Google eliminates 'die' search suggestion for autism

Post Reply New Topic

Having something removed doesn't mean they're "hiding it". For example, a racial slur that is spraypainted on a wall. Those are taken down because they're hateful, but does that mean people are hiding what people say? Of course not, they are removed to keep from problems occuring, not because people want to hide whatever racism still exists.

This is the exact same thing, it may not be racial, but it's still hateful and unacceptable.

@BuyerBeware
The last time I checked, 25 was well within the adult range.

Last edited by Jaden on 02 Mar 2013, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@aghogday.that makes sense,i have experienced more than my fair share of prejudice but have never heard an NT say they wished me or anyone else on the dead.these types of propaganda trivialize real prejudices we face.
i have never googled autism,i am a late bloomer to computer and did not even have an email address until 2009.so by the time i was online i had read so many books on autism googling it seemed pointless

I don't see what difference it is supposed to make. Besides, a lot of other marginalized groups get similar results, so it seems kind of unfair to remove it only for us.
I also agree that these searches are probably disproportionately coming from people who don't actually believe it, but are curious about the controversy.

Thanks, I do believe the proof is in the results. This thread has been an in depth discussion of this issue, where the pejorative phrase "autistics should be killed" has been stated many times in this rhetorical discussion. This is not a discussion of malicious intent.

Now, if one types the exact phrase "autistics should be killed" with the quotation marks, in a google search, this thread is listed multiple times in actual search results over any other website in expanded similar search results. Right at the top of the list.

This thread dispels a potential harmful myth to the emotions of people on the spectrum that society, in general, is busy typing in this exact phrase out of malicious intent.

The reality is, in the evidence that exists, is it is a product of almost 99% rhetorical discussions against this general issue, and against the exact pejorative phrase, from people in the autism community not from people outside of the autism community.

Thank goodness for the goodness of Google to correct a circumstance that has come out of rhetoric that is not intended as rhetoric of ill intent toward anyone.

But, never the less, when one types in just the word autistics today in a Google search followed by a space the result of the auto-complete result of "autistics should be killed" is at rank #5 out of the top 10 Google auto-complete search results. Yesterday it was #8. And the day this controversy started there was no auto-complete search result at all for this pejorative phrase if one just typed in the word autistics and a space.

Autistics type a lot on the computer. They do have a powerful impact on google search results when it comes to anything specific to the word autistics, because overall that word is not used anywhere else but the autism community. Almost everywhere else in society the plural form of more than one person with autism is people with autism, not the disability first language identifier of autistics.

In fact, just like the word neurotypical the word autistics is so uncommon in use in society that the Firefox Browser spell checker does not even identify it as a word and red lines the two words as miss-spelled words.

Who is more at fault Google's algorithm for pejorative results for the word Autistics or Firefox Browser's spell checker for suggesting the word autistics does not exist? Sounds like a good topic for a thread, but I won't do that to Firefox, because I have enjoyed the free features too much..


There are still no pejorative auto-complete results at all for the non-plural use of the word autistic. The word autism. Or any person first disability language like "People with autism should".

If Google could keep people in the autism community from typing in the word autistics by blocking their freedom of speech, and ability to use disability first language identifiers the problem would be solved, as far as rhetorical pejorative auto-complete results appearing. Obviously not a feasible or appropriate solution.

Or, if they could block the auto-complete function for just that one plural form of that specific disability first language of "Autistics". Not feasible either, and not appropriate for those that are not offended by pejorative auto-complete results from algorithms derived from billions of words of text, who appreciate the positive aspects of the feature per cost/benefit.

As stated before, thank goodness for Google, who is appropriately responding to a customer complaint, by resolving the issue without arguing with the customer, about all these details of how the algorithm process works.

But, whatever they are doing is not coming close to working at this point in time, as the autistic input into text on the internet for this exact phrase is continuing to expand exponentially, and the key word "killing" continues to rise in rank associated with the key word "autistics" alone now, in auto-complete pejorative suggestions.

