For some reason (probably all of the other posts here), I thought the OP said "autistics" rather than autistic people. Still, the point I made doesn't really rely on the exact phrasing. I actually ran the search, and once I got past all of the posts about the auto-fill entry, there weren't any pages seriously suggesting that autistic people should die. Most of them were the opposite, and the rest just happened to have the words "autism" and "killed" on the same page. The only page that even seemed like a cruel joke was on Wiki Answers, and might actually be the originator of the entire thing (since it goes back to 2011). The one word answer "No" was given about three minutes after it was asked. After what happened at Sandy Hook, and with the publicity that autism received in the news after that, that bizarre and offensive question probably got a lot more hits than it ever had before just because people were looking up words like "autistic", "killed", "killer", and others that would bring it up. People look it up later with the exact words (very slightly modified from the actual question), and it ends up on auto-fill.


Exactly, and I'm not sure if you came across my post that provided the link, but if a person uses the Google Key word search tool and types in a broad search on the phrase "autistic people should be Killed" a result of 28 monthly GLOBAL searches comes up and less than 10 monthly global searches on a "phrase" search.

Now that the issue has gone "viral" in the relatively small population of people identifying with the autism community, the search results may increase in the next several months.

But the measure of rationality of whether or not people are actually searching on this "exact phrase" rather than associated versions of it with the key words kill, die, and exterminate is in searches with other relatively unknown and not meaningful words in the general population that are used.

As an example I used my own unintelligible user name "Aghogday" in a broad search and a phrase search, and it returned 73 global searches. I have an RRBI associated with typing on the internet, and have typed about 5 million words in the last 2 and a half years. Most of which are associated with that user name here, that provides 110K actual search results using Google.

But, no one else uses that unintelligible user name but me in the searches. I have no idea why people would search on the unusual word, if not out of curiosity if it actually has a definition or a meaning somewhere, when they see it randomly in searches of completely unrelated issues they are interested in. I think this is pretty good evidence in itself, of how rarely society actually purposely types in the exact phrase "autistic people should be killed", in a Google search, at least until this month. :).


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

18 May 2013, 5:51 pm

As an update, now three months after it was discovered by someone in the Autism Community, that a Google Auto Complete search suggestion of "Autistic People Should be Killed", resulted from typing in the key words "Autistic People Should", all the negative search suggestion phrases after "Autistic People Should Be" are gone now from the Google Auto Complete search suggestions.

What is now the first phrase suggestion when one types in the "Autistic People Should be" phrase, is "Autistic People Should be Loved", coming as a result, in part, of the Facebook page created with that exact phrase name.

What started with seven actual exact phrase results when one actually clicked on the phrase suggestion "Autistic People Should be Killed" now results in close to 25K actual exact phrase search results where people in the Autism Community have been discussing this issue, in a rhetorical way, instead of one of malicious intent.

Unfortunately, "no joy" with "Autistics Should" or "Autistic People Should", as the 'killed' result still comes up in the top ten auto-complete suggestions. The only phrase that Google fully addressed was specific to "Autistic People Should Be".

A new "top 10" auto-complete suggestion is "Autistic People Should Google". This is part of what can happen when enough Autistic people talk about "Google" on the Internet as the "bad guy" in Auto-Complete Search Suggestions. :)

The Google Algorithm Auto-Complete Search is a "heartless beast" that cannot fully tell the difference between actual keyword results in searches on the internet, rhetoric and intent.

In coming back to this issue for update, I also noticed another phenomenon by chance when I was looking for a topic I had created under my user name/acronym "Katie Mia" that I have been using across the internet discussing Autism in the last 8 months.

I have a "little" RRBI, discussing Autism on the internet. When one types in "Katie Mia" as an exact phrase in the Google search, the Algorithm Auto-Complete result now returns "Katie Mia Autism" as the first algorithm auto-complete suggestion.

It is evidence, I think, that it is the RRBI communication of people on the spectrum who communicate repetitively about special interests, in actual search results on the internet, who are influencing the Algorithm in rhetorical comments, not society as a whole, in typing out malicious intent in exact phrase searches.

That is unless one wants to believe that there are people out there typing in the name "Katie Mia" to learn about "Autism"? The auto-complete search suggestion for "Katie Mia" was topped by an English Actress Mia Katie Jarvis, Eight months ago, before I came on to the Internet scene under the "Katie Mia" name discussing Autism "under the influence" of "RRBI", "in tow".

I am one Autistic Person. I typed in enough words in real search results on the Internet associated with the keywords "Katie Mia" and "Autism" to make it happen. It only took one person to do that with enough intent in typing and RRBI. Not the rest of society.

