Watch out for them jews...
April 13, 2004 6:26 AM Subscribe
Searching Google for the word "Jew" brings up a clearing house of anti-jewish propaganda, Jew Watch.
WTF?
WTF?
Presumably it qualifies as free speech & hence is not illegal, at least not in the US. As I understand it, there are laws preventing the publication of such material in Germany, hence this site's non-appearance on the equivalent search on google.de.
posted by misteraitch at 6:33 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by misteraitch at 6:33 AM on April 13, 2004
There's an effort to instead link jew to the wikipedia entry, which has already risen it to #2 (last week it was #5 for me).
posted by mathowie at 6:36 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by mathowie at 6:36 AM on April 13, 2004
'Watch' seems to be one of those expressions that is rapidly evolving from meaning watch-dog or commentator to being the euphemism-du-jour for 'I dislike/hate you.' The evolution of 'watch' reminds me a bit of all those PACs who take civil society buzz-words and combine them, 'The Campaign for Citizen's Freedom' or whatever, but you have no idea what they really stand for.
posted by carter at 6:37 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by carter at 6:37 AM on April 13, 2004
Apparently some supremacists googlebombed the word. There's an active effort to move the bomb over to the Wikipedia entry for Jew. Just google for jooglebomb and you'll see what's happening.
posted by brownpau at 6:37 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by brownpau at 6:37 AM on April 13, 2004
Although I hope that the wikipedia entry succeeds in moving up to first result, some have raised concerns over the larger issues involved, and how among bloggers, google listings could quickly turn into a politcal game.
posted by mathowie at 6:38 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by mathowie at 6:38 AM on April 13, 2004
[conspiratorial whisper] The Jews control the synagogues. [/conspiratorial whisper]
posted by planetkyoto at 6:44 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by planetkyoto at 6:44 AM on April 13, 2004
Jooglebomb! Hee hee ...
Google currently indexes 223 links to jewwatch.com and 169 to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia links often have comments on the jooglebomb. But also, what mathowie said.
posted by carter at 6:47 AM on April 13, 2004
Google currently indexes 223 links to jewwatch.com and 169 to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia links often have comments on the jooglebomb. But also, what mathowie said.
posted by carter at 6:47 AM on April 13, 2004
"Why would this surprise you? Why would moral people selling porn be the only ones googlebombing and otherwise doing their best to get to the top of the listings?
I try to keep my blog the #1 result for my real name, why wouldn't people who think the Jews are running the world (or media, or whatever it is this week) try to do the same?"
I guess the only ones surprised are the people who believe the jews are running google.
posted by spazzm at 7:01 AM on April 13, 2004
I try to keep my blog the #1 result for my real name, why wouldn't people who think the Jews are running the world (or media, or whatever it is this week) try to do the same?"
I guess the only ones surprised are the people who believe the jews are running google.
posted by spazzm at 7:01 AM on April 13, 2004
[conspiratorial whisper] The Jews control the synagogues. [/conspiratorial whisper]
[co-conspiratorial whisper]And the delicatessens, too.[/co-conspiratorial whisper]
posted by jonmc at 7:04 AM on April 13, 2004
[co-conspiratorial whisper]And the delicatessens, too.[/co-conspiratorial whisper]
posted by jonmc at 7:04 AM on April 13, 2004
So what I've always wondered about this situation is has anyone found any reasons why the hate site was shown first? It's kind of weird that this random hate site is number 1 for the search for "jew" but I haven't seen anyone point out where the links came from and if there was some sort of call to action to make it happen. Was it recent or has it been this way for some time?
posted by mathowie at 7:10 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by mathowie at 7:10 AM on April 13, 2004
It's because we Jews handed over the word "Jew" to the bigots, preferring the PC "Jewish people." Say "Jew" aloud, and hear the bad connotations. I personally prefer "Jew" and could never figure out why my 10th grade history teacher would always say "Jewish people." (He turned out to be an anti-Semite)
I can't think of a situation in which a Jew would be likely to hyperlink the word "Jew," but it seems natural that a bigot would.
posted by inksyndicate at 7:14 AM on April 13, 2004
I can't think of a situation in which a Jew would be likely to hyperlink the word "Jew," but it seems natural that a bigot would.
posted by inksyndicate at 7:14 AM on April 13, 2004
but I haven't seen anyone point out where the links came from
Just ask google itself. If you want to see what pages are linking to a site just type the following into google: links:website_address. For pages linking to metafilter just type: links:metafilter.com, and google will list the referrers. By analyzing the referrers, you should be able to see if this is an organized googlebomb or not.
