Is Santorum's "Google Problem" a Google Problem? 775
theodp writes "Fortune contributor Dan Mitchell argues that GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum's 'Google problem' isn't Google's problem at all. 'The fact that searching for 'santorum' puts the profane, anti-Rick Santorum site SpreadingSantorum.com (NSFW) at the top of Google's search results,' insists Mitchell, 'is not an example of a "Google bomb," despite the widespread use of that term to describe the result.' In the same camp is Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan, who also says that Santorum has a search engine problem, not a Google problem. 'It's just that everyone fixates on Google,' Sullivan adds. Which is perhaps to be expected, since Google is the King of Search and also has ties to SpreadingSantorum creator Dan Savage, having featured the sex-advice columnist in Google's The-web-is-what-you-make-of-it Chrome ad campaign (for Savage's admirable It Gets Better Project, not SpreadingSantorum). So, considering Google's vaunted search quality guidelines, is some kind of change in order? Sullivan, while making it clear he opposes Santorum's views, nonetheless suggests Google is long overdue to implement a disclaimer for the 'Santorum' search results. 'They are going to confuse some people,' he explains, 'who will assume Google's trying to advance a political agenda with its search results.'"
Re:Legal Action (Score:5, Interesting)
Later, Google removed the image entirely from the search results, [cnn.com] banning the domain entirely.. saying the site 'could' spread malware.
Now, all of a sudden, Google doesnt do either? Really?
'They are going to confuse some people,' he explains, 'who will assume Google's trying to advance a political agenda with its search results.'"
It sure looks like they are.
Re:Cyberbullying (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean his $2M house in Virginia. He was using a cheap sub-100K home in PA, rented out to some tenants, to both maintain the illusion of residency and screw a poor local school district out of $67k-100k (exact figure varies by story) to send his kids to some cyber charter school while they were primarily living in VA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Pennsylvania_residency [wikipedia.org]
Re:Sounds like (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US, it's very difficult for an incumbent President to lose an election. Freaking Dubya got re-elected - that alone should say plenty. If it weren't for the two-term limit, we'd probably have Presidents-for-life.
Further, in the US, once you've lost a Presidential election, you pretty much never run again (at least in recent history). No idea why, but it's true. Gore never ran again. Kerry never ran again. McCain isn't running again.
Add those two facts together, and you get why most of the intelligent Republican candidates are sitting this election out. They know any of them stand a very low chance of winning this year. They know their odds are much better in 2016. So all the candidates that are rational, logical people aren't running, leaving only the dregs of the party. The nutjobs, the demagogues, the morons. Honestly, I'm thinking Stephen Colbert might actually be the best candidate.
Re:Cyberbullying (Score:5, Interesting)
"If he wanted to avoid criticism, he could have simply retired quite comfortably to his home in Pennsylvania."
Yep, that would be one way.
Another way would be to, you know, not be a monstrously bigoted asshole. But you know, people choose different ways to get through life.
Re:Savage is anti-bullying? (Score:2, Interesting)
Rick Santorum is not my first choice by a long shot for the presidency, but it would be ironic if he got the nomination and then won the election because most Americans are fair-minded enough to actually be swayed the other way by Savage's malicious hatefulness and disgusting behavior. I don't think Savage is really doing Obama any net favors at this point.
Unfortunately, You Can't Remove It. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb [wikipedia.org]
He can reverse this. I remember when Apple's lack of Flash support was in the news, and Apple successfully drowned out much of the negative press by including dense concentrations of the word "Flash" (referring to the camera) in their press releases. They successfully made searches for "iphone flash" show links to their pages rather than to blogs complaining about the iphone not having Flash.
I personally feel that search engine manipulation is a problem, and while I commend Google's position on their neutrality - I feel some precedence should be given when it involves peoples names. If you have a unique name and somebody blogs bad things about you, you are stuck with those results *for life* every time someone Google's you.
Because of Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, the material has been found to be defamatory by a court, as evidenced by a court order, limiting such an option to only those in power, or those who can afford a decent lawyer. It's evil.
Re:In the unlikely event Santorum wins the nominat (Score:4, Interesting)
The santorum thing is totally different. Dan Savage created a page with meaning that other people linked to for legitimate reasons. It deserves its place at the top of the search results. There's nothing wrong with Google's algorithm and no exploit that needs correcting. The search engine is functioning correctly.
Advancing a political agenda (Score:5, Interesting)
Google simply allowed the Spreading Santorum result to rise to #1 because the site meets Google's criteria for making it to the #1 slot. It's my understanding that years ago, after the Spreading Santorum website was created, thousands (millions?) of people blogged about it, linked to it, and so on, so it rose to the top of Google when people searched the politician's name. Google is not advancing anyone's political agenda by simply allowing searches for the word "Santorum" to return results using the same ruleset that searches for any other word follow. They're simply following their own rules.
Specifically granting Santorum an exception from these rules and downgrading the site that rose to the top by following the rules would be "advancing a political agenda." Santorum's.
Of course, this is the kind of rhetoric you see everywhere in modern politics. Not advancing my political agenda is "advancing a political agenda," but advancing my political agenda is not "advancing a political agenda" but "fair and balanced reporting."
Google can do anything they want with their results, being a private company as opposed to a true "public" forum. However, that's how a lot of people view Google, and search engines in general---as neutral providers of the results of the rest of the web. I'm sure we're all familiar with the uproar when it is discovered that such-and-such a search engine is bumping certain results because they were paid off to do so. This situation would be no different. If Google grants Santorum's people a special exception and downgrades the Spreading Santorum results, that's the end of believing Google's results are fair and non-biased.
Right now Santorum's people are buying an ad on his name, obviously. Maybe Google should just remove the "ad" and the pink background from that result. Then it would be first and look just like it made it's way to first by earning that slot according to Google's ruleset. Of course that would be the equivalent of bumping certain results because Google was paid off to do so, wouldn't it?
Ultimately, this story is nothing more than people who want to control the debate getting upset that the other side is controlling the debate better than them. Google is akin to a stretch of roadside and Santorum's people are whining that Spreading Santorum staked out more, bigger political yard signs that they were able to. And now they want permission from someone to come in and rip out most of the signs so they can put up their own.
Re:Sounds like (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously? You don't know whats wrong with the US?
Lets just take the #1 cause for example:
Much of the population thinks that the 4th word you used, "Read" is a dirty word not fit for polite company. They glorify sports and hollywood to the detriment of all else. The only thing that should ever be read are necessities, like the sports page, or a tabloid about your favorite star.
Having friends in the US all over the place, of varying ages, I can tell you that its gotten to the point where a guy just admitting to reading a book that you weren't forced to read often gets you lumped into the outcast "creepy nerd" pool.
Re:Sounds like (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Santorum Has Other Issues (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tag Clouds FAIL. Dan Mitchell FAIL. (Score:4, Interesting)
You'll also notice that Santorum's wikipedia entry mentions Dan Savage and the neologism.
The stain of santorum is now permanent, and nothing could be more appropriate. It is an indelible scarlet letter written in santorum on the forehead of Santorum. It will never, ever go away. How seldom is there justice so perfect?
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how Dan Savage could have possibly dragged down the level of political discourse to even lower levels. It's been at rock bottom for decades.]
If anything, Dan Savage has raised the art of political speech in a way that was funny, creative, and innovative. His was the first really effective internet political campaign.
By the way, Savage's "It Gets Better" campaign, which is completely positive and uplifting, is also breaking new ground as really effective political speech designed to improve lives.
If he is only remembered for those two campaigns, Dan Savage will have made a positive impact on politics in a way that Rick Santorum never will.