marketing you can measure™
020 7061 6426020 7061 6426
The national newspaper websites are awash today with reports on Google’s refusal to remove a racially offensive image of Michelle Obama.
The image in question depicts the first lady with simian features and is currently appearing as the top result in Google image searches for “Michelle Obama”.
In reaction to numerous complaints, Google took out the following advert, which has appeared often at the top of the results page today:
Were this notice and a brief statement sufficient, or should Google take further action and block the distasteful image?
A statement issued by Google has clarified that the image will remain, although it does include an apology to anyone that the image offended:
“...we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it... We apologize if you've had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results."
It’s a difficult question, of course. No-one wants over-regulated search results and if Google removed this image, surely it would have to follow suit in other cases? This could easily spiral out of control and lead to unsatisfactory and uncomprehensive search results for us all in the future. It could also significantly impact upon search engine optimisation techniques if taken too far.
It would be incredibly difficult for Google to decide where it should draw the line. How many people would need to find an image offensive or distasteful for it to be ruled “unsuitable” for certain search results?
Google does remove certain images from its search results if it is required to do so by law. However, since the site featuring the Michelle Obama image is permissible and the White House has declined to comment on the matter so far, it seems that it will certainly remain in the SERPs.
So what do you think - has Google done the right thing in standing its ground on the issue, or should it take more control and further regulate its search results?
*Update*
The Guardian is reporting that the owner of the blog in question has removed the image. However, it still remains in the image search results, and presumably will do so until the blog is next crawled by Google.
*Update 2 - 1st December 2009*
Google seems to have been listening after all. It now gives you the opportunity to report images, even when displayed on normal web search - not just image search - pages.
(5) comments
Comments
I think it's up to the owners of individual sites to regulate themselves in matters like this [as the Guardian article suggests has happened here], not content aggregators.
The only exception is where the content contravenes national or international laws [racism, racial hatred etc.], but it's not going to be easy. Deciding whether something contravenes taste and decency laws is often a question of context rather than simple content.
From the conflicting views that have already been presented, this is clearly a topic that deserves further debate and consideration.
Would removing images like the one of Michelle be equivalent to restricting the freedom of speech (as Ben suggests) or is it simply the right thing to do to protect children online (as Kadius argues)?
I'm still sitting on the fence I'm afraid!
Becca
The company did remove one site displaying the image from its results because it included viruses, which Google policy prohibits.
So all they would have to do is modify their policy to include racism and story over.
I abhor the growing tendency of trying to shut people up on the grounds of feeling offended. We don't live in a society that gives us rights not to be offended (yet).
Yes, the picture of Michelle is disgusting. But unless it can be proved to be illegal, it's not Google's place to remove it from the SERPs.
The more complex answer would involve whether Google should apply stricter filtering to images of that kind - ie, should it be seen only by those who choose not to have their results filtered at all? I'd say, probably, yes - but how easy that would be, I don't know.