(Didn't feel like searching for the hate-site links since I'm at work)
posted by jsonic at 7:32 AM on April 13, 2004
Just ask google itself. If you want to see what pages are linking to a site just type the following into google: links:website_address. For pages linking to metafilter just type: links:metafilter.com, and google will list the referrers. By analyzing the referrers, you should be able to see if this is an organized googlebomb or not.
(Didn't feel like searching for the hate-site links since I'm at work)
posted by jsonic at 7:32 AM on April 13, 2004
err...nm. carter already said that. (and its link:website, not links)
posted by jsonic at 7:34 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by jsonic at 7:34 AM on April 13, 2004
The Wikipedia entry is now Google #1 ("Google Prime?") for me.
posted by bshort at 7:39 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by bshort at 7:39 AM on April 13, 2004
mathowie, I'm getting a similar problem with a word search for my own name on Yahoo (which appears to run on a similarly bombable algorithm). Previously detailed here. I've attempted aggressively googlebombing myself, and even bought a domain, all to no avail. There may be creeping political issues with search engine bombing, but it would appear these search engines have issues of their own to iron out. To think that Google's the best of them.
posted by brownpau at 7:41 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by brownpau at 7:41 AM on April 13, 2004
Say "Jew" aloud, and hear the bad connotations.
Yeah, this is the best explanation given - if you google "jewish" or even "jews" you don't get that hate site on the first page.
I don't think it's just a question of "handing over" words, though. Nouns that refer to specific groups tend to be a little more offensive than the same words used as adjectives - to speak of "a black" is different from speaking of black people; likewise with most minority groups - including medical or personal groups, ie, he is a dyslexic vs. he is dyslexic... For "Jew" the adjective is a different word, "jewish".
posted by mdn at 7:53 AM on April 13, 2004
Yeah, this is the best explanation given - if you google "jewish" or even "jews" you don't get that hate site on the first page.
I don't think it's just a question of "handing over" words, though. Nouns that refer to specific groups tend to be a little more offensive than the same words used as adjectives - to speak of "a black" is different from speaking of black people; likewise with most minority groups - including medical or personal groups, ie, he is a dyslexic vs. he is dyslexic... For "Jew" the adjective is a different word, "jewish".
posted by mdn at 7:53 AM on April 13, 2004
Yeah, but even a search of the non-friendly sounding word "blacks", brings up surprisingly clean results.
posted by dgaicun at 8:08 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by dgaicun at 8:08 AM on April 13, 2004
dgaicun -- if you're going to make a bigoted site about blacks, i suspect you'd choose a more derogatory word.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:24 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by Krrrlson at 8:24 AM on April 13, 2004
maybe the ranking of th eanti-semitic site is surprising because people think that anti-semitism is a non-issue - just a few crzies and nothing to worry about.
(i don't know if that's the reason, but i'm increasingly worried that anti-semitism is a larger problem than i and perhaps others are assuming. it's very easy to go from "israel is doing some very nasty things" through "i'm being called an anti-semite when i'm just objecting to israel" to "this whole anti-semite thing is just throwing shit at anyone who objects to israel". if you assume the first of those, you pretty much end up learning the second and the jump to the third is perhaps easier to make than it should be).
posted by andrew cooke at 8:32 AM on April 13, 2004
(i don't know if that's the reason, but i'm increasingly worried that anti-semitism is a larger problem than i and perhaps others are assuming. it's very easy to go from "israel is doing some very nasty things" through "i'm being called an anti-semite when i'm just objecting to israel" to "this whole anti-semite thing is just throwing shit at anyone who objects to israel". if you assume the first of those, you pretty much end up learning the second and the jump to the third is perhaps easier to make than it should be).
posted by andrew cooke at 8:32 AM on April 13, 2004
There's a small debate at Alexa/Amazon. The site's traffic has jumped considerably since March.
Googling for Joseph Pulitzer gets a j-w site in the top 10.
posted by carter at 8:48 AM on April 13, 2004
Googling for Joseph Pulitzer gets a j-w site in the top 10.
posted by carter at 8:48 AM on April 13, 2004
I fail to see the source of outrage here... The word 'jew' is not always used in the most enlightened discourse; the fact it returned a bunch of gutter-minded, knuckle-dragging anti-Jewish material from a search engine is really no surprise.
Rappers call their black friends [really bad N-word], but if you put that into Google you're going to get the same results.
So, again, I ask what the big deal is? I'm fairly sure that all of us have been on the 'Net long enough to know that there's an abundance of racially-motivated hate material out there.
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:25 AM on April 13, 2004
Rappers call their black friends [really bad N-word], but if you put that into Google you're going to get the same results.
