Self-censorship
I’ve been looking at how people find my site, and noticed that in the past couple of weeks there’s been a new top search phrase, which might tie in with my recent rise up the Google rankings. You can see it below: I don’t want to use the words again. These are just from the past few days.
They all lead back to the bottom of this post that I made from Nepal. It included a photo of a group of children that we found by the river. Their poverty so close to Kathmandu was a big surprise to me, as was the pleasure they had in seeing their photos on the back of the digital camera, so I thought it was right to put the picture up.
Once I realised there were potentially kiddy-fiddling searches reaching my site (of course I have no way of knowing, but it could be happening) I recropped the image to remove anything below the belt. The original picture remains here where the title will make it harder for deviant searchers to find. I like the picture because of the looks on their faces, staring straight into the camera, and don’t want to have to hide it.
Yet still the searchers reach my site, and Google will keep bringing it up as long as I use those particular words. I don’t care if ugly old men do searches for Thai Girls in Lamai, which was my previous top source of visitors – there are no pictures there and plenty of discussion about prostitution on Samui. But if it’s people looking for young children, well, I’m not happy about that.
Which leads to my dilemma. I don’t want to change what I write or hide what I saw, but also object to my words attracting and pictures pleasing some who might be what we consider unacceptably deviant.
Was I right to trim the original picture? And should I drop the current one?
8 Responses to “Self-censorship”
1 Nic 6 April 2006 @ 10:25 am
Joe. First, you have obviously just made it worse, but talking about it on your blog, so Google will point more towards your site. But good to talk about it.
Personal opinion: self-censorship is perfectly acceptable. It is your choice, over your work/output and no one is going to suffer. In fact you are already conducting it by not writing about “match-ing”, as you know you would like to.
I would love to make witty cracks about the searches that that do find you – sunrex dishes? Limos? What on earth?
However this is too serious a matter. What I think is very sad, is that so many people are looking for this shit on the internet. It would be nice if those people exercised self-censorship. One good point made to me once (which I actually don’t agree with), is it illegal to look at pictures, whatever they show? Collecting and enjoying photos is not illegal, but if the content is not social acceptable, are we right in making it an illegal act. Is it proven that people who look at photos go on to (in large numbers) do the “act”? I mean, how many magazines of Planes, fast cars, music are available and how many of the readers can actually fly/drive fast/play music.
Anyway, do the censorship on the photos and again on this blig entry. And I hope someone else will add a comment agruing the opposite view so that you can have at least a balanced approach.
Anyway back to the cricket and the nicer, sunnier world that I live in.
Nic
2 Joel 6 April 2006 @ 10:44 am
Thanks Nic. I was careful not to mention the offending words so that shouldn’t be a problem.
It’s one thing to drool over pictures of fast cars, expensive computers (or, dare I say it, grown-up ladies), another to do it over minors.
3 Chris 6 April 2006 @ 6:55 pm
But should it be illegal?
Where’s the borderline between (un)acceptably deviant and criminal? With ripe old age, I think more and more that as long as there is no harm done to anyone, it’s a matter of personal liberty, just like for instance the denigration of the Holocaust or racial incitement (neither of which I condone, of course, but both are criminal in Switzerland). This is what Orwell so aptly described as thought crime, which is fit for totalitarian societies. With – let’s call them – purpose made pictures of minors, you can argue that harm is done in the production of these, and you are certainly right. However, although I know nothing about penal law, i suspect that there is a more specific offence targeted at the producers.
As for your question, I think you need to decide for yourself whether you want to put up with self censorship or not. A more proactive stance (or reactive, as the case might be) might be to show a special textbox (or worse) to the visitor who ends on your site looking for some key words…
4 Jif 6 April 2006 @ 10:48 pm
I suspect all of your genuine readers are, like myself, absolutely horrified at the stats you show about what people are searching for. It’s not just a desperately sad state of affairs for the internet and it’s blatant abuse by these people, but clearly a truly awful reflection of the world we live.
Have to hope that the 30 or 40 percent of searches doesn’t reflect the same proportion of the population……how many people that you know are searching like that…..
As far as your self-sensorship goes….. well my view is that harmless though the intention may be, there’s no need to add to the stuff already out there. I’d say heave a dejected sigh at the state of our fellow humans, sigh again that in all likelihood humankind will continue the same for the foreseeable future….. and take the pictures off.
Obviously the naked picture of you on that roof in NZ should be on the Google homepage.
5 Alex 8 April 2006 @ 3:41 pm
Joel!
In my opinion, you should have left the pictures as it was before. I think you cannot censorship yourself just because those repugnant searches have got accidentally into your site if you didn´t do it in the first place.
Everybody should be able to realize that it is a beautiful picture and completely harmless. It was taken and posted in your page with respect, and therefore, you shouldn´t allow others to change your initial view and perception of it. Otherwise, what is the criteria to censor our decent artistic expressions? Are those criminals going to imposed their way of thinking over us?
By the way, excellent topic for discussion!
Alex
6 John 11 April 2006 @ 1:49 pm
hi, I read your Self-censorship article with interest. Firstly, yes, I did look at the links and found the photograph in question. Personally I think it’s a great picture and shows (my guess here) the plite of children in poorer countries. The question/problem seems to be if you self censor the issue too much, the message doesn’t come across, if you leave the photos as they are, then yes, you will get an element who enjoy viewing these photos for all the wrong reasons. I think I understand the issue but sadly can not provide an answer. I think I would continue on with your work. It is of great importance to you, and if these kids can benifit out it, then you have succeeded.
7 Rob Allison 12 April 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Could you ask Google why it is possible for China to censor all anti – communist propoganda from their Chines version, but it is not possible to weed out child pr0nogr8phy? China may have a huge workforce comitted to censorship, but surely this abhorrent subject deserves similar attention!
8 Rob 12 April 2006 @ 3:51 pm
just realised the use of a certain term in my comment may draw more attention to your site! – sorry. if you can, please do change the phrase to avoid more unwanted attention!!
Leave a Reply