Slog - Comments on Google Image Search Wants Me Dead

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Wed, 30 May 2007 10:48:57 -0800

I thought Google image search defaults to moderate. Wouldn't that mean you, at one point or another, changed it to 'do not filter my results'?

Comment by Boomer in NYC

Boomer in NYC — Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50:46 -0800

Nobody asks for a dead baby's raped anus.

Comment by David Schmader

David Schmader — Wed, 30 May 2007 10:53:42 -0800

Yes, I changed my filter preference from unfiltered to moderate filter. I chose unfiltered initially due to residual Kinko's damage, which taught me not to trust large corporation's ideas of what should be censored. (Maybe things have changed, but once upon a time, Kinko's would not allow me to use the word 'crap' in an email.) That'll learn me.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Wed, 30 May 2007 10:55:36 -0800

I'm not saying anybody should expect to see a dead baby's raped anus. That's vile. That's beyond vile.

I'm just defending Google, which I love with all of my heart. If he were to have seen this picture with the moderate filter, that would be a different story.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Wed, 30 May 2007 10:59:18 -0800

You could still report this to Google. I don't think that image should pop up under any circumstance.

Comment by David Schmader

David Schmader — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:00:10 -0800

I heart Google too (especially the iGoogle page). The moral of this story isn't Google is evil, but that life in the internet age can be super fucked-up.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:10:13 -0800

Moral of story received, and duly noted.

Comment by Tiffany

Tiffany — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:12:10 -0800

Welcome to the Internet, David!

Comment by monkey

monkey — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:18:33 -0800

Oh man, just consider yourself lucky it wasn't a picture of a rifle-blasted ham. ew

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:25:45 -0800

Has Bjork ever requested rifle-blasted ham?

Comment by dw

dw — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:30:49 -0800

Ahem.

Comment by elswinger

elswinger — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:35:08 -0800

I'm still trying to figure out what you typed.

Comment by dw

dw — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:36:50 -0800

Oh, and always search with moderate filter. Because you never know what NSFW images will come up even on completely normal searches.

You could try reporting it to Google, but I don't know if that will work.

Comment by zzzz

zzzz — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:39:14 -0800

Re: 11: "Hey look everybody! A Stranger writer riffed on the same received phrase that a Metroblogging Seattle blogger riffed on in 2006!"

Comment by Christin

Christin — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:42:08 -0800

I definitely have zero desire to EVER see that, nor do I particularly want others to find the image and pass it around, start using it as a goatse-style shock-image, et cetera.

However. Phrasing it as "featuring two common, non-pornographic words. The first word has five syllables, the second has three, and neither would raise a red flag from even the most prudish web browsers" makes it feel like Will Shortz's Sunday Puzzle on NPR, and now I can't help but fixate on what it might be, from a purely word-puzzle point of view.

I'm sure I can't be the only one. This isn't a request to know the words, let alone have them published here. Just... thought I'd throw this out there.

Comment by David Schmader

David Schmader — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:46:17 -0800

Re: 15: I'd rather have you guys puzzling over the search terms than fretting over how to get that goddamn image out of your heads.

Re: 14: Actually, I think it's pretty interesting how many writers Google has tried to kill.

Comment by dw

dw — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:48:17 -0800

I won't take the bait. No, I won't.

Comment by dw

dw — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:50:47 -0800

Google wants all bloggers dead. That way, they can stop spending so much on servers for caching all those searches of LOLOMGWTF blog posts.

It's all a conspiracy, I tell you. They're part of the Pentabulate now.

Comment by Tiz

Tiz — Wed, 30 May 2007 12:41:25 -0800

@15. I really want to know, too.

@16: the problem with not telling us, is that the only way for us to know for sure if we're right is to try different word combos and see if that horrible pic pops up. Or you could just tell us, and we won't look.

Comment by Christin

Christin — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:09:53 -0800

...so, the office has spent the afternoon trying to come up with what it could possibly be. We aren't actually checking any of our guesses, because we don't want to be right.

However, it does lend itself to gallows humor. The sickest 5-syllable-3-syllable one we thought of? "Unregulated adoption."

(I emphasize: we didn't check. If that's it, I don't want to know.)

Comment by some guy

some guy — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:53:44 -0800

i tried "Unregulated adoption" and didn't find anything.... it's safe, i swear!

Comment by Monique

Monique — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:58:30 -0800

Y'know, if someone wanted to find that image, they could google any number of things which you specified, because you did say where you found it. It'd be hit-or-miss, and I'm sure as hell not going to try it, but I'm just saying, the image is not lost to the cyberether forever. In that vein, I really do want to know what phrase you used that brought this image up.

I want to know because I want to make sure that I never, ever, google it.

Comment by cn

cn — Wed, 30 May 2007 16:24:33 -0800

I'm pregnant and curious sometimes about how my little fetus is developing, GOD, image searching on fetus + age brings up all kinds of terrifying dead fetus/baby images posted by anti-choice assholes.

Comment by Ben

Ben — Wed, 30 May 2007 19:44:23 -0800

Um, thanks for the warning, but did you have to describe the image so explicitly? "Disturbing image from a report on child abuse" would have been plenty sickening and still made the point...

Comment by lawrence clark

lawrence clark — Thu, 31 May 2007 04:01:10 -0800

@24,Agreed.