So, again, I ask what the big deal is? I'm fairly sure that all of us have been on the 'Net long enough to know that there's an abundance of racially-motivated hate material out there.
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:25 AM on April 13, 2004
Anti-semitism has certainly been big news here in Canada, what with the events in Toronto and the school firebombing in Montreal recently.
For some good commentary, try here and here.
The article you linked to, mathowie, is very interesting. I know I'm conflicted, as surely people can see beyond page ranks, but I still want that hideous site out of the first spot.
posted by livii at 9:50 AM on April 13, 2004
For some good commentary, try here and here.
The article you linked to, mathowie, is very interesting. I know I'm conflicted, as surely people can see beyond page ranks, but I still want that hideous site out of the first spot.
posted by livii at 9:50 AM on April 13, 2004
mdn, that's interesting.
But what about SPIC, the website of the Society for Prootion of Information Technology in Chandigarh?
posted by inksyndicate at 10:00 AM on April 13, 2004
But what about SPIC, the website of the Society for Prootion of Information Technology in Chandigarh?
posted by inksyndicate at 10:00 AM on April 13, 2004
The big deal here is that, whether through Google-bombing or whatever means, a hate-filled site is the #1 site returned on that search screen. And that somehow it's acceptable in this day and age.
As an experiment, I did an Google image search on the same string. Man is that scary... check out some of the scary representations of jews there.
What would it be like if the word "Christian" brought up as the #1 site a site devoted to Christian atrocities?
posted by jpburns at 10:03 AM on April 13, 2004
As an experiment, I did an Google image search on the same string. Man is that scary... check out some of the scary representations of jews there.
What would it be like if the word "Christian" brought up as the #1 site a site devoted to Christian atrocities?
posted by jpburns at 10:03 AM on April 13, 2004
The big deal here is that, whether through Google-bombing or whatever means, a hate-filled site is the #1 site returned on that search screen. And that somehow it's acceptable in this day and age.
So far as I know, Google is not really in the business of deciding whether search results are "acceptable" other than whether they meet the searcher's needs. If Jew Watch's rank is the result of gaming the system, then they should be lowered, but if it's an honest reflection of the site's popularity, well, that's pretty damn educational in itself, if depressing.
posted by kindall at 10:25 AM on April 13, 2004
So far as I know, Google is not really in the business of deciding whether search results are "acceptable" other than whether they meet the searcher's needs. If Jew Watch's rank is the result of gaming the system, then they should be lowered, but if it's an honest reflection of the site's popularity, well, that's pretty damn educational in itself, if depressing.
posted by kindall at 10:25 AM on April 13, 2004
Or if a search for "Allah" returned first the parody blog of a right wing pundit? Man, that would be horrible.
posted by brownpau at 10:47 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by brownpau at 10:47 AM on April 13, 2004
Hmmm, I do have to say that the Google Image Search results are more disturbing than the Google results.
posted by inksyndicate at 10:49 AM on April 13, 2004
posted by inksyndicate at 10:49 AM on April 13, 2004
I agree with kindall -- Google's job is not moralityfilter but rather proper content management. If they are being gamed, then they need to fix their models to be as gameproof as possible.
For those wanting an extra dose of morality, both the "Advanced Search" and "Preferences" options on Google offer SafeSearch under which the Wikipedia entry qualifies first and the Jew Watch site does not appear to qualify at all (or at least on the first several pages of return I skimmed).
The argument has been made above that one would expect more inflamatory websites to use inflamitory language, but googling for the first two common derogatives that came to mind for both Jewish people and people of African descent returned pages dedicated to the research of those terms and appeared to be scholarly. YMM, of course, V.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:55 AM on April 13, 2004
For those wanting an extra dose of morality, both the "Advanced Search" and "Preferences" options on Google offer SafeSearch under which the Wikipedia entry qualifies first and the Jew Watch site does not appear to qualify at all (or at least on the first several pages of return I skimmed).
The argument has been made above that one would expect more inflamatory websites to use inflamitory language, but googling for the first two common derogatives that came to mind for both Jewish people and people of African descent returned pages dedicated to the research of those terms and appeared to be scholarly. YMM, of course, V.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:55 AM on April 13, 2004
Yeah, but even a search of the non-friendly sounding word "blacks", brings up surprisingly clean results.
