LibriumArcana.Games

CNN

Former U.S. Sen. and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has a well-known Google problem.

For the uninitiated, if you Google Santorum's name, the first result you'll probably get is not his personal website but a fake definition of "santorum," a sexual byproduct that's a bit too graphic to talk about in detail here. (Of course, you can Google him and easily find out.)

We'll get into how that all happened in a second, but here's what's new: On Tuesday, the socially conservative politician lashed out at Google, saying the company could get rid of the sexual references to his name on the search results if it wanted to -- and perhaps would do so if he were a Democrat.

"I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they'd get rid of it," he told Politico. "If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country."

He continued: "To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle, but I suspect that's not true."

Santorum contacted Google and asked the company about the issue, Politico said.

In an e-mail to CNN, a Google spokeswoman said, "Google's search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Web. Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly. Once the webmaster takes the page down from the Web, it will be removed from Google's search results through our usual crawling process."

She added: "We do not remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."

Santorum is just the latest to gripe at Google over how it ranks search results. The CEO of Yelp posted a blog Tuesday saying that Google purposefully ranks its own products -- like Google Places -- above its competitors.

"We believe Google has acted anti-competitively in at least two key ways: by misusing Yelp review content in their competing Places product and by favoring their own competing Places product in search results," Yelp's Jeremy Stoppelman wrote.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt was scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday about similar antitrust complaints.

The lewd "santorum" definition popped up after the former senator compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality in a 2003 interview with The Associated Press:

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality," he said. "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

That angered gay rights supporters, including gay podcast host and sex columnist Dan Savage, who launched a campaign for his listeners to redefine Santorum's name. Savage created a website to promote the winning definition (again, you'll have to search for that elsewhere), and enough bloggers linked to it that the spoof site eventually eclipsed Santorum's campaign website in search rankings.

Danny Sullivan, who writes at the blog SearchEngineLand, notes that Google has a history of being hands-off when it comes to these controversies, regardless of the politics or sensitivities involved:
"Google is loathe to touch its results in any way, shape or form. That's because if it does intervene in any way, there's some interest group that will immediately claim a bias. Way back in 2004, an anti-Jewish web site started ranking in Google's top results for 'Jew.'

"Despite Google co-founder Sergey Brin being Jewish and himself disgusted with the result, it stood. Intervention, when Google's ranking algorithms had spoken, was seen as harmful to user trust," Sullivan writes.

In December 2009, when racist images of first lady Michelle Obama popped to the top of Google search results, the company took a similar free-speech stance.

"We have a bias toward free expression," Google spokesman Scott Rubin said at the time. "That means that some ugly things will show up."
Still, Google has removed offensive content from searches, usually by making changes to how its overall search equations function.

In 2007, for example, a change to Google's search algorithm stopped the search term "miserable failure" from directing Internet users to pages about former president George W. Bush, according to SearchEngineLand.
It's worth noting that some of these Internet weirdnesses have shown up on other search engines, too, not just on Google.

What do you think about the Santorum situation? Should Google make changes? Or is the company right to stand by the way its equations rank Web pages against each other, by trying to judge their relevance?

You know, I don't have much personal empathy with Santorum. In many ways he comes off as an ignorant, petty, small man flustering about in a suit. From what I've seen of him, I dislike him and then we get into his platform which is in some respects outright vile.

Still I have to wonder, isn't this bullying? Taking his name and turning it into a sexual slang term? In effect wrecking his name and some ways his career?

It's no where near as bad as what gays in highschool have to suffer. Santorum is in danger of being driven to despair and suicide. So his problem... kinda not as important has theirs. But it's still bullying isn't it?

That is because Dan Savage is a bully. I can find little fault in his tarnishing Rick Santorum's good name, because Santorum's name already ought to be irredeemable by his own hand; it's only the bigotry of the population that keeps people listening to him. But Savage is well-known for his own bigotry and his willingness to mock transgender people. He doesn't have to express that. It's simple something he chooses to do.

Eleas wrote:. But Savage is well-known for his own bigotry and his willingness to mock transgender people. He doesn't have to express that. It's simple something he chooses to do.

What makes you say this? I've read Savage's column semi-regularly for the last few years and I haven't seen any bigotry towards transgendered people in it.

Cynical Cat wrote:

Eleas wrote:. But Savage is well-known for his own bigotry and his willingness to mock transgender people. He doesn't have to express that. It's simple something he chooses to do.

What makes you say this? I've read Savage's column semi-regularly for the last few years and I haven't seen any bigotry towards transgendered people in it.

Dan Savage's column may be moderate, I don't know. I've noticed however that his web published stuff tends toward a paradoxical kind of gender conformism, and I was dismayed -- though not all that surprised -- to hear about his less than inclusive views toward transgender and bisexual people.

This doesn't change the fact that Savage has contributed a hell of a lot to the gay community. He's clearly helped people. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily preclude him from hurting others and/or being a dick to them.