It is interesting watching how the algorithm process works. But what can I say, I am a "nerd" at heart and enjoy analyzing this kind of computer phenomenon. But, there is no ghost in the algorithm. And, it has no heart. Not even the Firefox browser spellchecker that does not have any idea that the word autistics even exists.

i think i handle the internet well because i was a person who would not touch a computer untill the world became so computer oriented i had to.young people today have so much powerfull information at there finger tips without the muturity to handle the things there exposed to.and i think it messes with peoples minds

That's an interesting point. I also have a before and after reference point, that people that are born today may never have. My life before computers was much different.

I am in many ways glad that I did not have Google to answer every question because as in that Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise movie that I can't remember at this moment, the way Jack Nicholson said "You can't handle the Truth", might have applied to me if I could look up every question I had in life, at that point in time in youth.

And if I could have received the answers they might have limited my own viewpoints on my potential as a human being, and the value of the rest of society that I experienced in flesh and blood instead of virtual reality that can have much sharper edges in the distance that online communication provides.

But, it is the only way that some can effectively communicate, so it is of great adaptive value as well..

@aghogday
when i was 20 i read nobody nowhere as well as the other 5 books donna williams had out at the time.i would go to the worlds biggest library at the university of massachusetts and read the books of donna willliams and temple grandin.it changed my life for the better and may have saved my life because my 20's were hard times.i dont know how i would have turned out if i had spent my time listening to aingst filled teenagers rant about how all parents of autistic kids wanted there kids dead

A special interest of anger is not a healthy thing. I have tried to avoid that at all costs in my life. Looking for the good in people, instead of the bad. I almost always can find some in almost anyone, because I don't easily give up on their humanity.

But, my mother never expressed hatred toward anyone when I was growing up, which set the example for me that people must be inherently good, or she would have told me about it..

Unfortunately, my father was prejudiced against some groups of people, as was his mother, but he left at age 3, and I was rarely exposed to that and did not pick it up.

I suppose that is what generates my support of others, even organizations when I see that humanity. And, whenever I see what seems like unwarranted anger against others, I feel like if I don't speak up I am putting them in the place that children tried to put me when I was much younger and much different than others.

I chose to fight against it instead of fight for it.. But, I feel like I was the lucky one in the long run to be able to avoid intentionally hurting others, although there were many times I hurt others, without realizing it through my communication style. I was glad when they let me know, so I could attempt to correct the issue..

I too remember life before computers. I think that the internet and social media services that are so popular, can promote narcissism. People have Facebook "friends" and Twitter "followers". Many people especially teens seem to base their self-worth in superficial metrics such as how many people "friend" and "follow" them in these social media services. When you get a lot of narcissists in one place, the inevitable result is a shunning of the "other". Autistics are, by our nature, not social beings, so those humans who are inevitably look down on us. I wonder if a 20 year old who bases his self-worth on his 3000 Facebook "friends" and who thinks that "weird autistics" should be "exterminated" has actually stopped to think of what that would entail. I don't even think they teach the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocides in schools anymore. He's definitely too young to remember Rwanda, it happened in 1994. He probably has never heard of the Holocaust. Humanity has seen this movie before, and it always turns out the same. The survivors tried to warn us, but failed. The scary thing is, we actually have the technology, for the first time in human history, to kill a certain group to the point of extinction.

I don't think you should try to restrict what people talk about. People should be allowed to say mean things to me. I was going to use a lot of derogatory words in this post to be ironic, but I was afraid then that my post might get removed. You're a wussy if you want to keep people from googling mean things about you. Hate speech wasn't a crime until fairly recently, and I don't think that was an improvement.

This isn't about freedom of speech.
We're not talking about keeping people from saying hateful things, and we're not talking about keeping people from searching such terms. We're talking about removing the result of the frequency of such searches because it's an eyesore to those of us that it's talking about.

People can say whatever they want, but when people are forced to listen to/see those hateful remarks, it keeps us from having the freedom to simply walk away from it, and that isn't right. We have just as much of a right to have it removed, as they do to say it or search for it, and denying us that right, only furthers the dispute between us and society.

