(13)
As I reported yesterday at Search Engine Land, we have our first case of Google Knowledge Graph nudity or pornography come up. Here is a picture (note, it no longer works for this query):
How this happened is unknown to me right now. All I know, Google manually fixed it.
We spotted this via a heads up from @ShootThePicture on Twitter.
We have had ton of cases of new search features being targeted by porn in the past, here are some:
- Porn Found on Google News Home Page
- Google Search By Image Thinks I'm A Porn Star
- Very Explicit Porn Hits Google Universal Search
- Google Video Filter By Source A Porn Spam Target?
- Google's Strict SafeSearch Show Porn & Not Moderate SafeSearch
- Pirelli Tires? Nope, Pirelli Porn In Google
- Google's Porn Issue With Children Related Keywords
- Google Gadget Porn Becomes an Issue
- Porn Spammers Targets Holocaust Terms in Google
- More Nudity & Pornography Found in Google Gadgets
Forum discussion at Google+.
Comments:
ethalon
03/22/2013 01:42 pm
Hey Barry, ypi have edited the picture to not show nudity on the graph but the same image (unedited) shows to the left. Not that I am offended by difficult-to-see breasts, but I assumed you censored it for a reason and would like to know.
Anti-SEO
03/22/2013 02:05 pm
Only unstable person can see porn in this picture.
ethalon
03/22/2013 02:19 pm
Only an unstable person can see porn in this picture? Perhaps you live within a culture that has differing standards for what is pornographic and what isn't. Google operates as an American company, and in America exposed nipples (not so much breasts anymore as side, under, over, 3/4ths, aerial, underground boob is now more or less common place) are considered 'pornographic'. Is it a little puritanical, sure, but you could be a little less close minded when it comes to the cultural norms of those who aren't...you.
ethalon
03/22/2013 02:23 pm
Ha! I was downvoted for pointing something out. That is pretty wonderful.
Anti-SEO
03/22/2013 03:29 pm
Is US court also close minded and doesn't understand cultural norms of US ? For ex., in 2011 court ruled that the FCC wrongly fined Jackson and CBS for the nip-slip.
ethalon
03/22/2013 03:55 pm
That is a bit of apples to oranges.
Anti-SEO
03/22/2013 04:43 pm
How ? Should Jackson's nipples be considered as a cultural norm, but Angel Tompkins nipples - as a porn ? )) That is exactly apples and apples (or oranges and oranges)). You could be a little less close minded when it comes to the cultural norms of those who aren't...you.
ethalon
03/22/2013 06:33 pm
I mean that a still/moving image of intentionally exposed nude breasts is considered pornagraphic and treated as such in the culture Google operates in. The image was appearing on the knowledge graph, and was intentionally topless and that is basically sitting there as a static thing. Janet Jackson having her breast exposed in a momentary 'wardrobe malfunction' is not considered pornagraphic; it is considered an 'oops'. Kind of like how a magazine of women pulling their skirts up to expose themselves goes in the porno bucket and a woman having her skirt blown over her waist in a strong gust of wind goes into the 'oops' bucket. It is about the context and intent, not about the individual body in question. So yes, I feel that stating those who see the image as pornagraphic are unstable is exhibiting close mindedness to a cultural norm. You could call it silly, and that is your opinion, and that is fine (and I would happen to agree). But to say that someone is unstable for operating within their own cultural context is labeling the individual as defective and that is shitty. So yes, I would say apples to oranges.
ethalon
03/22/2013 06:44 pm
Although I do see your point if you are saying that the image appearing on the graph in the first place was the apples to apples (both being unintentional). I still do not agree that the FCC/Supreme Court case is relevant to a 'what are the broad cultural norms in relation to nudity and it's accepted deffinition' conversation, but I can see how accidental exposure of an individual and accidental featuring of an exposed individual could be considered and apples to apples case. I just don't think that was the conversation we were having...but we got there, and that's nifty.
Anti-SEO
03/22/2013 07:54 pm
1. there is no reason to fantasy about intentions, cultural norms, fruits, etc. Read what the court ruled. 2. there is no such law, as "exposed nipples are considered 'pornographic'". There are regulations used by different organisations. Most of such organisations are non-government. 3. As far as I remember, it was Michael Moore, who filmed perfect documentary, explaining how such organisations work. He told about the raters of the movies. In short, it's a pure business, far from cultural norms or care about the kids. 4. Let me ask you, how many states in US did you visit, pretending you know US cultural norms better, than others ? By visit, I mean not the transit area of the airport or the three days trip to the biggest city of the state. You should explore your own country. Probably then you could be a little less close minded when it comes to the cultural norms of those who aren't...you.
ethalon
03/22/2013 08:48 pm
1) I don't remember mentioning laws, just norms. The court made a ruling on a controversial and very public FCC penalty, not on the current cultural norms. The FCC throws penalties and fines around all the time, but the whole country usually doens't hear about 'Rick and Rick's Morning Show' being fined for accidently cursing on air. 2) Again, I am aware that there are no such laws. I do not think I implied that there is an official orginization, government or otherwise, enforcing 'naughty bits' rules. These are simply cultural norms that are generally fluid over time and occasionaly are impacted by singular events -showing a womans fully exposed butt during prime time television was a 'big deal' when it happened in the 90s (NYPD Blue I think)...now not so much. 3) I don't believe I saw that documentary, but I agree that ratings are about business to the extent that having a certain amount of nudity or violence or even just blood will see your movie with a certain rating and therefore a certain audience reach. I would argue that what is considered 'ok' for PG-13 or R ratings is impacted in some way by the cultural norms we are discussing. 4) That is a somewhat fair question as these things tend to ebb and flow a bit as you move from place to place in the US. I would say that there are still some broad norms that apply across the better part of the country, but for the sake of argument: I have lived in New Jersey, Vermont, and North Carolina (which is already a pretty diverse set of East Coast states). I have spent time, more than just passing through, in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, California, Florida, Texas, and Wyoming. I have spent less than a few days in a couple more. I could probably due to see more of the prarie states now that I look at the list. Fun conversation, you have helped me occupy some downtime I had today at work. Thanks.
Anti-SEO
03/22/2013 09:38 pm
You're welcome )
deralexander
03/25/2013 12:19 pm
mybe you was downvoted couse nothing in this pic is censored.. the block of your sight is mybe just the Alt tag of the Pic couse of the hovering Mouse... maybe..