molly.com
Saturday 27 October 2007
The Word “Jew” is Considered an Offensive Google Search
I saw something I’ve never seen on Google tonight.
Friends and I were hanging out talking about this and that, and the topic turned to New Mexico. I brought up the “Crypto-Jews” which are an unusual sect of the Jewish culture that was given a choice by Spanish and other legislation to either be exiled or to embrace Catholicism at least as early as Columbus sailed the ocean blue, in 1492.
Encouraged by friends to Google for more detail on how a branch of the Crypto Jews wound up in the U.S., much less the dramatic environment of New Mexico, I used this search query:
jew new mexico
I was surprisingly greeted by Google with a rather cautious explanation:
“If you recently used Google to search for the word “Jew,” you may have seen results that were very disturbing.”
Google continues:
” . . . why is a search for “Jew” different? One reason is that the word “Jew” is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word “Jewish” when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically.”
Ashkenazim and Sephardim
I am what is known as an Ashkenazi Jew. Easily explained, this means my heritage is Eastern European, and the unique language of my people is the more commonly known language, Yiddish. If you know Jews personally outside of Spain and nearby countries, you are most likely to know Ashkenazi Jews exclusively.
There are, however, quite a fair number of Spanish Jews, known as “Sephardim” who have settled the world. Though a smaller sect, the Sephardic Jews continue to follow their unique language and cultural versions of Judaic belief.
Historically, many of the Sephardic Jews who were unwilling to give up their rituals and beliefs chose to emigrate to other countries around the world. Many have come here to the U.S., but a unique group settled in New Mexico.
Isolated and very much to themselves these Sephardic nomads have hung on to their faith and, most notably, their language, Ladino.
Ladino, Zionists and The Proper Jew
Ladino, as it’s known, is the Sephardic equivalent to Yiddish – at least conceptually. Ladino has Spanish, Arabic, Hebrew, Italian, German, Turkish and even more exotic languages mixed in! Alas, it is mostly a lost language due to the ousting or conversion of Jews during the time of the Crusades.
Jews in the U.S. are facing a lot of challenges, particularly if they take a Zionistic viewpoint. As a Jew I have a spiritual but not necessarily religious relationship to my Judaism. I embrace my heritage with the love of a poet who hears the cadence in the words as they are written. I also have enjoyed the great glory of a strong soprano who has been humbled by the more ancient and holy; more haunting harmonies of a heritage thousands of years old.
What I am today is not a Zionist, nor a religious Jew. By the judgement of some, that’s not a proper Jew at all. But I am the culmination of those thousands of years, and proper or not, as a student of life but most especially words, for me, the word “Jew” isn’t offensive. Rather, descriptive as an ethnographic identity.
And Google . . .
So my question, at the end of all this soul searching, is: Is it up to Google to be a purveyor of political correctness?
Who at Google determined what my ethnicity, heritage and terminology therein means?
My Judaic and history as a U.S. born American has shaped me and made me the person that I am and for that I am very proud.
Maybe Google isn’t as emotionally secure?
Filed under: faith(less), society, travel
Posted by: Molly | 23:00 | Comments (34)
Respectfully, I would take issue with your interpretation of this situation. While I have no personal interest in defending Google, it doesn’t seem to me like google is implying that “Jew” has as you put it “Disturbing Connotations”. Put yourself in their shoes. The word “Jew” when searched on Google, obviously at some point retrieved a list of links to websites that were apparently antisemitic, or disturbing. The fact that this list appeared in google may have appeared as though google endorsed the sites.
If you were Google, what would you do? What they have done, (posting an explanation for why those results turned up) seems reasonable enough to me. I don’t really understand why it is offensive to you- and this blog post hasn’t really sufficiently explained it. Maybe I’m just insensitive or dumb or something, but I don’t really get it.
Actually, I remember reading once where this came from: apparently some white supremacists google-bombed “jew” to point to a bunch of anti-semitic sites. People complained to google, but they refused to compromise their algorithm for PCness, so they just added the note to avoid offending anyone. I guess they added that notice for all “jew” searches for completeness.