A similar thing happened with my user name "AGHOGDAY" that no one uses but me on the Internet. Rather than going into detail on that here, I describe it in my blog post linked below, on "Autism Spectrum Identity". It was interesting to me in other ways, too.

http://katiemiaaghogday.blogspot.com/20 ... ntity.html

This Algorithm issue is also a special interest, that only I may be this interested in. In that case, sorry for my attempt at "resurrecting" a "necrothread". ;)

Additionally, and incidentally, I suppose I adequately describe “Who I Am” per “Ideological First Identity”, in the “Autism Spectrum Identity” blog post, but I think I finally have an answer to all those people that asked me “’what-cha’ been doing lately?”, instead of “just been working hard”.

I can tell them now I spend my time “Seeking Art and Order in Odd”. If they ask me what I mean, I can forward them the blog post on “Autism Spectrum Identity”. I think that will thoroughly convince them of it, but they might not respond. :)

Speaking of "Seeking Art and Order in Odd", here is a link to my full "Thesis" of interest on this "Autistic Algorithm Controversy", titled:

"Autistic Algorithm Saga Part 3: Katie Mia 'merges' with Autism". :)


http://katiemiaaghogday.blogspot.com/20 ... katie.html


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


MusicalWonders
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 114
Location: America

22 May 2013, 2:33 am

Google search is supposed to show what others are searching for. I don't really appreciate the censorship, no matter how cruel.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

22 May 2013, 4:00 am

MusicalWonders wrote:
Google search is supposed to show what others are searching for. I don't really appreciate the censorship, no matter how cruel.


Censorship offends me too.

It is freedom of speech that keeps us free.

There are two simple solutions for people who find words on the Internet offensive.

1. Turn it off.

2. Or look the other way.

The anonymous Facebook moderator that writes in the blog below, details how these outrages over words actually block the real problems that moderators face in helping people who are in real trouble posting on the internet.

He also provides additional insight into how Algorithms work.

http://theinternetoffendsme.wordpress.c ... y-reports/


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

22 May 2013, 6:58 pm

aghogday wrote:
MusicalWonders wrote:
Google search is supposed to show what others are searching for. I don't really appreciate the censorship, no matter how cruel.


Censorship offends me too.

It is freedom of speech that keeps us free.


It's not about not letting other people say/type it, it's about others' rights to not have to listen to/see it.

If people want to make this about censorship, why don't they start letting people talk about God in public, or bring God back into schools and such?

You can't have it both ways, you either be complacent in censorship as it has become, or you are against it, regardless of people's rights to not have to see it, even unexpectedly. This case is no different than when people started shunning others for talking about God.

So, to those who cry "censorship", pick a side: Either you fight for the right to publicly talk about stuff, like God, or you fight for the right for people to not have to hear it wherever they are, even by accident. It can't be sliced both ways.


_________________
Writer. Author.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

22 May 2013, 7:49 pm

Jaden wrote:
aghogday wrote:
MusicalWonders wrote:
Google search is supposed to show what others are searching for. I don't really appreciate the censorship, no matter how cruel.


Censorship offends me too.

It is freedom of speech that keeps us free.


It's not about not letting other people say/type it, it's about others' rights to not have to listen to/see it.

If people want to make this about censorship, why don't they start letting people talk about God in public, or bring God back into schools and such?

You can't have it both ways, you either be complacent in censorship as it has become, or you are against it, regardless of people's rights to not have to see it, even unexpectedly. This case is no different than when people started shunning others for talking about God.

So, to those who cry "censorship", pick a side: Either you fight for the right to publicly talk about stuff, like God, or you fight for the right for people to not have to hear it wherever they are, even by accident. It can't be sliced both ways.


There are no rights not to have to listen to or see things on the internet above and beyond what the judicial system considers as communication that exceeds the boundaries of the law.

Separation of church and state, in the US, is a constitutional issue settled in the courts, for public institutions supported by the taxpayer, but it is not a private corporation issue.

The only other right a person has is to turn it off or look the other way, when free at home away from the workplace where the use of it can be required.

The Google Corporation is a private corporation. It can pick and choose the words it chooses to eliminate in Auto Complete Suggestions based on business principles, instead of any ideology or public law in regard to freedom of speech.

Microsoft, the corporation responsible for the Bing Search engine, has not controlled any of the search results pertaining to this specific concern of auto-complete search result, and they don't have to if they don't want to.

They have many more irons in the fire, other than the search engine component of the corporation, so they can afford to ignore "customer" requests like the one that facilitated a very small change in the Google Algorithm, in regard to the specific search results after the phrase "Autistic People Should Be".

