Google Cache Makes Murdoch's K-12 Site Look Obscene 101
theodp writes "Rupert Murdoch's Amplify Education site is all about the kids, so it's understandable that the site's Terms of Use bans abusive, pornographic, obscene, and vulgar content. But if one uses Google to do a site search of Amplify.com (e.g., site:amplify.com donkey) you may get quite an unexpected eye-opener (redacted, but still NSFW). So, does someone at Amplify really want to "@&^$" your "a**"? Of course not. But this does serve as a cautionary tale of the perils of buying a second-hand domain name when pages of the shuttered site may live on in cache-land. Prior to its conversion to a site for kids' education, Amplify.com was a social sharing product that allowed users to clip favorite sites from the web and add their own commentary. Google does note that removed content may still show up in Google's search results in certain situations (removal requests can be made)."
Update: 04/08 17:04 GMT by T :
Stephanie Chang writes (in a comment below):
"Hi, I’m the editor of Amplify.com. We purchased our domain name in February 2012 and took ownership of the site in July 2012 for use as our company's home page. Prior to that, the domain was used by its previous owners as a social-sharing site. As a result, some old content dating back to the previous domain ownership still shows up as cached on certain search engines. Amplify Education, Inc. did not produce the cached content in question nor do we in any way endorse it. We’re working with Google and other search providers to make sure caches of our site are up to date. In the meantime, we apologize to anyone whose attempts to locate information on amplifying donkeys resulted in a negative browsing experience."
Other good porn sites? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
fchan or e621 :>
Re:Other good porn sites? (Score:5, Funny)
Frigging Furries, always ruin everything!
Re: (Score:1)
Mod Parent Up.
Furry porn is the best porn.
Re:This seems like a Google issue (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if this is a "Google issue" then what's the solution? You'll piss off someone somewhere, no matter what you do. That's not a Google issue, that's an issue with all opinions.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think google cache should necessarily be used for looking into a websites history especially beyond an ownership change when the site is completely different. That's something for the Internet Archive project [archive.org]. I think people should be able to request any previously cached pages be removed (can they already? the notion of pages being removed on request was vague enough that I don't know if it's ona per-page basis or can be per site) and updated with modern content. It doesn't need to be an immediate
Fake outrage. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How long? "Until next page update, or as short as possible after it occurs".
Google Cache is a backup resource for the case the site is temporarily down, not a history resource to show how the site looked like before. If the site goes missing, keep until it's deemed gone permanently. But if the site changes, apply the changes and don't hoard expired pages.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What's the news here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's webmaster tools can limit issues like this.
As can wary domain buyers who know to look at a domain's history as part of the valuation.
This is why you robots.txt after a purchase (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to establish your own site after you take it over, always throw a deny-all robots.txt to clear out it's google cache and archive.org entries for a couple of weeks
Re: (Score:3)
We're talking about Rupert Murdoch; it's a pretty solid bet that robots.txt won't be part of his solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If that actually works, that's really scary. That would mean that the Internet Archive's copy a whole website could be removed entirely just because the domain name changed ownership. There are quite a few scenario's where this is clearly unwanted, the most obvious ones being the operator of the site running out of cash and selling it, or a site a site that contains dirt on e.g. the political process that gets confiscated or pressured into removing the pages.
Wayback Machine Exclusion is Permanent (Score:3)
http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#14 [archive.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably exactly what he wants. No point letting others keep records of past bad behaviour or fickle political support that is revoked as soon as the other party gets its tongue a bit further up his arse.
Obviously the cached content was not current (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Obviously the cached content was not current (Score:5, Insightful)
What's with the "f_ck" and "a_s"? If you thought the word and probably say the word, why not type the word?
Fuck and Ass. There, no one died.
Re: (Score:2)
What's with the "f_ck" and "a_s"? If you thought the word and probably say the word, why not type the word?
Fuck and Ass. There, no one died.
The original content was redacted, so it make sense to redact the joke.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's with the "f_ck" and "a_s"? If you thought the word and probably say the word, why not type the word?
Fuck and Ass. There, no one died.
As far as I am concerned .. an Ass is a four legged animal that is a subgenus of Equus. Now if you were talking Arse .. you'd be heading into a much darker void.
Re: (Score:2)
Different things indeed. An ass is approximately 25% larger than an arse, due to the relative size of the American posterior.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying, you are this guy in the middle: http://youtube.com/?v=g5cSg05ajuM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wolfram|Alpha, UK butts are 1.029 times larger than US butts [wolframalpha.com].