I'm sorry, but these articles, among other things, state that, Dan Savage is a racist because he stated that black voters were the reason Prop 8 passed in California (which is, by the way, true), and is a bad man because his "It gets better" project didn't adequately address privilege (an argument which is sophistic horseshit at best, and pernicious swill at worst). It therefore becomes difficult for me to accept at face value these quotes and claims that he is in other ways an evil sonofabitch.

That said, what he's done with Santorum here is indeed bullying. If the general tone of political debate weren't already so low, I'd accuse him of lowering it. Santorum himself is a low-life, but this is hardly going to convince any of his supporters that he is not.

Eleas wrote:it's only the bigotry of the population that keeps people listening to him.

Neither, by the way, is this.

I consider befowling the man's name to be political self-defense. It is the opposite of bullying, and is in fact the equivalent of punching a bully in the mouth when he tries to shake you down for your lunch money.

Rick (Santorum) Santorum is a man who has built his career denigrating and persecuting gay people, to the point that he has written BOOKS about how gay people are out to destroy America blah blah blah. He wants to strip us of our civil rights and make our very existence a crime. Turning his name into a sexual slur is only putting a solid definition to what he is. A slimy revolting ooze, seeping out of the asshole of society to stain its sheets and underpants in a way that can never really be washed clean.

General Havoc wrote:I'm sorry, but these articles, among other things, state that, Dan Savage is a racist because he stated that black voters were the reason Prop 8 passed in California (which is, by the way, true), and is a bad man because his "It gets better" project didn't adequately address privilege (an argument which is sophistic horseshit at best, and pernicious swill at worst). It therefore becomes difficult for me to accept at face value these quotes and claims that he is in other ways an evil sonofabitch.

You're missing the point of it all. It's stupid and bigoted (although, I argue, not necessarily racist per se) to do this kind of bait-and-switch where you feel the need to split up the offenders into categories and attack them on that basis. White homophobes and black homophobes are equally at fault, and the divisiveness is pointlessly... divisive. The fact that it singles out black people doesn't have to be racist. I have to say, though, that since it's totally bloody unnecessary, it's cause to wonder.

Privilege is not horseshit. If Dan Savage is to be a spokesman for LGBT people, he'll sooner or later have to recognize that he can't be selective on who matters. He cannot be dismissive of bisexual people -- which is a tendency verified to exist in LGBT culture -- in the way he currently acts.

Hav wrote:Santorum himself is a low-life, but this is hardly going to convince any of his supporters that he is not.

<snip>

Neither, by the way, is this.

What in my post could possibly have given you the idea that I'm trying to convince his supporters of anything?

Look, privilege is very real. While yes, it does "get better" for gay youth as they get older and out of high school, it "gets better" to a greater degree for some groups than others. A white suburbanite gay kid is going to have a MUCH easier time of it later on than a black kid from the Ghetto, this is a fact of life we all need to accept. Individual merit does not dictate everything in our lives and in fact a large portion of our relative success is based entirely on where and to whom we are born.

As for the singling out of black homophobes... it is not really singling them out. It is noticing something that may be highly probitive in your political strategy. These are people who statistically have low voter turnout. They do not generally fit in with the rest of the religious right (because they are not allied with them on many issues like affirmative action or economic policy) but who are nonetheless very religiously conservative as a demographic group. The same goes for hispanics who had a very high turnout in that election as I recall. The existence of Obama at the head of the ticket increased turnout in these groups--for the obvious reasons, let us not pretend they do not exist.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:I consider befowling the man's name to be political self-defense. It is the opposite of bullying, and is in fact the equivalent of punching a bully in the mouth when he tries to shake you down for your lunch money.

Rick (Santorum) Santorum is a man who has built his career denigrating and persecuting gay people, to the point that he has written BOOKS about how gay people are out to destroy America blah blah blah. He wants to strip us of our civil rights and make our very existence a crime. Turning his name into a sexual slur is only putting a solid definition to what he is. A slimy revolting ooze, seeping out of the asshole of society to stain its sheets and underpants in a way that can never really be washed clean.

I suppose that's true, but the fact remains that all it does is look petty. Santorum's supporters do not care if you hate him. They assume that you hate him because they assume that you hate, among other things, America, Jesus Christ, the 4th of July, Christmas, and whatever else Limbaugh and Beck have told them that liberals and gays hate today. Turning his name into a sexual slur might be funny, but it only plays into his narrative.

You're missing the point of it all. It's stupid and bigoted (although, I argue, not necessarily racist per se) to do this kind of bait-and-switch where you feel the need to split up the offenders into categories and attack them on that basis. White homophobes and black homophobes are equally at fault, and the divisiveness is pointlessly... divisive. The fact that it singles out black people doesn't have to be racist. I have to say, though, that since it's totally bloody unnecessary, it's cause to wonder.

It's certainly true that you can't throw all the blame for Prop 8 at black voters, and I don't think he was trying to make that point (at least I wasn't). But despite all the campaigning by the mormons and local homophobes in favor of Prop 8 out here, it frankly was the massively increased turnout of black and hispanic voters (due paradoxically to Obama's candidacy) that pushed Prop 8 over the edge. Black and hispanic voters tend to vote more conservatively on social issues than white voters do, at least in California. Prop 8 passed by a relatively thin margin (52-48 or so), and the evidence I've read has convinced me that that factor was the tipping point.