I use my facebook account as basically a bookmark and personal journal of comments for me for where I am communicating mostly in other places on the internet, on issues I am interested in. The idea of 20 facebook friends boggles my mind like trying to talk to 20 people at the same time in one room. I don't think that a person with 3000 facebook friends would likely even have time to think about eugenics concerns and autism. This is the conversation that people on the spectrum without the 3000 facebook friends are overall having, as evidenced in the actual search results. But, there are some people identifying on the spectrum that log thousands of friends in face book and moderate huge social communities that they design themselves. That is beyond the grasp of my imagination of social abilities.

On the topic of extinction of Autistics. That's not within the realm of realistic potential, because of the potential diverse underlying factors of what is described as the mandatory behavioral impairments in the DSM5 as impairments in developing and maintaining peer appropriate relationships, social-emotional reciprocity, and non-verbal language impairments. Sue Swedo the chair of the DSM5 committee recently stated in an official statement in the linked video below that RRBI's will be able to be met by history alone in the new diagnostic requirements.

http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/ ... m-disorder

The identified factors that potential underly and co-exist as what is described as ASD are far ranging and far reaching beyond the over 4,000 now identified associated genetic markers. Learning disorders/conditions in communication associated with autism mimic many of the autistic like traits as stand alone disorders including pragamatic language impairment, non-verbal learning disorder, and hyperlexia. along with other associated conditions like ADHD, Auditory Processing Disorder, Sensory Processing Disorder, OCD and the more controversial category of behavioral addiction.

That's nine conditions many of which are often co-morbid assessed in the same individual with or without a diagnosis of ASD. Then there are the identified genetic conditions associated including Tuberous sclerosis, fragile X syndrome, a potential genetic issue with abnormal brain growth specific to males with regressive autism, noonan's syndrome, 22Q11 deletion syndrome., and potentially even characteristics of androgyny.

And then the potential health factors of immune system dysfunction , GI problems and mitochondrial dysfunction and others.

That's just a small list of identified potential underlying factors that many of which may work in a synergistic fashion in what results described as a spectrum disorder. The DSM5 criterion may or may not pick up all of these related issues, because it is more restrictive in mandatory criterion requirements.

And then there is epidemiology of what exists of autistic traits in the population. Extended out as far as 30 percent into the population measured by studies in the US and in Sweden, for at least one criterion element met. Bringing the border in closer is the broader autism phenotype measured by Simon Baron Cohen in his AQ test extended out anywhere from 10 to 15% of the population. And finally the diagnosed spectrum extended out to potentially 1 in 38 in the South Korea study. This too may change somewhat with the DSM5 criteria, per the more restrictive mandatory criterion requirements.

The only thing realistically that is going to remove the autistic traits from the population is a cataclysmic event of nature or man made design that wipes out the entire human species on the planet earth. Autistic like traits exist in the animal kingdom, they likely always have and they likely always will. What makes those traits into a human diagnosed disorder is a highly subjective issue, ranging from brain infection or inflammation to the increasing demands of the social environment.

Meanwhile, the concerns over disorders like Down's syndrome are real, as there is a small set of definitive factors for a prenatal test. But even so there is prevention but not extinction of Down's syndrome as it continues to exist as it always has as a random genetic mutation in countries that don't abort, and will continue to exist as a random event of nature, if not prevented through abortion.

Organizations like Autism Speaks gave up the idea of any potential for an effective definitive prenatal test long ago, because they are a science organization in the know of all these factors and many more that are beyond my knowledge. I only mentioned two potential environmental factors of brain infection/inflammation and social adaptation, but there are potentially thousands of others.

Post natal genetic tests for risk of ASD, at 70 accuracy, in people already diagnosed with ASD, only actually identifies an increased risk of 100% in the general population which equates to a 2% risk instead of a 1 percent risk.

This is the similar issue with the AQ test that while 80% effective in identifying ASD in people already diagnosed for it, is less than 10% effective in predicting ASD in the general population where 10 to 15% of individuals come close to meeting the autism range in that AQ test, already.