US Society, in general, uses the term Autism, so this whole issue is specific to the relatively tiny part of the Autism Community using the term Autistic as a disability first identity, in both searches and actual results in Google Auto Complete suggestions in the US.

It is evident even with a search on the exact phrase "Autistic People". as most of the results are returned specific to this tiny element of Autism Community per online "Neurodiversity" Movement" that at most consists of 10K people in the US out of more than a Billion unique people using Google for search results, every month.

Even with the word Autistic.

In the UK, the phrase Autistic is used much more often in General Society. One can even see this in their National Advocacy organization as the largest is named the "National Autistic Society".

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient= ... 101&bih=63

Google searches are adjusted for national and local geography.

One can use the Google Search engine for the UK, and the results are much different than what one sees with the US Google Search Engine. "The National Autistic Society" is the 2nd result under Wiki for Autistic with the Google UK search engine. It doesn't even appear on the first page for a Google US search engine result.

Google designs the algorithm search results and suggestions, based on Business Principles, not freedom of speech.

However, in turn, any decision they make to censor words beyond the courts and legal system, are based on business principles not freedom of speech, per the constitutional definition of that word. There is no right to freedom of speech on this website, either; it is controlled within the parameters of the owner's personal judgement, as is the case with every private website. If the owner decided that foul language was allowed it would be allowed.

Freedom of speech in the US includes the right of private owners of Internet sites and corporations to censor speech, as that too is a freedom of speech.

I don't have to agree with it, in some instances, but what I say is within the control of the parameters of what the site owner thinks is suitable for the website he owns. Google has that same type of control, but they must bend to their paying customer's desires (per advertising dollars) to remain profitable.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

22 May 2013, 9:08 pm

aghogday wrote:
Jaden wrote:
aghogday wrote:
MusicalWonders wrote:
Google search is supposed to show what others are searching for. I don't really appreciate the censorship, no matter how cruel.


Censorship offends me too.

It is freedom of speech that keeps us free.


It's not about not letting other people say/type it, it's about others' rights to not have to listen to/see it.

If people want to make this about censorship, why don't they start letting people talk about God in public, or bring God back into schools and such?

You can't have it both ways, you either be complacent in censorship as it has become, or you are against it, regardless of people's rights to not have to see it, even unexpectedly. This case is no different than when people started shunning others for talking about God.

So, to those who cry "censorship", pick a side: Either you fight for the right to publicly talk about stuff, like God, or you fight for the right for people to not have to hear it wherever they are, even by accident. It can't be sliced both ways.


There are no rights not to have to listen to or see things on the internet above and beyond what the judicial system considers as communication that exceeds the boundaries of the law.

Separation of church and state, in the US, is a constitutional issue settled in the courts, for public institutions supported by the taxpayer, but it is not a private corporation issue.

The only other right a person has is to turn it off or look the other way, when free at home away from the workplace where the use of it can be required.


So because something isn't illegal, that makes it ok? No... I think not.
You're saying people don't have a right to do something about seeing a result that they wouldn't be in control of seeing when a certain phrase is autocompleted for them (aka given to them forcefully), even when they weren't looking for it to begin with? That's not something someone can simply choose not to look at, when an algorithm makes the choice for you. That's the real issue here, before that algorithm was modified, people who typed in "autistic people should" didn't have the option to not see the result "die", it was given to them whether they liked it or not. The campaign to take that result down and out of the algorithm is the choice that people had to "walk away" or ignore it.

Let's say that you were searching for something that you may have heard on the news (for example) and you typed in a certain phrase to find it, but instead was given a "top result" of a phrase that is wholly inappropriate and insulting to you and others like you (I don't know you personally, but I'm sure you can fill in the blank). You mean to say, that you wouldn't have the right to have that phrase removed on the grounds of it's contents, even though you did not explicitly search for it? Even if you changed search engines because of what you saw, it could just as easily happen on the next, and the next, etc. So at what point did it become acceptable to insult and degrade other people on the basis of "freedom of speech"? At what point did those who are degraded lose the freedom to do something about being forced to see the result of that speech?

Another example; if you saw a marquis (or other sign) along the road, that had offensive content on it, but not illegal content (so it's technically not violating the law), then under the mentality of:
Quote:
There are no rights not to have to listen to or see things on the internet above and beyond what the judicial system considers as communication that exceeds the boundaries of the law
you're saying that you and other people don't have the right to make complaints about the sign and have it removed, because what was on the sign is simply freedom of expression.

There are exceptions to "freedom of speech" as well. Hate speech isn't illegal and is covered by the first amendment, but it isn't tolerated either. I don't know about other people, but the phrase "autistic people should die" sounds awefully hateful to me.
Case and point.