Prop 8 passed for many reasons. One of those reasons was white homophobes. Many of those reasons however were not white homophobes, nor any homophobes. Prop 8 passed because the political wing of the Gay community, as well as those they were allied with made several horrid mistakes in policy and message. It passed because of the assumption by many that the only people who would oppose it were drooling homophobes. It passed because of an excellent media campaign (evil though it was, it was effective) run in California before the election by the pro-prop lobby. It passed because of the willingness of foreign donors to turn it into a key issue. It passed because the election of a viable minority candidate drove up minority voting. And yes, it also passed because of the hard core of rabid, pathological homophobes that exist in conservative parts of California, as in other states.

But the only lesson people take from 2008 is that white homophobes and mormons passed prop 8, which is just not true. And if people want to avoid repeats of prop 8, or want to repeal it, then they are going to have to face the facts of the other contributing factors to the success of prop 8, some of which do not involve homophobes. Accusing every person who points out the multiplicity of reasons why prop 8 passed of being a bigot is only going to ensure that we see its like again and again and again.

Granted, I don't know if this is the point that Dan Savage was trying to make or not, but it sure sounds like it to me.

Privilege is not horseshit. If Dan Savage is to be a spokesman for LGBT people, he'll sooner or later have to recognize that he can't be selective on who matters. He cannot be dismissive of bisexual people -- which is a tendency verified to exist in LGBT culture -- in the way he currently acts.

Privilege is not horseshit. Opposing an initiative to prevent gay teens from killing themselves because it does not adequately address the ideological underpinnings of 'privilege' however, is pernicious, sick horseshit, for which I have neither sympathy nor patience. It is beyond contemptible to me that someone should decide that it is better that we permit children, gay, mistaken for gay, or otherwise, to kill themselves, because the initiative to prevent it is not sufficiently ideologically orthodox for us. It would be one thing if the initiative were completely ineffective, and we were trying to simply render it useful at all. But the objections I've seen raised are that "people aren't paying enough attention to my political issue, so therefore it shouldn't be done at all." If "It Gets Better" prevents a single suicide without addressing privilege, then it was well worth doing, and those who believe it should be stopped due to a lack of power dynamics awareness may cordially fuck themselves.

What in my post could possibly have given you the idea that I'm trying to convince his supporters of anything?

... fair enough.

My apologies, this is my issue, not yours. It is my belief that a good many of the problems afflicting the political endeavors of progressives in general, and politically active gays and lesbians in specific, is due to a belief that every setback that occurs in the Gay community is entirely due to legions of knuckle-dragging homophobes oppressing them at every turn. It's hard to combat this belief, in no small part because... well... there are legions of knuckle-dragging homophobes attempting to oppress gays at more or less every turn. But the fixation that occurs on that particular fact is, I think, unhealthy for the community in general. As I said before, Prop 8 passed for a lot of reasons. Some of those reasons were homophobia and some of them were not. But until the progressive movement faces up to the reasons that were not homophobia, they're never going to repeal Prop 8, nor prevent its adoption in other states. As such, whenever people complain about the aforementioned legions of homophobes, I tend to react by insisting that fixation upon said legions is of no help to anyone. It's unfair, I know. I'm sorry.

There are not actually as many homophobes out there as it may sometimes appear. They're there, but Prop 8 didn't pass because 52% of California pathologically hates Gay people and wants them all to die. Attempting to phrase what happened in that context and only that context is actually counter-productive.

Back ON TOPIC, I think something needs to be pointed out: This Is Not A New Thing. The article itself states:

The lewd "santorum" definition popped up after the former senator compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality in a 2003 interview with The Associated Press...

This alt-definition of Santorum has been around for the last 7yrs. This is NOT a new situation, it's only something to throw a fit over now because Santorum is running for President.

*snicker* santorum is running. *Eeeeeeeeeeeeewww*

Anyway... the question of if it's bullying? Eeh.
Yes, it was done in response to Santorum's own libel and slander against the gay culture. There was dark humor in the contest, and probably no one ever expected the term to do more than float on the Web as an inside joke. Was it done with malice? Maybe, as it was intended to insult and smear the name just as Santorum was smearing Gay Culture.

the whole Prop 8 thing is a red herring.

General Havoc wrote:words

Fair enough. I get your meaning, and in light of your explanation I'm in agreement.

(Hope it's okay to condense things like this; I didn't want to risk doing an SDnet style point-by-point where none was needed)

LadyTevar wrote:Back ON TOPIC

Allright.

Eleas wrote:Fair enough. I get your meaning, and in light of your explanation I'm in agreement.

(Hope it's okay to condense things like this; I didn't want to risk doing an SDnet style point-by-point where none was needed)

It's perfectly fine, otherwise we'd be here all week.