Also, a great literary reference for crypto-jews is The Baroque Cycle, by Neal Stephenson. You have to read probably 1200 pages to get to the crypto-jews, but it’s a great work of literature for history and science geeks.
Well, to me, a non-Jewish person, using the word “Jew” as a noun seems a bit harsh (*cough* South Park *cough*
), whereas a more “correct” description would be “Jewish.”
As for your post’s title, I don’t think Google considers “Jew” an offensive Google search — it’s the results that are offensive. Not the search term itself.
I think this was a rather smart move by Google, as they can’t, for consistency and moral reasons (legal, maybe?), censor their searches one way or the other.
I completely understand and respect your position and your pride in your heritage, but I also understand Google’s position. There are now unfortunately certain words in the English language that can have very different interpretations depending on the intonation, something that can’t be easily ascertained in a text search without context.
I think whichever way Google went with this they would always be between a rock and a hard place. By displaying the warning they are at least displaying some understanding of the situation.
- Neil.
I remember reading about this when they first set it up – about a year ago maybe?
There was one anti-Jewish site in particular, which I won’t mention here, that managed to game the #1 position for the search “Jew”, and for whatever reason Google chose to disclaim their results rather than manipulating them to look better.
I gather they were trying to say, “See? We don’t individually manipulate search results, it’s just The Algorithm”, although that’s patently untrue.
I agree that their disclaimer seems a bit offensive itself. Also, I found some equally offensive sites in the first page of searches for “gay” and “Mormon” but no such disclaimer. Odd.
P.S. The Sephardic information was fascinating, love to learn obscure linguistic facts like that!
It seems that Google thinks that what may be pulled up could be offensive, as they stated in what you quoted “…you may have seen results that were very disturbing.”
Dunno if yer aware of this, but the Ooh of Ahh library has the Bloom Southwest Jewish Archives http://parentseyes.arizona.edu/bloom/
and it has a section on Cypto-Jews: http://parentseyes.arizona.edu/bloom/crypto.htm
which lists several links to books and articles and one for the Society for Cryto-Judaic Studies
See also:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Internet_75/4482_75.htm
(and it was about 3 years ago. I have no concept of time.)
Maybe Google should put a “may contain offensive material” on every search page. It’s not like they’ve actually checked each one to make sure it isn’t, right?
And of course you may be *looking* for offensive pages. I think what Google should actually do is put a warning saying something like “In following the links in the Google results for , you may see results that are nothing to do with what you searched for.”
It could continue:
“Why is searching the web special? One reason is that words are often used in a way that Google doesn’t understand. With people using slang, mis-spelling words, and occasionally being ignorant, malicious or just plain wrong, it’s not always possible for Google to figure out what you were looking for in the first place, or find things that might help. If you really need good results, try a librarian.”
(The clocks went back in the UK today. This may explain my mood
Curious, I tried a quick experiment. What I find more interesting than the “Offensive Search Results” label for Jew is that when I searched for “n****r” there was no label. I also tried a few other derogatory words and phrases and didn’t see any warning labels. Similarly, search for a number of curse words — no such warning.
Seems oddly selective.
You need to search on “Jew” and “Google” at the same time to get the back story on this disclaimer. The offensive site is Jew Watch, which shows up towards the top of the results, as a result of Google bombing the word “Jew”.
In this context, the word “Jew” was used in a derogatory manner, to offend rather than classify. After the up roar about it turning up as a top search reult, Google finally added the disclaimer.
The search that Shelly recommended led me to this explanation:
http://www.sethf.com/anticensorware/google/jew-watch.php
Interesting. No other major search engine has singled out the word “jew”. Google has, obviously, succumbed to political pressure. Google’s notice is rather unobtrusive .. personally, wouldn’t have noticed unless I had been looking for it. Am not so sure that it is a good practice to single out any given word that may be intentionally used to defame. If I were Jewish, I would probably take exception to Google’s sole singling out … it, perhaps, does more harm than good.