_________________
Writer. Author.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

22 May 2013, 10:03 pm

Jaden wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Jaden wrote:
aghogday wrote:
MusicalWonders wrote:
Google search is supposed to show what others are searching for. I don't really appreciate the censorship, no matter how cruel.


Censorship offends me too.

It is freedom of speech that keeps us free.


It's not about not letting other people say/type it, it's about others' rights to not have to listen to/see it.

If people want to make this about censorship, why don't they start letting people talk about God in public, or bring God back into schools and such?

You can't have it both ways, you either be complacent in censorship as it has become, or you are against it, regardless of people's rights to not have to see it, even unexpectedly. This case is no different than when people started shunning others for talking about God.

So, to those who cry "censorship", pick a side: Either you fight for the right to publicly talk about stuff, like God, or you fight for the right for people to not have to hear it wherever they are, even by accident. It can't be sliced both ways.


There are no rights not to have to listen to or see things on the internet above and beyond what the judicial system considers as communication that exceeds the boundaries of the law.

Separation of church and state, in the US, is a constitutional issue settled in the courts, for public institutions supported by the taxpayer, but it is not a private corporation issue.

The only other right a person has is to turn it off or look the other way, when free at home away from the workplace where the use of it can be required.


So because something isn't illegal, that makes it ok? No... I think not.
You're saying people don't have a right to do something about seeing a result that they wouldn't be in control of seeing when a certain phrase is autocompleted for them (aka given to them forcefully), even when they weren't looking for it to begin with? That's not something someone can simply choose not to look at, when an algorithm makes the choice for you. That's the real issue here, before that algorithm was modified, people who typed in "autistic people should" didn't have the option to not see the result "die", it was given to them whether they liked it or not. The campaign to take that result down and out of the algorithm is the choice that people had to "walk away" or ignore it.

Let's say that you were searching for something that you may have heard on the news (for example) and you typed in a certain phrase to find it, but instead was given a "top result" of a phrase that is wholly inappropriate and insulting to you and others like you (I don't know you personally, but I'm sure you can fill in the blank). You mean to say, that you wouldn't have the right to have that phrase removed on the grounds of it's contents, even though you did not explicitly search for it? Even if you changed search engines because of what you saw, it could just as easily happen on the next, and the next, etc. So at what point did it become acceptable to insult and degrade other people on the basis of "freedom of speech"? At what point did those who are degraded lose the freedom to do something about being forced to see the result of that speech?

Another example; if you saw a marquis (or other sign) along the road, that had offensive content on it, but not illegal content (so it's technically not violating the law), then under the mentality of:
Quote:
There are no rights not to have to listen to or see things on the internet above and beyond what the judicial system considers as communication that exceeds the boundaries of the law
you're saying that you and other people don't have the right to make complaints about the sign and have it removed, because what was on the sign is simply freedom of expression.

There are exceptions to "freedom of speech" as well. Hate speech isn't illegal and is covered by the first amendment, but it isn't tolerated either. I don't know about other people, but the phrase "autistic people should die" sounds awefully hateful to me.
Case and point.


Rights and ethics are not the same thing. What is okay or what is not okay is subject to ethical subjective judgement.

The laws are designed to take and keep emotion out of legal arguments.

A third of people in the US are assessed as obese.

The result returned as a number one auto-complete suggestion for Fat People Should is the same; the algorithm plays no favorites.

However, in this case, the actual web results are real and equally disturbing. Additionally, potentially offensive to close to one hundred million people in the US.

Of course, that is the tip of the iceberg, in almost any combination of words together where Algorithm and human words mix.

The Algorithm is a collection of words and math, not necessarily the intention of ill intent returned in actual web results by typing in "Fat People Should".

The point being the Algorithm and society is not discriminating against people on the spectrum. It is an equal opportunity word collector, and unusual to think that one condition is more special than another, per fat vs. Autistic, to gain special treatment from a mindless Algorithm equation of math.

The Google search is a place to ask questions and search for things that others have created. It is a not a productive avenue to make empty threats against space.

There are a thousand avenues of real websites for that opportunity to lodge it offensively as is seen with the "real" web results of a search on "Fat People Should".

Comparatively speaking, in reality, people on the spectrum get more compassion and concern than most other groups per disability in the US, in actual web search results. It is easy to measure that if one does a comparative search, on actual results not algorithm "musings". They are more often randomly amusing than randomly offensive. However, not everyone takes them as lightly as others do.

Making a complaint is not the same thing as having a right not to listen to things. A complaint is a request for change that may or may not be honored from a private business, as was the case with the Google Algorithm and "Autistic people should". Google knew that they could censor that phrase without offending anyone, because overall, no one else was typing it in other than the people who were complaining about it.

