Religious Bias at Google?

I found this graphic at a great site called AtlasShrugs.com.  Pamela Geller does some great work and research on a variety of issues including the exposing of radical Muslims for the wackos that they are.  

The article that goes along with the graphic explains the inherit bias built into Google.com.  It is no secret that the Google company has a leftist point of view.  That really doesn’t bother me – it’s a free country (for now) – you can believe what you want.  Where I do have a problem is te systematic exclusion of information that conflicts with their thoughts and ideals.  In this instance, Ms. Geller did a quick test to see what would happen if she typed in several terms including Christianity is, Judaism is, Buddhism is, etc.  The last part of the graphic shows what happened when you type in Islam is.  Nothing, Zilch, Nada.

Evidently Google indicates that this is an error and they are working on it.  Right.  I believe that. 

 

Here is the post from Atlas Shrugs:

CENSORSHIP: Google Blocking “Negative” Searches Related to Islam

Google is blocking “negative” searches related to Islam. Free thought, free will, free men? Only for left-o-fascists. Notice how quick Google is to scrub jihad websites, videos, and incitement to violence? Of course you haven’t, because they don’t. Google-owned you tube runs all the jihad porn, but if patriots get out of line, their vids are deleted and accounts suspended.

Google proudly endorsed Obama and was banning anti-Obama blogs during the election like clockwork.

The leftist Islamic alliance is hard at work. Evil makes for strange bedfellows.

Google’s conduct in all things jihad has been unconscionable.

From the Next Web.

Google Blocking Negative Search Recommendations On Islam – Why? (hat tip Joe)

When you search for the major religions of the world, the monotheistic faiths for example, Google serves up suggestions for the search “Christianity is” such as, “a lie,” or false.” Try it on a a number of faiths, and then Islam.

Notice any difference?

Google is systematically blocking, it seems, all search suggestions for Islam. Why? To remove the chance of an adherent of the faith from being offended by a perhaps severe search suggestion? Why not treat all search terms equally?

Given the complete lack of suggestions, not just terms that could be perceived as negative, it seems that Google is covering its, well, behind.

I tried this little experiment for my self and came up with the same result.  Interesting.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Advertisements

11 Responses

  1. I bet you didn’t try “Islam and ” which clearly shows “Islam and terrorism” as one of the answers.

    I cannot speak for Google, but I seriously doubt that they would go out of their way to hurt Christianity. I would bet that if the population of California is 50%-80% Christian, then Google’s work force is also 50-80% Christian.

    Further, these entries are very likely generated by an algorithm based on frequency of searches. I very much doubt that someone went there and specifically added hurtful entries.

    This much I happen to personally know: Very few people can touch anything in the Google index, and then only with massive sign offs and review. If there is an index helper file, it goes through review and testing by a number of people. It can only be checked into a server by someone with permissions.

    I would be very surprised if someone touched any file on any server outside their locked down system. The risk of losing the index, of skewing results, of being bribed, of being perceived as anything by algorithmically secured is a make or break deal. If what you suggest is true, lots of people will be fired.

    So I think this is all a bunch of nonsense by people who see a war on Christianity everywhere.

    • You are so predictable Mike.

      I am well aware of the complex algorithm used at Google which is changed constantly to make it more difficult for outside people to improve search results. This in itself is not a reason that the coding cannot be tinkered with to exclude certain things.

      The question that was posed in Pamela’s easy example was why nothing came up when punching in the phrase “Islam is.” The theory proves itself, even with your other examples. It is as simple as that.

      You took the road that I was referring to some kind of bias toward Christianity, but that is not what I presented – you assumed it. What was presented is a systematic bias against criticism of Islam. Since Google also owns Youtube, they are welcome to also scrub this site of undesirable items – like criticism of Islam. It seems to be alright to denigrate every world religion except for Islam – why is that? I realize you are not interested in that answer, but I thought I’d pose it anyway.

      Bottom line is it’s their choice of how they run their search engine. I don’t have to like it but still use it.

      • The fact that “Islam is” shows nothing in Google Suggests does not constitute proof that there is a bias at Google against criticism of Islam. It is a jump to conclusion by Pamela and others who posted this story way before you did.

        Google shows results for all kinds of anti-Islam articles. Just try “Islam is evil” or “islam and terror”

        You, or Pamela, would have had a case if Google searches were cleansed of results that criticized Islam. The point is that they clearly show these results.

        A simple experiment would have shown this.

        To me this is nothing more than another conservative wacko conspiracy theory, one of so many.

      • The research was valid and the point was proven. You don’t have to like it.