The Aspie quiz statistically has been measured by the author of that quiz with similar statistical accuracy of screening risk. Neither of these tools is effective as a diagnostic tool. However, they are still generally more effective diagnostic tools than the post-natal genetic tests for risk of ASD of 70% in people already diagnosed, while predicting about 2% risk in the general population. But infants can't take the AQ test or the Aspie quiz so it assesses some level of additional risk if there is a familial risk, that to date is much more accurate in predicting autism for a sibling with an elder sibling diagnosed with autism at an actual predictive rate of close to 25%.

Many people already exercise liberal eugenics in determining a choice for legal abortion for many reasons, however liberal eugenics is still exercised through other methods of birth control when a decision is made not to have another child after the first child is diagnosed with an ASD.

But the greatest evidence of a factor of the impossibility of extermination leading to extinction is that many people actually on the spectrum express no desire to have any children at all, and some express aversion to babies in general, which is in effect a 100% choice of liberal eugenics, that naturally also exists in the animal kingdom, but does not have an ideological label like "liberal eugenics".

Not everyone in nature, either human animal or other animal has a predisposition to reproduce, but nature keeps them around because they survive and continue to survive, and are evidenced by modern science as beneficial to the survival of the species as a whole.

Meanwhile some of the other folks (except non-human animals ) are busy interacting with their 3000 friends on face book, as a natural consequence of the propensity of their nature in this new cultural environment. There is the real potential that eventually this may not be conducive overall to their reproductive success, so the gene pool is likely to change, but nature doesn't care about the human designs of culture and decisions that may or may not lead to that consequence.

So I think the question could be who should be more concerned about extermination and extinction, people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg with the autistic like traits that helped create this new design of culture, or the people that are not as vulnerable to the potential lifestyle encompassing nature of it, where social interaction is virtual instead of the flesh and blood kind that more often lead to reproduction.

The fertility rate of the 19 and under age group in almost every ethnic demographic in the US in the last 20 years, and in other technologically advanced countries has dramatically dropped.

Did Bill and Mark and folks like them have something to do with that? If nothing else an interesting thought to ponder.

And obviously not an intention of eugenics, but ironically nature doesn't care about malicious or innocent intention when it comes to whatever leads to the result of no reproduction. That's not something that people on the spectrum seem to have to worry about because they continue to exist whether or not they choose to reproduce or not, as a part of nature that can be identified across the animal kingdom more specifically in what is generally referred to as the 20% of the population that are born sitters as opposed to the 80% that are born rovers,

Those identified percentages, not surprisingly, are not too far off from either what is described as the broader autism phenotype are those with dominantly introverted personalities. I think some people might describe this as neurodiversity, but I would extend that concept out into the entire population, if not based on anything else but the general concept of neuroplasticity.

Wait, what? You have made a giant autistic-hating strawman there. Where is the evidence that the google searches were by this fictional kid you describe anyway?
Actually, it is more common with narcissism (though not to a really pathological degree I guess) in teens, with or without technology. It's a well-known, well-studied phenomena. Don't be a luddite. If you think anything social and considered normal is inherently narcissistic then you're wrong, as being a narcissist is a disorder, and not considered "normal". You don't have to like extroverts, and it's a shame that is what is considered desirable, but extrovert ≠ hating autistics.

Why are they using different terminology describing the people that are asking google to get rid of it?

I would just like your insights on this.

Some, but not all individuals on the spectrum use condition/disability first language to describe their association with the spectrum as identity. But there is a great deal of difference in opinions on this issue among people on the spectrum, as illustrated in the poll linked below in another thread that is ongoing.

Out of 101 individuals answering the informal poll, only 22 percent prefer the use of autistic to describe their association with the spectrum as identity. Other opinions vary greatly.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5261818.html

The push to person first language in disability started in 1988, and is now standard etiquette in journalism. It is also understood as the standard now in broader society to respect the person-hood of people with disabilities. The current state of professional guidance on the issue is illustrated in the link below from the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityand ... Photos.pdf

The NJ.com article describes an "autism activist", and and an "autism advocacy group", using person first language to describe the effort to convince Google to eliminate the auto-complete search results for "Autistic people should".