Who else in the US is reasonably making the statement "Autistic People should" other than Autistic People? It is the people that refer to themselves or others as Autistic, not the rest of society that refers to people with the DSMIV now 5 disorder labeled as such, per people with Autism or people with Autism/Autistic Spectrum Disorder, that will likely be shortened by many people in the future as "people with ASD', which sounds too much like STD for my pleasure, but that is likely the direction society will eventually take other than people with Autism.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

22 May 2013, 10:57 pm

aghogday wrote:
Jaden wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Jaden wrote:
aghogday wrote:
MusicalWonders wrote:
Google search is supposed to show what others are searching for. I don't really appreciate the censorship, no matter how cruel.


Censorship offends me too.

It is freedom of speech that keeps us free.


It's not about not letting other people say/type it, it's about others' rights to not have to listen to/see it.

If people want to make this about censorship, why don't they start letting people talk about God in public, or bring God back into schools and such?

You can't have it both ways, you either be complacent in censorship as it has become, or you are against it, regardless of people's rights to not have to see it, even unexpectedly. This case is no different than when people started shunning others for talking about God.

So, to those who cry "censorship", pick a side: Either you fight for the right to publicly talk about stuff, like God, or you fight for the right for people to not have to hear it wherever they are, even by accident. It can't be sliced both ways.


There are no rights not to have to listen to or see things on the internet above and beyond what the judicial system considers as communication that exceeds the boundaries of the law.

Separation of church and state, in the US, is a constitutional issue settled in the courts, for public institutions supported by the taxpayer, but it is not a private corporation issue.

The only other right a person has is to turn it off or look the other way, when free at home away from the workplace where the use of it can be required.


So because something isn't illegal, that makes it ok? No... I think not.
You're saying people don't have a right to do something about seeing a result that they wouldn't be in control of seeing when a certain phrase is autocompleted for them (aka given to them forcefully), even when they weren't looking for it to begin with? That's not something someone can simply choose not to look at, when an algorithm makes the choice for you. That's the real issue here, before that algorithm was modified, people who typed in "autistic people should" didn't have the option to not see the result "die", it was given to them whether they liked it or not. The campaign to take that result down and out of the algorithm is the choice that people had to "walk away" or ignore it.

Let's say that you were searching for something that you may have heard on the news (for example) and you typed in a certain phrase to find it, but instead was given a "top result" of a phrase that is wholly inappropriate and insulting to you and others like you (I don't know you personally, but I'm sure you can fill in the blank). You mean to say, that you wouldn't have the right to have that phrase removed on the grounds of it's contents, even though you did not explicitly search for it? Even if you changed search engines because of what you saw, it could just as easily happen on the next, and the next, etc. So at what point did it become acceptable to insult and degrade other people on the basis of "freedom of speech"? At what point did those who are degraded lose the freedom to do something about being forced to see the result of that speech?

Another example; if you saw a marquis (or other sign) along the road, that had offensive content on it, but not illegal content (so it's technically not violating the law), then under the mentality of:
Quote:
There are no rights not to have to listen to or see things on the internet above and beyond what the judicial system considers as communication that exceeds the boundaries of the law
you're saying that you and other people don't have the right to make complaints about the sign and have it removed, because what was on the sign is simply freedom of expression.

There are exceptions to "freedom of speech" as well. Hate speech isn't illegal and is covered by the first amendment, but it isn't tolerated either. I don't know about other people, but the phrase "autistic people should die" sounds awefully hateful to me.
Case and point.


Rights and ethics are not the same thing. What is okay or what is not okay is subject to ethical subjective judgement.

The laws are designed to take and keep emotion out of legal arguments.

A third of people in the US are assessed as obese.

The result returned as a number one auto-complete suggestion for Fat People Should is the same; the algorithm plays no favorites.

However, in this case, the actual web results are real and equally disturbing. Additionally, potentially offensive to close to one hundred million people in the US.

Of course, that is the tip of the iceberg, in almost any combination of words together where Algorithm and human words mix.

The Algorithm is a collection of words and math, not necessarily the intention of ill intent returned in actual web results by typing in "Fat People Should".

The point being the Algorithm and society is not discriminating against people on the spectrum. It is an equal opportunity word collector, and unusual to think that one condition is more special than another, per fat vs. Autistic, to gain special treatment from a mindless Algorithm equation of math.

The Google search is a place to ask questions and search for things that others have created. It is a not a productive avenue to make empty threats against space.

There are a thousand avenues of real websites for that opportunity to lodge it offensively as is seen with the "real" web results of a search on "Fat People Should".