      • I don’t think so, not by any definition of proven that I know of. You and Pamela are making sweeping allegations about Google based on the scantest of evidence, and in the face of much contradictory evidence.

        The proposition was that Google blocks negative comments about Islam, presumably to appease Islamists. So long as there are negative comments about Islam on Google search, or on Google Suggests, then by definition your premise is absolutely dismissed.

        The first evidence that your theory is disproven is that Google reports both positive and negative comments on Google Search. Search is much more important than suggests.

        The second evidence that disproves your theory is that Google Suggest does indeed suggest negative comments when you search Islam and other terms, like “Islam and terror”

        It is true that “Islam is” suggests nothing, but the conclusion that this is a vast conspiracy within Google to scrub their results for Islam is not proven at all.

        Your post, a cut and past of Pamela’s post reminds me of teh Twilight Zone “Monsters are Due on Maple Street” Look it up on YouTube.

        I would appreciate it if you are going to make accusations of people and corporations that you do it on strong and irrefutable terms, not innuendo and half truths.

        The road to revival of mass media begins when bloggers start down the road of innuendo, distortion and half-truths. It goes to the heart of whom shall we trust: well researched pieces or blogs like Pamela.

        You are damaging your own reputation by half truths. You are entitled to damage it, destroy it, otherwise completely spend your own cache on promoting half truths. But what you spend you can never recover.

      • I’m fine with my accusations. As I stated, the research on this point was valid and the point was proven. The point was the phrase “Islam is,” and this came up with no results. Was it a glitch or something more. No one will ever know.

        The only person that thinks my “reputation” is damaged is you and your buddies. I’m more than fine with that. I don’t blog for anyone but myself. You read and comment on your own and I allow you to do so. I’ve stated so many times before, this is my blog for my therapy.

  2. and while you are experimenting, try “obama is” and “bush is”

    Your theory is down the tubes after that. You can add Pamela Geller to the list of people who don’t do their on-line research very well.

  3. OI missed the most obvious one, so I am adding it. search “google is” . Again, Pamela’s theory is shot down.

  4. I don’t think so, not by any definition of proven that I know of. You and Pamela are making sweeping allegations about Google based on the scantest of evidence, and in the face of much contradictory evidence.

    The proposition was that Google blocks negative comments about Islam, presumably to appease Islamists. So long as there are negative comments about Islam on Google search, or on Google Suggests, then by definition your premise is absolutely dismissed.

    The first evidence that your theory is disproven is that Google reports both positive and negative comments on Google Search. Search is much more important than suggests.

    The second evidence that disproves your theory is that Google Suggest does indeed suggest negative comments when you search Islam and other terms, like “Islam and terror”

    It is true that “Islam is” suggests nothing, but the conclusion that this is a vast conspiracy within Google to scrub their results for Islam is not proven at all.

    Your post, a cut and past of Pamela’s post reminds me of this
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJyaBxYjWcQ (part 1/3)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiByQ7VFp4Q (part 2/3)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5u-QVk3PFU (part 3/3)

    I would appreciate it if you are going to make accusations of people and corporations that you do it on strong and irrefutable terms, not innuendo and half truths.

    The road to revival of mass media begins when bloggers start down the road of innuendo, distortion and half-truths. It goes to the heart of whom shall we trust: well researched pieces or blogs like Pamela.

    You are damaging your own reputation by half truths. You are entitled to damage it, destroy it, otherwise completely spend your own cache on promoting half truths. But what you spend you can never recover.

  5. This is your accusation: “The leftist Islamic alliance is hard at work. Evil makes for strange bedfellows.”

    From the research that has followed, even from your own reply, you now limit yourself to “Islam is” produces no results, and now you say “No one will ever know.”

    Which is it, strange bedfellows or no one will ever know?

    What you thought was a case of accommodation to Islam and by extension accommodation to evil. I think it is clear that Google search results and other Google suggestions don’t bear out your Google is evil theory. And you can’t find it in yourself to accept that your post was a rush to judgement based on scant evidence.

    You would do well to be more of a skeptic.

    You may not understand the depths of reputation. In a single left/right dimensional view, you seem to feel that so long as you present great right credentials your reputation hasn’t suffered. Your view is who cares what I and my friends to the left or you and your pals think.

    But there are at least two cases where your reputation suffers among fellow right bloggers. One of them is the reputation you build among bloggers on the right based on insight, credibility, politically savvy, originality, research. This post may be therapy, but where do you measure along all of the other dimensions?

    The other is among people who personally know you. You are establishing a reputation for completeness. I wonder where you are on that scale?

    I will leave this thread for readers to decide. It is totally up to you to determine if innuendo and half truths is the way you want to play it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: