Rupert Murdoch is such a massive twat
"... will lead to a less informed, more vexatious level of dialogue in our society.." from News Corp! I'm totally stunned. They are the same people who produce Fox News (right wing nuts), The Sun (anti-everything) and the News of the World (phonetaps)
When I search for classified ads, Google suggest me a website that has 50% of the content related to adult porn content.Google recognize that this is not a good idea to show adult content to someone who did not expressly asked for that.When I activate Safesearch this site disappear, so google has clearly identified it as a porn site.Another problem happens with website having partnership ( HomeAway, Autoscout24)http://www.petitesannonces.be/temp/google-serp-a24-complement.pnghttp://www.petitesannonces.be/temp/google-serp-a24.pngMarini said it clearly: Stop hypocrizy Google !http://videos.senat.fr/video/videos/2011/video9036.htmlIt is shame !
So basically, your complaint is that when you disable Safesearch (the default setting), you see 'unsafe' content? Well, have you considered the option of switching Safesearch back on again?Honestly, it's not like I'm a huge Google fanboy who is fine with all their practices, but it's hard to take self-inflicted 'problems' like this seriously.
So, Google 1 - News Corp 0 (due to an own goal it appears).When will the publishers of the Sun and the now-extinct New of the World realize that they are the bane of open and honest dialogue and the original purveyors of "a less informed, more vexatious level of dialogue in our society" long before the open internet - and Google - came into existence! Admit it New Corp, you shot yourself in the foot with this one, perhaps if you got your own act together before attempting to silence competitors (and why Google, not Bing or any other search engine?), you might have made a better case.
@Frédéric: if a site with adult content is returned, that's because this site is well-ranked for your query. You an I may not appreciate this kind of content, but the ranking is not exactly "chosen" by Google; it tries to capture what is considered important and useful to web users themselves (you certainly know that porn is very popular...) - with the major exception of illegal content that's excluded even if relevant and popular. Some people would appreciate a hard-line position about porn, but [most of] that is not illegal in most places, and it's not Google's job to play the world's moral authority and censor. Even your suggestion of only showing porn for people who "expressly ask for that" is a slippery slope; other people might also suggest, "don't show me anything related to socialists, muslims, gays, unless I expressly ask for that". Explicit reference to some kind of content is certainly a strong filter for search results; you will get WAY more adult classifieds if you explicitly ask for that, just like you get way more of anything you explicitly name. But generic queries like "classified ads" can relate to all sorts of content within that category and in that case it boils down to organic ranking, so if you get some adult result it's because that result is highly ranked for this generic query, even without porn keywords.Still the SafeSearch feature exists for benefit of the significant fraction of users who object to adult content, or to parents / companies / schools / etc. who need to restrict that for children or employees (SafeSearch can be enforced in several ways: locked per browser, enforced by Chromebooks' user policies, router config, several third-party parental control apps.). If you object so much to porn, why don't you keep SafeSearch enabled by default? ;-)[Disclaimer: Googler, but personal opinion, not speaking for Google Inc.]
Beside the fact News Corp is the owner/operator of Fox News where rude hosts are bent on interrupting & demolishing on air anyone who doesn't agree with their narrative (cf. Hannity, O'Reilly), their attack on Google is all too transparently motivated by the loss of advertising dollars to the web (not just to Google). One can only smile at the poorly executed ruse of referring to "small companies that have become dependent on Google for their livelihood." Really, News Corp? You so deeply care about about smalll business? How about making your TV commercial rates affordable for small businesses in the first place? If you would do that consistently over 15 years just like Google has done throughout its history, your discourse would be so much more credible... Just as transparently, News Corp., we can only admire your lack of concern for your own bottom line when you state: "Google is commodifying the audience of specialist publishers and limiting their ability to generate advertising revenue". You care so much for small publishers who generate revenues with the AdSense program that you feel the need to advocate on their behalf for higher ad rates! How generous of you. You are not at all crying on your own lost revenues, that's clear.And, oh, yes, quality and safety of content! "News of the World" is such a high quality content publisher! And Fox News is such a humanist channel, protecting its listeners from any inflamatory rhetoric, shielding them from images of wars and riots, promoting understanding between countries and peoples. "Publishing only safe content" is your motto, the mantra you practice everyday on the air. We commend you for that.Sorry, News Corp. and Rupert. Your belabored letter to the EC is just a good reflection of the garbage you put out every day and pour into people's minds with no scruples. You have disqualified yourselves long ago to advocate for decency and good judgment. Of course, if you are advocating for your bottom line, that's a different issue. We would understand your letter much better. After all, you are all about money. But at least, have the balls to declare it openly at the top of your Op-Ed to the EC. Mr. Murdoch, your letter reeks of the usual stench of your empire: amoralism, profiteering and war-mongering intent.
@Frédéric Dare I even ask what your search term is when you search for classified ads? Because when I search for, verbatim, "classified ads" I do not get any adult-content sites.
