Google's Image Search Now Requires Explicit Queries For Explicit Results 369
Several readers sent word of a change to Google's implementation of SafeSearch for image searches. There used to be three settings: Off, Moderate, and Strict. (You can still see these settings on, for example, Google's UK image search.) Now, for U.S. users they've made Moderate the default, and the only other option is to "Filter Explicit Results." Going into settings provides no way to turn it off. That said, Google still lets users search for explicit content if the search terms they enter are specific to that type of content. A Google rep said, "We are not censoring any adult content, and want to show users exactly what they are looking for — but we aim not to show sexually-explicit results unless a user is specifically searching for them. We use algorithms to select the most relevant results for a given query. If you're looking for adult content, you can find it without having to change the default setting — you just may need to be more explicit in your query if your search terms are potentially ambiguous. The image search settings now work the same way as in Web search."
It is filtering out wikipedia content (Score:5, Interesting)
Fading star (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, who's up for a new toy: The Porn Search Engine.
Hopefully Wikimedia Commons will follow suit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (Score:5, Interesting)
In the interests of fairness Google should offer an Unsafe Search option.
Re:Relieved (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this coming from people who are too stupid to choose "Moderate" or "Strict" controls? Do we have to be protected against ourselves now?
I think it's more that Google lawyers protecting Google from being sued by moralists, like "my seven year old son used the library computer, and this is what he saw when going to Google. Baw, baw, we need MILLIONS". And jurytards giving it to them.
I'm sad to see that Google is so spineless and does evil.
Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (Score:5, Interesting)
it's another filter that you can opt in or out of.
I thought the controversy here was that you couldn't opt out of it. It used to be you could turn safesearch off and that did it. it sounds like that isn't enough now, and that even with safesearch off results are still being filtered.
So... tell me how to be more explicit? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a search for blowjobs. http://i.imgur.com/R5mjw.jpg [imgur.com] Feel free to click at work, it's work safe. That's the problem. Fisting, rape, etc., all had the same tame results.
Re:Fuck Google and FUCK their "SafeSearch" bullshi (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit. You can still search for whatever you want, you just need to specify that yes you really do want THOSE kind of images.
How, exactly? The way to do that was by turning off safesearch, which you no longer can do.
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a definite difference between helping my kids with their homework, and doing it for them. Like what happened a couple weeks ago: "Dad, I'm stuck on this math problem."
I take a look at it, and sure enough, it's ugly. Yet it's not. I say, "One word: parentheses." It took him a couple more minutes but he got it and saw why it wasn't nearly as ugly as it looked.
Did I do his homework for him?
ObTopic: Yes, I've been known to suggest search terms that would be more effective than the ones he was going to use.
Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
I just did a search for rimjob, and there wasn't one explicit result.
Re:Oh grow up. (Score:5, Interesting)
...then turn it off. Are you seriously complaining about a feature because it's on by default?
Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.
You're seriously asking that question on a site where a simple search will reveal dozens of articles in the last few months where there's literally thousands of dissenting/agreeing commenters debating 'on by default' as a thing.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/1755259/no-opt-out-for-ads-on-new-kindle-fires [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/12/057241/utorrent-adds-featured-torrents-ads-with-no-opt-out-yet [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/30/2054237/eff-wants-ubuntu-to-disable-online-search-by-default [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/12/183247/mozilla-details-how-old-plugins-will-be-blocked-in-firefox-17 [slashdot.org]
And for good measure, here's everyone excited that an option is now required on with a healthy smattering of, "why wasn't it default before?"
http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/11/19/2359205/facebook-switching-to-https-by-default [slashdot.org]
Shall I go on...?
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
Do your protect your kids from violence too or just sex?
Neither. But the crux of the matter is, if they're not actively looking for it, there's no reason they should be exposed to it. Which is what Google's move is all about...