Comparatively speaking, in reality, people on the spectrum get more compassion and concern than most other groups per disability in the US, in actual web search results. It is easy to measure that if one does a comparative search, on actual results not algorithm "musings". They are more often randomly amusing than randomly offensive. However, not everyone takes them as lightly as others do.


Just because something may not be the result of people typing exactly that phrase, doesn't mean it isn't offensive and inappropriate and therefore shouldn't be taken down.
Furthermore, you seem to have contridicted yourself as well, you complain that this is "Censorship of freedom of speech". Earlier you said:

Quote:
Censorship offends me too.

It is freedom of speech that keeps us free.

In direct agreement with the quote:
Quote:
Google search is supposed to show what others are searching for. I don't really appreciate the censorship, no matter how cruel

Yet you just now said:
Quote:
The Algorithm is a collection of words and math, not necessarily the intention of ill intent returned in actual web results

Quote:
a mindless Algorithm equation of math


So, if it's simply a mindless algorithm that has come up with this top result, and not necessarily the intention of ill intent or what people are actually typing, then there is no basis to complain about freedom of speech because it's a math equation that has no such freedom.

Once again this brings us all back to what people are subjected to by force of that same equation, and since you've just established that the result is not necessarily what people are really typing, then why complain about people who want that top result removed, by using the basis of "freedom of speech" for something that is apparently given by a machine that has no such right? Since no-ones freedom of speech has been taken away, what's the problem?

Do you see the conflict? If people really were saying it, then it could be classified as hate speech and was rightfully removed (though no discussion anywhere would be touched even if that were the case, so it's not censorship either way), if it was purely an algorithm that put those words together then it has no freedom of speech and it doesn't matter who complained about it or why it was removed from the possible searches in the first place.


_________________
Writer. Author.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

23 May 2013, 12:59 am

Jaden wrote:

Just because something may not be the result of people typing exactly that phrase, doesn't mean it isn't offensive and inappropriate and therefore shouldn't be taken down.
Furthermore, you seem to have contridicted yourself as well, you complain that this is "Censorship of freedom of speech". Earlier you said:

Quote:
Censorship offends me too.

It is freedom of speech that keeps us free.

In direct agreement with the quote:
Quote:
Google search is supposed to show what others are searching for. I don't really appreciate the censorship, no matter how cruel

Yet you just now said:
Quote:
The Algorithm is a collection of words and math, not necessarily the intention of ill intent returned in actual web results

Quote:
a mindless Algorithm equation of math


So, if it's simply a mindless algorithm that has come up with this top result, and not necessarily the intention of ill intent or what people are actually typing, then there is no basis to complain about freedom of speech because it's a math equation that has no such freedom.

Once again this brings us all back to what people are subjected to by force of that same equation, and since you've just established that the result is not necessarily what people are really typing, then why complain about people who want that top result removed, by using the basis of "freedom of speech" for something that is apparently given by a machine that has no such right? Since no-ones freedom of speech has been taken away, what's the problem?

Do you see the conflict? If people really were saying it, then it could be classified as hate speech and was rightfully removed (though no discussion anywhere would be touched even if that were the case, so it's not censorship either way), if it was purely an algorithm that put those words together then it has no freedom of speech and it doesn't matter who complained about it or why it was removed from the possible searches in the first place.


The google search engine is an avenue of Freedom of Speech that is part of an expanded avenue of free speech available at our finger tips today.

The search engine itself is a tool, not intent.

The rationale of complaint offered to Google was that Society was intentionally typing in this phrase and Google was "letting it happen". That was the argument that I disagreed with, that there is no evidence for.

If it was clearly understood by those individuals at that point in time that it was an Algorithm generated result from words that people on the spectrum actually typed in, per defense of the idea of people being killed on the spectrum or killing other people, there would be no "reasoned" need to feel "insulted" by the Algorithm

Restricting the search results restricts the potential for freedom of speech, whether it is math generated or human generated.

For every amusing or nonsensical phrase generated by the Algorithm there are others useful in enhancing the avenue that Google provides for freedom of speech.

The fact remains that one isolated person found this Algorithm "Offense" and amplified it with human intent per Society overall, that was not reasoned.

As a result there now is a lower probability that other people on Google will randomly find themselves studying the actual rhetorical concerns of people reporting on the spectrum arguing against filicides and violence among people on the spectrum.

In effect, some of the same people arguing these points censored themselves and do not seem be aware of it. That is ironic.

The argument that there are more Filicides associated with Autism over any other demographic in the US, is not warranted by Department of Justice Statistics, so perhaps there is not much lost by society losing "random algorithm" access to that rhetorical opinion by some of the same people who were attempting to get that non-reasoned message out on the internet.