Thank you. En Güzel Oyunlar
Well that was one hell of a response to News Corp! Well done Rachel. I loved reading the last paragraph and the link to that old front page of The Sun ha! ;-) Google may not be perfect, and there is the question of them favoring their own sites/services in the search results. But they have done more good with their billions then greedy Murdoch has ever or will ever do. From very reliable search to Streetview, maps, to helping small webmasters/content creators get revenue to self driving cars and many other innovations which are mostly free, like Android. Google has certainly been creative and innovative and has improved the lives of many people. News Corp has just been greedy and is now moaning and complaining because their old fashioned business model is falling apart and nobody wants to pay for news when there are hundreds of other sites that offer the same quality (or better) of news reporting for free.
Fréderic, I really don't understand your complaints. You said that porn-related (not porn, just porn-related) sites don't appear if you choose safe search. If you don't want to see them, why are you not using safe search? Safe search is the default, it takes an active decision by the user to remove safe search.I really can't understand what you are stating in your second complaint, either.
Any criticism from Rupert should be met with laughter. This is the guy behind the phone taps, Fox News Nutwork and The Sun?! Really!?!?!?
It is great to see Google stand up to News Corp. The Western world hasnt seen the kind of disrespect for rational thought and fairness since before the French Revolution.
Readers need to understand that Rupert only cares about his exclusive rights to control distribution of sport and movies. Without this to make lots of money, he cannot run his loss-making newspapers and fringe-dwelling TV stations. Thus, he loses hs astounding level of political control in the English-speaking world.It is up to readers to decide whether Murdoch's influence, or piracy, is the greater evil.
The entirety of News Corp's beef with Google is summed up in the last statement to which Rachel refers. The nomenclature News Corp has chosen - "Professional Content Creators" - speaks to a discord they must themselves feel toward any objective internet-based content. It is true that Google has changed our perception of what is normal when searching for information. How could it not, and this is not intended as a negative comment on this change! Suddenly, the man who, for years, had a monopoly on what was "news" and how it was disseminated and digested by his scores of unwitting "followers" sees his revenues and thus margins shrinking. There is no undermining of business models here. Yes, there is undermining of the social hierarchy associated with being a well-to-do news man, but Murdoch himself undermined that when he started his trend towards media dominance. All Google has done has allowed us mere plebeians access to a perspective that is not filtered through News Corp's iteration of a content filter. This is seen as "evil" by Murdoch and as such, he sees an opportunity to attempt to label Google as hypocritical, even if it isn't with the same semantics or syntax. If those at News Corp that are not named Murdoch see fit to find issue with his version of published events, are they permitted to use Google to further enhance their journalistic integrity and gain multiple perspectives on any given issue so as to allow them a broader view of an issue about which editors demand content?? It was a sad day when journalism became less about reporting facts through objective and educated eyes. It was a far sadder day however when we realised that we had unknowingly capitulated to business models that stole away our right to such perspective like a wolf in the night, and replaced it with a plethora of choice of media outlet, each with its own subtle variations of the same opinion so that one had but to flick through the channels, or search through the pages of results of electronic media to find a program, publication or video that gave one's own hastily-formed opinion credence. This is where the true power of a "news" organisation lies in this day and age; having multiple outlets that will cater to whichever opinion you choose to have on any given day. Google does not seem to set an agenda when it comes to at which end of the spectrum you sit and thus, does not provide anywhere near as biased a view of world events or available content as News Corp does. Any decent search engine will provide results on any given topic that are simply about the topic. It is the purview of the "news" organisation apparently to decide which opinion or view we are to receive and accept. The business model that Murdoch doesn't like is any such model that dilutes his ability to dictate what that opinion or view should be. I believe what Murdoch really doesn't like - and it is not a business model but rather an inalienable human right - is the right to educated objectivity.
Well, if Rupert Murdoch is not happy with Google, he can try doing what he is good at ... removing the opposition. Come on Murdoch ... start a new search engine which does as you want it to do .. and lets see the public make their choice on their preferred search engine. Google or MurdochSearch :)
Dear Mr Murdoch,In the olden times, people had to read your papers to be informed, don't be upset that Google has taken your old ways away from you and allowed the public to read your bread and butter for free.
Poor old Murdoch...can't handle the competitive heat! Go Google Hee he he. Keep putting the wind up him! :)
If Rupert Murdoch is so dissatisfied with Google's search engine what is preventing him from using another one? I shifted to DuckDuckGo years ago because I got tired of Google trying to second guess me on what it thinks I wanted. I searched for ages to find how to print to an HP-LJ4P with a JetDirect card at Google and never found an answer. With complete control at DuckDuckGo I had my answer within six hours. Just because Google is the most prevalent search engine doesn't mean others may be more suitable to your purposes.
These are the complaints of a man that has remained invested in antiquated technology, failed to visualize the future and is throwing a childish, and I suspect ineffective, temper tantrum. His behavior is similar to the RIAA; unfortunately he won't be able to sue children.
I find it utterly laughable that the dirty digger is complaining about Google. If there is anyone who has form its News Corp.Manipulating politicians to suit their own needs?Bugging, phone tapping etc?False accusations/ [Think Elton John some years ago]You name it, News Corp has done it all.I wouldn't touch their publications with a mile long barge pole...tough on the business end of the barge pole!
i really like this News, looks great1 |2 |3
companies like news corp have no room in today's world
You are welcome to comment here, but your remarks should be relevant to the conversation. To keep the exchanges focused and engaging, we reserve the right to remove off-topic comments, or self-promoting URLs and vacuous messages