The topic of this week’s reading revolved around the process of “facilitation” and how librarians can “facilitate knowledge creation in their communities” (Lankes, 2011, p. 65). There were a number of directions I thought of taking with this post, but after browsing the internet yesterday afternoon I found my topic.
During my daily perusal of The Mary Sue online I stumbled upon a post by Susana Polo titled “Google Uncensors “Bisexual” From Instant Search?”. Two years ago Google launched Instant Search. When using Instant Search a user types in a word, and a list of suggestions will appear based on the letters they are entering. For example, if I want to look up Harry Potter and I type in “Harr,” the following suggestions pop up: Harry Potter, Harry Styles, Harriet Tubman, and Harrison Bakery. Useful yes? Unfortunately some of the suggestions generated by Instant Search created a little controversy. Let’s look at a few more searches.
The three examples that Susana Polo gives in her post are “sextillion,” “books” and “pork”. Can you guess the offending suggestions yet? Well, after taking this into consideration Google adjusted its search engine so words that were deemed “offensive” would no longer appear as suggestions. It was only after the searcher pressed enter and was sent to the full page of listings that the word would appear. Now, as Lankes says in his book “I am not universally opposed to filters. I just think we use them as blunt instruments with little thought for the consequences” (2011, p. 67). Filtering out pop up suggestions like “boobs” and “porn” are understandable. Some filters are created in order to protect children from possibly harmful sites and individuals (i.e. sexual predators). It is unfortunate however that in order to protect them from the bad the good had to be compromised as well, because implementing numerous filters “may prevent access from vital conversations” between students (Lankes, 2011, p. 66).
Some may argue that filtering out words from a suggestion list is hardly a big deal considering users can still search the word, it just won’t ever be used as a suggestion. What concerns advocacy groups like BiNet and individuals like Polo and myself, are the social implications of it. When a word is censored (even as just a measly instant search suggestion) a cloud of shame and secrecy begins to surround it and whispers: “this is taboo” Many people may get the impression that they shouldn’t be interested in those words or topics, and the words then begin to develop negative connotations.
In addition to the censored words discussed above, “lesbian” and ‘bisexual” also made the list along with “fetish” and “vaginal health”. Something else to consider is that in addition to its removal from the suggestions list, the word “bisexual” was also “downranked in Google’s search algorithm, pushing webpages that corresponded to ‘bisexual’ in their search terms below webpages that did not” (2012, para. 4). Now, don’t worry, I will not turn this into a debate on sexuality or politics. You can find numerous examples from other topics that also experience this type of censorship. All I ask is to think about that cloud of secrecy and what the censorship and downranking of these words is communicating to the public.
Search engines spark curiosity, and provide you with answers you may have never though of. To expand on this Polo draws from a 2010 blog post by Daniel Villarreal on the website Queerty:
One of the joys of searching is accidentally stumbling upon new links and associations you didn’t originally think of — like going into Wikipedia to learn about Alice in Wonderland and ending up reading about psychopharmacology. Often, you don’t often know what you’re interested in until you see it. By narrowly restricting their search results to avoid porn, Google Instant has perhaps deprived young lesbians who could benefit from learning about lesbian art or lesbian rights if they only knew to keep typing. Google would do better…to offer more robust search results that challenge and educate their users rather than censor them before they’re finished typing (Polo, 2012, para. 4&5).
So, how does this relate to the library community? As a librarian, it is an honor to create an open and safe environment for community members. In order to facilitate conversation between librarians and members, we as librarians should “ensure that they feel safe to participate, create, and learn. Safety here refers to both a sense of physical safety…and intellectual and cultural safety” (Lankes, 2011, p. 77). Hmm..cultural safety. Why is that important? Think about the teenager who, caught up in social stigmas, wants help looking for resources about bisexuality or sexuality in general, but is concerned with how he or she will be received? There are many times when a librarian might be asked about topics they have strong personal feelings about. It is their job to put aside any bias and help the member to the best of their ability, regardless of how they feel about it. We need to be culturally relative in all situations ranging from sexuality to politics and religion, etc.
It is also important for librarians to know what resources use filters or censor information, so they can provide members with other available resources that may yield better results. Censorship in schools especially can make research incredibly difficult for students, and there are national policies that mandate which sites are filtered on school computers. Because of these limits “students have a hard time dealing with the rough-and-tumble Internet they experience” (Lankes, 2011, p. 66). It is easy for a student to feel discouraged or lost, and this is where the role of the librarian is most important in helping them to not only access the information they need, but feel comfortable doing it.
On a final note: While Polo did a fantastic job re-introducing the issues with Google’s instant search, that was not the focus of the post. After campaigning for two years, bisexual advocacy group BiNet has finally managed to convince Google to “rescind its policy on ‘bisexual’ as a term that does not work with Instant Search” (Polo, 2012, para. 3).
P.S. This topic of advocacy leaves us with something else to think about that combines both of my posts so far. We all want our voices to be heard, and to make a difference in our communities. We should always questions things and continue to ask why. In regard to sensitive topics however, where does a librarian draw the line between neutrality, and being an advocate for change? As we discussed in Jill’s 605 class sometimes doing the right thing can make you admirable, but also get you fired. Some of you may believe that your cause is more important than a job, and if following your moral compass leaves you without one then you would find an organization that has similar mission goals and values. What would you do?
References
Lankes, David R,. (2011). The atlas of new librarianship. London, England: The MIT Press.
New Acquisition: An Anthropologist in a Library 