Yeah, but even
Listen to what youre saying!!!
posted by Satapher at 11:20 AM on April 13, 2004
Yeah, but even
Listen to what youre saying!!!
posted by Satapher at 11:20 AM on April 13, 2004
hmmm...
i want to get a hate site off of the top results in google...
i know! i'll link to it from a site that has A LOT OF PAGE RANK.
that'll show them.
i third kindall's arguement. google isn't a moral filter and will only filter phrases or words if required by law (ie. Germany). Google bombing is a consquence of the Google Algorithm and, as long as it isn't abused too much, is something that I don't think will ever be fixed by their algorithm (but it might be possible - they're probably working on it).
posted by Stynxno at 11:33 AM on April 13, 2004
i want to get a hate site off of the top results in google...
i know! i'll link to it from a site that has A LOT OF PAGE RANK.
that'll show them.
i third kindall's arguement. google isn't a moral filter and will only filter phrases or words if required by law (ie. Germany). Google bombing is a consquence of the Google Algorithm and, as long as it isn't abused too much, is something that I don't think will ever be fixed by their algorithm (but it might be possible - they're probably working on it).
posted by Stynxno at 11:33 AM on April 13, 2004
Why would this surprise you?
Many decent people never really get used to the potential malevolence of other human beings.
posted by homunculus at 12:18 PM on April 13, 2004
Many decent people never really get used to the potential malevolence of other human beings.
posted by homunculus at 12:18 PM on April 13, 2004
And just to think a few days ago, one of the big shots at Google said that google bombs were not a problem..
posted by geeknik at 12:50 PM on April 13, 2004
posted by geeknik at 12:50 PM on April 13, 2004
Yeah, but even a search of the non-friendly sounding word "blacks", brings up surprisingly clean results.
"jews" also brings up (suprisingly?) clean results, at least on the first page. The plural is less problematic; it's when you call an individual person an exclusive noun based on intrinsic attributes beyond their control that you run into trouble, I think.
although to be clear, I am actually worried about the prevalence of anti-semitism, esp. when it's masked as political or socially acceptable (eg, that adbusters thing)
posted by mdn at 1:27 PM on April 13, 2004
"jews" also brings up (suprisingly?) clean results, at least on the first page. The plural is less problematic; it's when you call an individual person an exclusive noun based on intrinsic attributes beyond their control that you run into trouble, I think.
although to be clear, I am actually worried about the prevalence of anti-semitism, esp. when it's masked as political or socially acceptable (eg, that adbusters thing)
posted by mdn at 1:27 PM on April 13, 2004
i wanna point out that theres an awesome metafilter post right below this one that you stale sponges are ignoring.
posted by Satapher at 1:41 PM on April 13, 2004
posted by Satapher at 1:41 PM on April 13, 2004
Oh no! Searces for Homogenized Milk point to pages about homosexuality! Call the GOOGLE POLICE!
BOOOOOOORING.
posted by shepd at 7:15 PM on April 13, 2004
BOOOOOOORING.
posted by shepd at 7:15 PM on April 13, 2004
The plural is less problematic
It was the next best analogy I could think of. The point was that while the word 'Jew' {or 'blacks'} may sound unfriendly in a broader range of contexts neither has come close to being enough of a slur where we should _expect_ it to be the #1 hit for a hate site. I was disagreeing with inksyndicate who said "It's because we Jews handed over the word "Jew" to the bigots". But this is exaggerated, much more important causes for this are the scale of bigotry and/or Google-bombing.
BTW, I was surprised because I checked 70+ and couldn't find it in a negative context, which I guess is better than I thought it would do. Interesting though that the 15th hit for this word, by coincidence, was another anti-Semitic site.
Ahhh . . . the Internet.
posted by dgaicun at 7:29 PM on April 13, 2004
It was the next best analogy I could think of. The point was that while the word 'Jew' {or 'blacks'} may sound unfriendly in a broader range of contexts neither has come close to being enough of a slur where we should _expect_ it to be the #1 hit for a hate site. I was disagreeing with inksyndicate who said "It's because we Jews handed over the word "Jew" to the bigots". But this is exaggerated, much more important causes for this are the scale of bigotry and/or Google-bombing.
BTW, I was surprised because I checked 70+ and couldn't find it in a negative context, which I guess is better than I thought it would do. Interesting though that the 15th hit for this word, by coincidence, was another anti-Semitic site.
Ahhh . . . the Internet.
posted by dgaicun at 7:29 PM on April 13, 2004
Antijewcon (member by humor)
posted by Keyser Soze at 8:22 PM on April 13, 2004
posted by Keyser Soze at 8:22 PM on April 13, 2004
« Older Future music | What Can Be Done? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I try to keep my blog the #1 result for my real name, why wouldn't people who think the Jews are running the world (or media, or whatever it is this week) try to do the same?
Heck, I bet the moron who thinks there's a big religious conspiracy to rule the world would be willing to spend a lot more time on this then I would be.
I don't see what surprises you, unless it's that Google doesn't censor itself actively.
posted by tiamat at 6:32 AM on April 13, 2004