桑托姆的“谷歌问题”不是谷歌的问题

    问题是，这并不是一个轻松的任务，谷歌事实上也一直在对搜索结果进行筛选。一般来说，主要是为了防止人们利用搜索引擎获取商业利益，比如垃圾邮件及其近亲内容农场（content mills，内容农场是指图谋网络广告等商业利益的专业公司，以针对热门搜索关键词制造大量网络文章的手法欺骗搜索引擎，使它们制造的网络文章能优先出现在搜索结果的前段而提高点击率。内容农场制造的文章多半低素质，不具参考价值，而且掺杂着许多广告式的链接，这是因为其文章可能是由多人所写的片段拼凑而成，或配合机器自动编凑产出，最多者每日可生产数千篇——译注，摘自维基百科）会使用各种搜索引擎优化手段来推高他们的页面在搜索结果中的排名。如果谷歌和其他搜索引擎不利用算法来过滤这些垃圾内容，哪怕用户只是输入“管道工”三个字，搜索结果中也会出现大量的黄色网页和外汇交易指南等垃圾内容，迫使人们必须翻过一页又一页的搜索结果，才能找到真正需要的页面。

    虽然SpreadingSantorum这个网站言辞过激，但它主要目的在于论述政见，而且它完全是通过合法的手段爬升到搜索结果的第一位的。谷歌不能、也不应该去进行干涉。毕竟这个网站之所以如此火爆，完全是因为桑托姆自己先对同性恋群体说了过激的话——比如他把同性恋比作“人兽杂交”。

    当年，谷歌在改变算法拆除“谷歌炸弹”前，谷歌先编辑了一条注释，解释了为什么搜索“惨败”会出现小布什的简历，然后将这条注释在搜索结果中“置顶”。直到今日，如果搜索结果首位出现污辱性内容，谷歌还是会遵循这个办法来处理。比如，如果在谷歌上搜索“犹太人”，搜索结果第二名的位置上就会出现一个反犹网站，估计这个网站是一帮无知的极端分子开办的，但第一名的位置仍是谷歌的注释。

    正如沙利文所指出的那样，桑托姆之所以在谷歌上受辱，完全是他自食其果。不过沙利文也表示，谷歌应在本案上也采取类似做法。他说的或许有些道理。只要合法的搜索结果不受干扰，这么做似乎也无伤大雅。不过这样又引出了另一个问题：谷歌的底线在哪里？知名作家、记者耶夫根尼•莫洛佐夫日前提议，谷歌应该给散布关于疫苗或气候异常等谣言的网站做个“记号”。不过要想给每条有争议或过激的搜索结果都加上免责声明，谷歌和必应就得额外雇佣许多人手专门从事这项工作。而且他们还得界定哪些内容属于“过激”和“危险”的内容。而且，关于这两个词的适用范围，并不是所有人的看法都一致。

    如果谷歌庇护了桑托姆免受SpreadingSantorum网站的谩骂，那么如果网上又出现了一个和桑托姆的名字有关的极具污辱性的词汇，谷歌是不是又要去庇护他一次？毕竟如果搜索“人跟狗”（man on dog）的话，第一条搜索结果里首先跳出来的就是桑托姆的名字。而“人跟狗”这个词恰恰就是桑托姆亲口用来形容同性恋群体的。说到底，正是这句话才为他招来了后面的这些麻烦。

    译者：朴成奎

    The problem is, that's not an easy task, and Google filters results all the time. Usually, though, it's to thwart people who are trying to game the search engine for commercial gain: for example, spammers and their close cousins, content mills, that implement various SEO tricks to push their pages higher in the results than they otherwise would be. If Google and other search engines didn't engineer their algorithms to screen out the garbage, a search on "plumbers" might force users to scroll past page after page of porn and Forex trading tips before finding their desired pages    As offensive as it might be, SpreadingSantorum amounts to political discourse, and since it made its way to the top of Google's results through entirely legitimate means, Google can't -- or anyway, shouldn't -- do anything about it. After all, the site is a response to the highly offensive things Santorum himself has said about gays -- comparing homosexuality to bestiality, for example.

    As offensive as it might be, SpreadingSantorum amounts to political discourse, and since it made its way to the top of Google's results through entirely legitimate means, Google can't -- or anyway, shouldn't -- do anything about it. After all, the site is a response to the highly offensive things Santorum himself has said about gays -- comparing homosexuality to bestiality, for example.    Before Google changed its algorithm to dismantle the Google bombs, it had placed a note at the top of the page of results for "miserable failure," linking to the company's explanation for why the search brought up Bush's bio. It does a similar thing today for searches that push offensive material to the top. For instance, a search on "Jews" brings up, in the No. 2 position, an anti-Semitic site run, we must assume, by knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

    Sullivan -- though he rightly pins the blame for the situation on Santorum himself -- argues that Google should do a similar thing in this case. Maybe so, and as long as it doesn't mess with legitimate search results, it seems harmless enough. Except that the question then becomes: where does Google draw the line? This is the same problem with Evgeny Morozov's recent proposal that Google should "flag" sites that might be spreading misinformation about vaccines or climate disruption. To add disclaimers to every result that might be controversial or offensive, Google and Bing would have to employ whole teams of people devoted to just that task. They would have to decide what is "offensive" and "dangerous," and of course not everybody always agrees on when those terms are apt.

    For example, if Google were to protect Santorum from SpreadingSantorum, would it also have to protect him from another highly offensive term associated with his name? After all, "Santorum" is the very first word in the very first result that comes up for a search on the phrase "man on dog" -- a phrase uttered by Santorum himself to characterize homosexuals, which was what started this whole mess to begin with.