In terms of New Mexico, many Jews came here during the Inquisition in Mexico. A whole society of people who seemed Catholic, but were actually hidden practitioners of Judaism have recently started “coming out” in New Mexico. Search Google for “ladino new mexico” and see what you get.
Violet Blue made a similar point about Google search terms and how sexual minorities self-identify with those terms in a recent Google Talk (http://youtube.com/watch?v=B1y9ysYNCKE).
@Tim: words like “n*gger” and “k*ke” are quite clearly offensive and don’t really need the disclaimer. “Jew” however has multiple contexts — sort of like “queer” — and could be positive, negative, or neutral depending on who’s using it.
What’s also interesting, if you view the bottom of the search results page, is the following notice:
“In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org”
My reaction to Google censoring my search results led me to investigate this further – check out the site “Google Censorship – How It Works” for more info [http://www.sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-censorship.php]
I guess it’s something I’ve naively taken for granted (albeit I tend to search for anything controversial) – my trust in Google has wavered somewhat today.
Whoops… should’ve proof read my post:
I meant to say “I _don’t_ tend to search for anything controversial”
If you should be interested in hidden Jews from Spain, you may want to search the term “Marrano Jews.”
Marrano Jews were Sephardic Jews who adopted Christianity during the Spanish Inquisition. Many of these people chose to practice Judaism in secret. Over the centuries many descendants of Marrano Jews still practice many Jewish customs but have no idea that they are connected with Judaism.
In the early 90’s I went to Spain with my family. My mother wanted to visit an old Synagogue from before the inquisition, it stands in a town whose name I can’t remember, as a historical site. We drove through on a Friday night, and while the town has a Jewish population of zero, there were many window with candles lit in them. The lighting of the Sabbath candles, a tradition from long ago with forgotten origins.
Irony:
Jew – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ranks #1 in Google SERP for keyword “Jew”.
Many Sephardic Jews settled originally in central Mexico and then left to the north to escape the Inquisition. After Mexican independence, through the 19th and 20th Centuries, a new wave of Sephardic Jews arrived from the Middle East, some thinking they had arrived to the US, the only country they identified as American.
In Mexico they had the advantage of language. There’s an anecdote that a woman upon disembarking in the port of Veracruz and hearing Spanish said “Thank the Lord! Everybody is here is a Jew!”
On the other hand, the Spanish language reflects the strong anti-semitic feelings of the old days. “Marrano” and “ladino” have mostly negative connotations nowadays and Jews prefer to be known as “sefaraditas” or “azhkenazitas”.
Google’s offensive on offensiveness offends me!
Turns out that searching for “jewfro” doesn’t garner the same warning, but “jew-fro” does. And in the latter case, the top entry is the Wikipedia for “afro”, leading to the faint impression that Google is offended by afros, or maybe Afros. Either way, yikes.
I guess its a hard one for Google with a world wide audience. On the one hand there would be vocal minorities petitioning them somewhere on a business level to not provide hate material with certain terms and on the other end of the scale those who would petition against the move.
Its hard to say which one is right without a context aware environment. As we move into a more ubiquitous relationship with our computing environment in the coming years it will be interesting to see if Google can, or even if they will be allowed to, gain the context from you the user. Google then would know you when you log in, or through some biometric device you use to access the Web. In that case KKK members would perhaps be forbidden certain terms and others gracefully allowed to move forward.
I have sympathy for their current position. While we emotively want context awareness they are currently unable to provide that due to the limitations of technology. At the same time we’re kind of asking that they do these things to protect minorities, children etc. Anyone in Japan should get certain information when they search for whales on Google too IMO. “NOT TO BE EATEN”.
Interesting information on your Jewish ancestry Molly. You’ve been quiet lately.
As someone recently (within the last 18 years of my life!) introduced to the American idea of free expression, I can only conclude that Google… Has a very strange idea of what their role is.
“Do no evil” also, apparently, includes “do no offense that we’re aware of”.
Ridiculous. They confuse themselves as apologists for fascists. Whatever next? Apologists for anti-abortionists or pro-choicers? Beware – “you might find the following opinions offensive”?