Re: (Score:1)
oh boy if you thought all that ass porno was some stupid donkey shit then I got news for you! also you might want to get a new dictionary before joining that gay fellows association(so you at least know what you're getting into).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe you're just a FUCKING ASS.
Re: (Score:2)
<boondock-saints>FUCK! ASS!</boondock-saints>
Re: (Score:3)
What's with the "f_ck" and "a_s"? If you thought the word and probably say the word, why not type the word?
Fuck and Ass. There, no one died.
Between you hitting submit and slashdot entering in the database (500ms), Someone probably did die.
Re: (Score:2)
You should be a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
What's with the "f_ck" and "a_s"? If you thought the word and probably say the word, why not type the word?
Fuck and Ass. There, no one died.
Ooooohhhhhh. You said the fuck word, and the ass word as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooohhhhhh. You said the fuck word, and the ass word as well.
"Twat".
Re: (Score:2)
What's with the "f_ck" and "a_s"? If you thought the word and probably say the word, why not type the word?
Fuck and Ass. There, no one died.
That should be "F" word, "A" word, and I guess donkey is now the "D" word. Or maybe Google should be the "G" word. And for the record, no, I don't like that donkey doing that to my butt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There, no one died.
False! I bet you that more than 5,000 people died in the time it took you to write that post. The good news is that as a result of people committing 'obscenities', around 7,000 more were born.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, I can think of a politician or two...
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck and Ass. There, no one died.
I beg to differ [census.gov].
And Google Street View makes me look bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And Google Street View makes me look bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if the previous residents of my house liked to decorate the windows with pentagrams? Or do people understand that different people live at the same address at different times?
No, not when it comes to the internet. If hotmail.com was sold and became a p0rn site, it'd be a media apocalypse. Eventually people would understand the difference but they don't today.
What should be done, relative to the popular ignorance on this subject, is simple: the buyers of used domains should be careful to guard their reputations, allowing caches to expire, 404'ing inbound links from old affiliates, etc... A more interesting discussion would be, What technical steps should be taken when buying a used domain?
Re: (Score:2)
If I move and don't tell anyone, people who are looking for me will continue to ring the doorbell at my old address. If I want people to be able to find me, I should let them know I am going to move. But that's not the same thing. This isn't about what will be happening on the old address, but about what has already happened on the new address.
Re:"Cache-land" (Score:5, Informative)
It's basically equivalent to quoting a portion of a work for a book review, which is fair use. Google's profitability is irrelevant.
People should be thankful for having an opt-out robots.txt at all. It would in most cases not violate copyright for Google to ignore it completely (it might violate the site's TOS, but it is questionable whether even this holds any weight); they are just courteous enough to honor it. robots.txt is there mostly to prevent servers from being overloaded, or to keep content private, not to enforce copyright on publicly-facing content.
No one cares what you "find weak" or "struggle understanding." I'm sure there's quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Note also that the argument that "getting your stuff copied" should be an opt-out situation (as in "well, you can always put a robots.txt" or "you can always do steps x y and z") i find weak. this is what in essence we have with the DMCA and youtube -
Don't post your information publicly if you don't want search engines to find it. Put it behind a password, or a paywall or some other way to protect it and search engines won't find it - no robots.txt needed.
If you're going to tape the pages of your book up in a public park, don't be surprised if some of the public write it down or take a picture of it for their own use.
and you see it takes all of an instant from the time that any given video is taken down to the time that it's up again in some other form Rightsholders have to have *full time* people involved in policing sites like youtube.. something just isnt right about that.
What's the alternative? Copyright holders have always had the burden of protecting their work. Should youtube be shut down because someone
Re: (Score:2)
Posting something publicly has nothing to do with copyright. And taking a picture of something for private use has nothing to do with redistributing content.
Re: (Score:1)
Linking is republishing? Bullshit. It would be easy for the "rightsholders" to remove their content from Google search -- just put up your robots.txt. They don't do this because they are *dependent* on these links. What they want is to force Google to tithe for this privilege, since they know they need it more than it needs them.
Face it concern troll, Google is doing "rightsholders" a service, not the other way around. And if that were not true, we would start seeing robots.txt instead of bleating about how
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they CHOOSE to have full time people do this. They also choose to have some inadequate software do it too. They don't have to do it. They have some fear (grounded or unfounded, brilliant or misguided) that "people will see our stuff and we won't profit from their eyeballs". This may be true. But it is their choice to produce stuff and their choice to limit distribution in th
Re: (Score:1)
Look - I know many of you *philosophically* justify copyright as something beyond a government granted privilege. Fine. Whatever.