The push toward the use of disability first language identifiers per autism is unique among some other described disability communities such as "the deaf community", in segments of population that advocate for this now non-standard use of the disability first language identifier.

Journalism, most Charitable organizations in the US, and society in general continue to use person first disability language as the standard. However this is not the case in the UK, specific to Autism as there is a National Autistic Society, as the largest charitable/government funded and sponsored organization.

This is part of the point I have been trying to make in this thread specific to the issue of the auto-complete suggestions in Google as it appears to be an issue more specific to rhetorical online discussions in the autism community and individuals they are interacting with on the internet.

There have been and still are no auto-complete suggestions of close to the magnitude of offense for the person first disability language of "people with autism should" as opposed to the disability first language of "autistics should", "autistic people should", or even the plural term "autistics" followed by a space that now provides a Google auto-complete suggestion of the "should be killed" phase that did not appear before some individuals in the autism community focused additional Google searches and internet text discussion specific to rhetorical discussions about this issue.

Many of the offensive key words such as die, exterminate and killed, are part of rhetorical discussions against the usage of these terms instead of for them. This is evident in the majority of the actual search results associated with these key words of offense.

There is a benefit of reduction in potential offense to be gained by eliminating the offensive key words "die", "exterminate", and "killed" in a Google auto-complete suggestion by typing in the three key words "Autistic people should", but there is also a potential price of easy access to information to be paid, as not only are those three offensive keywords going away to achieve this result of reduction in hate speech, but so are the key words "should" and "be".

This means that if the most discussed phrase in the future becomes "Autistic People should be loved", there will be no potential to see that encouraging auto-complete suggestion, with the extinction of the keywords "should" and "be" along with the other actual perceived three keywords of offense.

It is interesting to me to watch the Google algorithm process in action to make this change happen, as at this point there is only one key word of "should" in an auto complete suggestion now after the phrase "Autistic people should" is typed in producing one key word of potential offense "killed". All that is left other than that one auto-complete suggestion of offense is "Autistics can", in the other 9 auto-complete search suggestions.

So basically, with the death of the key words "killed", "exterminate", and "die', come the death of the key words "should" and "be" and the death of all the auto-complete suggestion words that might have followed the typed in Google Auto Complete Search phrase "autistics should", in the future.

Not only that but there is the potential of greater numbers of members of society having more limited access to all the rhetorical arguments against autistic people being killed, dying, or being exterminating.

Ironically, there seems there is also the potential that the "autistic activist group" initiating this action is also unwittingly silencing their own rhetorical arguments against these issues of autistic people being killed, dying or exterminated to be heard by the rest of society, stumbling across it in an algorithm generated Google auto-complete suggestion.

The NJ.com internet site interviewed another person on the spectrum, whose viewpoint was one against censorship over potential offense over words. There is more to this issue to be considered and explored than three potentially offensive key word results.

His voice is provided in the link below from NJ.com, if anyone is interesting in listening to it. There were a few similar comments in this thread that were also worth listening to and acknowledging, as reasonable points of logic and a general concern for liberty, coming from a very different perspective.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/0 ... die_f.html

Also too, just as an example one can type in "Gay people should" and five horrible hate speech auto-complete search suggestions are returned and five very positive search suggestions are returned.

This is the similar issue with almost all adjective identifiers of human existence, including "white people should".

A precedent has now been set for Google to be held over the fire to progressively eliminate the key words "should" and "be" for a substantial portion of the Google auto search experience associated with adjective identifiers of human identity.

I found two of the comments of response interesting in the latest NJ.com article I linked in my last post that interviewed the young man on the spectrum with a different perspective on this issue.

One was the ultimate solution of banning the auto-complete suggestion, and the other was a suggestion to Google the phrase "zerg rush". That search result illustrated the issue of Liberty well, I think, associated with this issue.

I did not fully realize that the key words "should" and "be" would also be the victims of this issue until today. This frames this issue differently for me, as before I welcomed the elimination of the hate speech auto-complete search suggestions. I'm not so sure the ultimate potential price, in the much larger view of this issue, is worth it now.