Google is an American company, so they should abide by American principles. That they don’t – they abide the principles of whatever will generate revenue – puts their sudden “PCness” in serious doubt, as well as pointing up the hypocrisy of their actions. Oh, I’m quite sure that a company that hires so many smart people can parse this whole issue better than a Presidential Candidate switching positions. But, like all of the Republican contenders have proven: hypocritical actions tend to produce skepticism and distrust.
Whatever next? Schoolchildren look up the KKK, and are told “this is an organization devoted to anti-semitism?” Or atheists: “Beware, Kids! These people don’t believe God exists, which some people consider to be lunacy”. A search engine – especially one as predominant as Google – should abide by the spirit and intent of the 1st Amendment, not just when it’s convenient (China, anyone?) Right-wing advocates tend to say the 1st Amendment is to prevent the Government from silencing the unpopular; I disagree. It’s to stop society from stifling dissent. So what if the dissent is objectionable? So what if someone finds it offensive? Who wants to silence the critic because what they is reprehensible? America is a government of the people, for the people.
Google as the critic and connoisseur of my opinions and searches frightens me, frankly. Who are they to pass opinion? To hold opinion, in fact? They’re supposed to be a search engine, not a protector of a group of people! If they want to be a library, a fair, impartial and trusted library… Well, they have a heck of a lot to learn about the principles of the nation they inhabit.
Can I trust Google? Sure – as long as what I’m asking isn’t controversial to someone.
Carolyn Ann
PS Full discl… You know what? It’s nobody’s business.
PPS Can I, an immigrant, impinge upon their patriotism? Certainly, when it so selectively applied. And yes, I’m perfectly aware that my opinion on free expression is close to heresy to so many. It’s not that I don’t care… It’s just that I care more about the ability of others to disagree and offend than I do about curtailing that ability, lest someone be offended. Ultimately, what are we? A world of people, or so conformist that we make a school of fish look like wild individuals? /CA
Oops. “Who wants to silence the critic because what they is reprehensible?” should be: “Who wants to silence the critic because what they say is reprehensible?”
And while America is a government of the people, etc, society appoints the government. (Through a strange and incomprehensible system, I’ll admit!) My main point is that society should have no say in what my opinion, my life, my conduct, is. (Practical considerations, aside. Offending sensibilities isn’t on the list on problems.)
Apologies for the typos. Absolutely no apologies if my view on free expression offends you.
Carolyn Ann
First off: Rats! Most of my brilliants insights have been covered in previous comments. Either they weren’t that brilliant or their are some pretty sharp readers around these parts. I’ll assume the later.
I agree that the appearance of any disclaimer at all for sensitive keywords has an initial PC Big Brother odor, but after reading the content more closely, I think they handled it in a very diplomatic and non-judgmental manner. As previously mentioned, they don’t accuse the google user of being anti-semetic or banish the word “Jew” to the lexicon of forbidden, they merely give a heads up that a term with positive, negative and neutral connotations tends to provide results that are offensive to the mainstream than the user may have expected or be comfortable with. With that in mind, Molly, the question arises in my mind just how just how emotionally secure you are on this topic, since the mere suggestion that your use of the term “jew” might be offensive raised such a defensive blog entry (I kid because I love.)
I do think it’s questionable that other ambiguous terms like gay and queer (which we can also, in part, thank South Park for) doesn’t produce similar disclaimers. I suppose the defense could be made that more people are aware of the ambiguity of these terms than Jew, which many are unaware is used explicitly as a slur. On the other hand, if Google was truly interested in educating people, they’d let the offensive results speak for themselves for those naive searchers.