Perhaps there is "Algorithm Karma" after all. :)

The actual internet search results on the internet associated with the "Webosphere" are majority comprised of compassion and concern for people facing the challenge of Autism. Any actual offense against people on the spectrum by diagnostic label alone is far the exception rather than the rule.

However, anytime something negative happens to a person diagnosed and reported as such anywhere in the world, on the spectrum, it is amplified by some people in the Autism Community as a myth of Society, as a whole, "Demonizing" Autism by label alone.

There is no substantial evidence of that. All it takes is a Google search and actual search results to prove it.

The negative parts, overall, are coming from a relative few people associating themselves with the Spectrum amplifying the same myths about Society "Demonizing" Autism by "label alone" over and over and over again.

The evidence for that in actual search results is abundantly clear.

That is part of the element of freedom of speech associated with this Google Algorithm that is the greatest of all tools per avenue for global human communication.

The Algorithm discriminates against few words, even newly invented ones that any creative person can design, and provides an equal playing field of voices across the globe for almost anyone who wants to participate in freedom of speech and have people listen to messages of interest.

People used to imagine cosmic consciousness.

Now it can be measured in keyword search tools and actual web search result thanks to the business enterprise of Google.

That would not likely even be fathomable to people living just a century in the past.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

23 May 2013, 2:13 am

aghogday wrote:
The google search engine is an avenue of Freedom of Speech that is part of an expanded avenue of free speech available at our finger tips today. 1

The search engine itself is a tool, not intent. 2

The rationale of complaint offered to Google was that Society was intentionally typing in this phrase and Google was "letting it happen". That was the argument that I disagreed with, that there is no evidence for. 3

If it was clearly understood by those individuals at that point in time that it was an Algorithm generated result from words that people on the spectrum actually typed in, per defense of the idea of people being killed on the spectrum or killing other people, there would be no "reasoned" need to feel "insulted" by the Algorithm 4

Restricting the search results restricts the potential for freedom of speech, whether it is math generated or human generated. 5


1. Freedom of speech is an idea and right given by government and law, the freedom would be the same even if the internet didn't exist. The only change would be who is heard, where, and over what period of time but that doesn't effect the freedom itself. So, I'm not sure how that's relevant to the conversation.

2. Yes, it is just a tool and the tool itself may not have intent, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is whether or not what was generated as a top search was offensive and should've been taken down as such.

3. So you're saying there's no evidence to suggest that society was typing it in, fine, I agree there is no evidence of that. So then you maintain that the algorithm was solely responsible for the recommended search? Ok.

4. So now you're saying someone actually did type it in... Ok.
Although since you established in point 3 that there was no evidence to warrent the takedown of the recommendation, I must point out that there couldn't be evidence to suggest that people on the spectrum were the ones typing it, any more than normal society. If such evidence did exist then Google could've easily explained one way or the other, but since that never took place it is obvious to me that there was no evidence to either argument.

5. We're not talking about results from the search, we're talking about auto-generated search recommendations given by the system. There's a difference there. Taking down what the system recommends is not restrictive upon freedom of speech, people can still search it and they can still find the results of that same search and they can still talk about said phrase wherever they want, the only thing that's changed, is that people don't have to see the phrase (recommendation) if they don't want to when searching for something completely unrelated.


_________________
Writer. Author.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

23 May 2013, 3:51 am

1. The Business Enterprise of Google provides a phenomenal new avenue/tool for Freedom of speech on a Global basis. Without increased avenues for freedom of speech there is reduced freedom of speech, whether it is Global Internet Access, Satellite TV, National Cable, Newspapers, Phone, Telegraph, Radio, Sign Language. or the Alphabet. These are all incredible tools/avenues for freedom of speech. The laws enforce the rights but the tools are what makes it happen in the large scale of global human interaction.

Take away any part of Google and there is less freedom of speech per reduced avenue/tool of freedom of speech. It is a very relative and understood concern associated with Freedom of Speech on a global basis. The Google Corporation could shut the switch off tomorrow, but another corporation would come to take that spot, as it is among the highest of desired attributes of modern society, per access to information, and profit making potential.

2 & 3. I'm glad you understand that there is no malicious intent per this issue by the Algorithm or Society. There are some people that have difficulty understanding that point of logic.

I am emphasizing many of the points I am making here to validate the evidence for those who may be reading, who may still not understand how the Algorithm works, and the fact that there is no substantial evidence that this is a society generated phenomenon of malicious intent.