Eh, I guess I'll leave it at that. There's just no arguing with fanaticism.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fair use" is about the recipient (a.k.a. the user, the buyer, the reseller and such terms), and other second and possibly third parties, holding some limits on the rights holder's ability to enforce copyright under certain circumstances. Saying Google's actions pass "no test of fair use whatsoever" because they might be opposed by the rights holder, or even cause some objectively verifiable problems for the rights holder, is like saying 'innocent until proven guilty' should be abolished because it doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for "philosophically" being opposed to copyright, I'm not, I'm only opposed to the way the laws are currently structured and from what I've seen most people on this side of the argument are in the same boat. I write as a hobby, if I struck gold and had a book published, I should be able to keep other people from copying and redistributing that book for profit for a few years. But, my children's children should not be able to sue people for using my characters forty years after I die. Reasonable people support reasonable copyright laws.
Reasonable people obey the law, and if they don't like a particular law they try to get it changed. You don't get to choose which laws you obey, that's anarchy.
Frankly, I'd be more impressed if someone objected to the idea of copyright completely, rather than using the specific terms as an excuse to flout the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats how searchengines work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
great. but i'm not talking about the snippets. i'm talking about the mechanism in google and elsewhere where you can see essentially complete copies of the webpages. have you even read the original article? moreover, do you think i can make such a reasoned objection (which you may or may not agree with) without knowing how search engines work?
Re: (Score:2)
There really are some spectacularly stupid children given mod points.
Point of this sort of redacting? (Score:2)
What is the point of replacing 'fucking' by 'f****ng', 'ass' by 'a**' and 'dick' by 'd**k'? In the context you can still clearly tell what the words being used are.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of complaining about the redacting? In the context you can still clearly tell what the words being used are --- unless you're that one guy who can't, who now has an intriguing motivation to learn a few more vocabulary words today.
Re: (Score:2)
Please share your potentially benign, child-friendly reading within the "margin of ambiguity" of the redacted text: ... to kill ... all our children.'"; it's another to fall so far into paranoia that you fear the above phrase might be
"Do you like my donkey d**k f*****ng your a**? Take it TAKE THE F*****NG D**K. I am f*****ng you like a dog. YEAHHH!"
that might make you worry the phrase was taken out of context. It's one thing to worry about redacted quotes like "Politician X said: 'I will never stop fighting
Re: (Score:2)
What worries me is this crazy american political correctness.
Think of the children! We mustn't say bad words! Instead we'll say them, but with a letter missing.
This is the stupidest thing ever devised.
Re: (Score:2)
A knee-jerk over-reaction to perceived "political correctness" is itself somewhat worrying.
Thing to worry about: school library removes books discussing human sexuality and reproductive health.
Thing not to worry about: a child is potentially denied the chance to see "donkey dick fucking your ass" spelled out un-redacted on a news site.
I don't think it's unreasonable for a website to respect the squeamishness of potential readers (even if they are irrational for caring about word usage), so long as this does
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that doing this took time and energy, both of which are valuable and were wasted. Just like you're wasting my time now.
Re: (Score:2)
You waste your own time by reading/responding; don't blame others for your failings.
I suppose I mistakenly assumed that you were against censorship for any sort of free speech concern. Given that you want to micro-manage how others spend their own time and choose to communicate, you can't be much of an advocate for freedom. What a pity, if only Slashdot posters didn't waste all their f**king time censoring swears, they'd surely use that saved time to cure cancer! If we made 'loufoque' dictator of the univer
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm against is doing things that are clearly useless and that fail on everything they were trying to achieve.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know the redaction failed "everything they were trying to achieve"? If the goal of the redaction was to prevent people from being able to figure out what the words were, it obviously failed; but that (based on the obvious failure) probably wasn't the redactor's goal. If the goal was to replace some occurrences of the letters "uc", "ic", and "as" with "**" (or a gray box, in the image), it was a complete success. If the goal was to avoid offending people who, for their own idiosyncratic and possib
Re: (Score:1)
What is the point of replacing 'fucking' by 'f****ng', 'ass' by 'a**' and 'dick' by 'd**k'? In the context you can still clearly tell what the words being used are.
Deamons (automatic programs) that trigger on the exact spelling, doing something to (needlessly?) block it.
Re: (Score:2)
The document in question is in image.
WebArchive... (Score:2)
WebArchive could be a even serious problem here.
Google's cache are temporary. WebArchive aims to be eternal. :-)
Spelling, spelling, spelling (Score:2)
From Amplify: Yes, it's old content in cache-land (Score:1)