Lastly, this all reminds me of one of the many arguments I’ve had regarding the fallibilty of wikipedia. A friend of mine argued that google was better because it only provided search results, not facts, where as I argued that having a 80-90% accurate site was better for finding information. Essentially our argument ended with us agreeing that the difference is accountability. Google is better, in his opinion, because it’s neutral and blind, while in my opinion a site that is dynamic and changeable is better because I trust it more. The reason this discussion reminds me of this argument is related to yet another anecdote. One day I was discussing Bill Cosby with a friend, and we went to the wikipedia article to find out more stuff. The first line read something similar to: “William Henry “Bill” Cosby, Jr., Ed.D. (born July 12, 1937) is an American actor, comedian, television producer, activist, and nigger.” [sic] This was quite an akward and shocking moment, of course, but after the initial disgust wore off, I quickly clicked ‘edit’ and removed the vandalism. I was upset that someone took advantage of the ability for anyone to improve wikipedia, but then felt really good about my ability to actually improve and remove that kind of crap. Point being, I think that google’s impartial and distant nature from the content it points to will continue to create these “PC” dillemas and keep its users from finding the kind of information they are actually looking for and will probably create more and more of these disclaimer-earning situations, while a dynamic site like wikipedia will get users closer to information.
Que Sera, Sera
Afterward:
A story goes that Charlie Chaplain, when asked accusingly if he was “a Jew” replied: “I’m afraid I do not have that honor!”
much too early, apologies to Charlie Chaplin for my lack spell checking.
One of the biggest problems with search results in regard to some terms is context. The term Jew would be a good example. The search engines have no idea what type of results you are looking for some they just pull the results that have been tweaked the best.
This has bugged me too. Why no apologies for any other search I can come up with, only Jew? This is clearly as close to censorship favoring one group as they can come. It seems Jew means 100% Jew but Jewish means half Jew, one forth Jew, kind of a Jew, or one one hundredth Jew. Therefore Jew means a more racist word with a history of exclusion and a people considering their “Jews Only” racist state in Israel not racism. I don’t understand the definition of a Jew being “born of jewish mother” to be a true Jew, but you can convert, but must practice one hundred per cent to maintain the membership. Wouldn’t “born of a white mother” be a racist definition? It’s all intended to be very confusing on purpose. I also wonder why Jews have circumcisions but Somalians engage in genital mutilation? Isn’t a circumcision a gential mutilation? Why the double standards? Same with the offensive search result. Why the double standard? Same for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Israel. Why the double standards? I don’t get the double standards.
Google Israel Head Rejects Censor Role [sfgate.com]
This is from Israel Insider, a publication in Israel. It would seem there indeed was political pressure. Of course, anyone with experience would have figured that out. Type any other potentially “offensive” term into google such as, Indian giver, gypsy, spic, chink, even the n-word and you get….nothing. No warning at all. Ridiculous. Bad move google. Bad move.
“It became a heated issue when a search on Google for the word “Jew” brings a high result for a Jew-hating site. This prompted a campaign (among others) by the KolDor activist organization, most of whom are Jews, and the World Jewish Congress, replete with Jews, to eliminate the listing. That didn’t work but the Jews did win a Google- sponsored page warning that some of the search results may be offensive, especially to Jews, and noting that opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect Google’s views.”
Just a few quick thoughts–first of all, Sephardi means Spanish (just like Ashkenazi means German), but there are lots more Sephardi Jews in the world than just those in Spain and “surrounding countries.” Sephardi Jews come from the Middle East and Africa too. I am always surprised how many people mix this up.
My guess is that google is trying to point out that there are LOTS of anti-Semitic websites out there and that when using the world “Jew” in a search, one should be on guard for a higher potential for anti-Semitic (rather than unbiased, or conversely, pro-Zionist) sources. I don’t think it’s a bad idea personally. Some people still believe the Protocols was based on a “real” group of people. This would have to be, at least in part, because there was no one around to tell these idiots it was a fake.
The parts:
“you may have seen results that were very disturbing.”
and:
“We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We’d like to explain why you’re seeing these results when you conduct this search.”
Mean that “There are sites out there that use the word ‘Jew’ in a demeaning and inflammatory way. These sites may be indexed bellow, but they aren’t ours don’t complain to us.”
Personally, I think that they should stick a similar disclaimer on all search result pages in stead of just the ones which may turn up the ugly side of human nature.