4. Google provides a complete resource in how the Algorithm works. It works based on keyword searches and actual keywords in text across the internet. It is not necessary that someone type in an exact phrase to generate the phrases that Google Recommends. They are generated by keywords, not just exact phrases.

At the time this incident first happened there were less than 10 global monthly key word searches on the exact phrase "Autistic People Should be Killed". Google provides a keyword search tool to measure exact phrases typed in on searches on the internet.

People in the Autism Community are typing in the keywords killed, should, be, and Autistic in text on the internet. The Algorithm generates the autocomplete suggestion phrase from the keywords. At the point in time this issue started the phrase typed in without quotes for a broad search brought up the rhetorical concerns over Filicides, which were not warranted by the Department of Justice statistics.

At that point in time there were 7 actual exact phrase search results where one uses quotes in the search box and now there are about 25K, as a direct result of people discussing this specific issue per rhetoric instead of malicious intent.

No doubt people from the Autism Community in the last 3 months, since this controversy was generated, have been typing in that exact phrase for the sake of curiosity.

5. That's true. However, it is also true that there is no longer the same random opportunity for people in general society to discover what people in the Autism Community were discussing per concerns over Filicides, and the killing of Autistic children. As far as I can see since some of the concerns were not warranted, that is no great loss of random opportunity by general society to view those type of results.

I'm not attempting to make a "value" judgement that it is a bad thing that part of the phrase is gone now. I'm just fully describing the process that is not evidenced as a result of malicious intent by society, overall. That the same opportunity to come across the discussions is no longer the same random opportunity is where a value judgement could be made, by a person who might be concerned about that.

The Google Corporation as a private business allows customers to present their case for adjustments in Algorithm Auto complete search suggestions. It is only a business decision where Google determines the cost/benefit was benefit to take the minimal corrective action they took to alter the Algorithm based on the concern that was expressed. It was likely a public relations decision not worth arguing about.

They did not even address the issue of "Autistics Should". The offensive phrase "Autistics Should be Killed" without the "people" keyword comes up third in a Google search for that Auto complete phrase suggestion that society, overall, is not typing in.

It is higher than it has ever been in rank, because of all the rhetoric discussed on this issue in the last 3 months in the Autism Community that can be found in actual search results.

The last time I checked it was ranked at 5.

Effectively Speaking, bringing attention to this issue has made it worse in someways, overall, per the initial concern, than better.

Edited on 5/23/13 to provide updated stats on the Google Key Word Search Tool, that one can use to verify the statistics at this link:

https://adwords.google.com/o/Targeting/ ... WORD_IDEAS

The Google Key Word Search Tool now provides evidence that there are 260 monthly exact phrase searches on the phrase "Autistic People Should be Killed", just 3 months after this controversy started, and people on the spectrum gained interest in the issue. As mentioned earlier in this post it was 10 monthly phrase searches, 3 months ago.

I documented that statistic at the link below 3 months ago on another website, in discussion of this issue. I had predicted at that point that the number of monthly searches would likely rise substantially since "rhetorical" interest from the Autism Community had become focused on this exact phrase of offense.

There were 28 broad monthly searches "not based on the exact phrase", 3 months ago, also documented in the link below, and now there are 320 broad monthly searches, per the Google Keyword Search Tool linked above.

http://www.autismspeaks.org/news/news-i ... -818750117

So to summarize, the rhetorical interest directed at this phrase of offense, "Autistic People Should be Killed", has exponentially increased the number of keyword searches on the exact phrase by a factor of 26 times, since the time this controversy began 3 Months ago.

The increase from 7 actual exact phrase results coming from actual searches on the exact phrase "Autistic People Should be Killed", enclosed in quotes to 25,100 actual exact phrase results, as of today, is an incredible increase and testament to the power of attention in focus on areas of interest by people on the spectrum as a group effort, in resulting effect on Google Auto-Complete Search Suggestions, Actual Keyword Searches, and Actual Web Results in written text across the global internet.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Last edited by aghogday on 23 May 2013, 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jaden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,867

23 May 2013, 4:07 am

I have no doubt that more search it now out of curiosity and really, if anything that has given a higher return for people who potentially click on the links, that before, would've been random from the generated autocomplete suggestion and so has (according to your logic about google effecting freedom of speech) provided more "freedom of speech"/publicity to people who potentially discuss it, and with that there is still no infraction/censorship of said freedom or speech but rather a proliferation of it. So, I fail to see why people complain that removing an autocomplete suggestion generated by a computer based on words said in nonrelated topics is in any way censorship of the freedom of speech in any form, especially since the result of such removal has given new publicity to the results and even to this topic, which is as stated, the complete opposite of censorship.


_________________
Writer. Author.