[mmt]

> Is it appropriate to rank extremely high for something you're directly opposed to?

I'd say that's an important question, which I would answer with "yes", so long as it's understood that "rank extremely high" doesn't imply "at the exclusion of all others".

> should sites enlightening the user on why it is murder, instead of providing useful information, be presented front and center

Possibly. Though, I fear you may have presented a strawman (while betraying which way you, personally, are "polarized" on abortion).

The question of what is useful information depends entirely on the keywords the user entered. Just the single word "abortion" could easily, reasonably, be understood to mean a request for information of general interest on the topic, including moral implications. On the other hand, it would be a stretch to expect that someone would want, say, instructions on how better to administer sedation during the procedure, absent additional keywords.

Of course, there are going to be searches like "get an abortion" that are far more ambiguous than "get an abortion in my area", but I think it's better for something like a search engine (or government or society for that matter) to err on the side of inclusion than suppression.

> Certainly Google could decide whether it is appropriate on a case-by-case basis, but at that point it starts to be very explicitly political

Indeed, and that's a can of worms they likely don't want or need to open.

[PSZD]

> while betraying which way you, personally, are "polarized" on abortion

I'm curious what side you think I fall on, seems to me it could be argued either way. I have no strong opinion on it and picked it purely because it's an evocative example. Perhaps too evocative!

Some other examples might be terrorism, animal rights activism, transgender-as-mental-illness. Including both sides can be legitimately and understandably very upsetting for some people; in other cases we demand equal representation.

Are situations like OP's an inevitable product of the tyranny of an algorithm, one that errs to the safer side of excluding results?

[mmt]

> I'm curious what side you think I fall on

That abortion is not murder, as you made the example of the presentation of such an argument in opposition to the presentation of something "useful". I realize, of course, that the word could have been meant more narrowly (such as "strictly pragmatic"), but that tends be less likely, even on here.

> legitimately and understandably very upsetting for some people; in other cases we demand equal representation. [...] > errs to the safer side of excluding results?

That's the the thing, though, I don't believe in a "right not to be offended" or a "right not to be upset" (legitimately, understandably, or otherwise). As such, I don't believe that these divisive cases ought to be treated any differently than the other cases you mention.

None of this is to say that controversial topics don't attract a distinct problem. They do: trolls (for various definitions of the term). However, I believe that's more an issue with the quality of the content rather than the content itself, since a troll could (sometimes just as easily) take either side.

[PSZD]

I do agree with this, but think there's enough societal pressure these days that it's very hard for a for-profit company to do.

[mmt]

I'm not sure being for-profit has that much to do with societal pressure as being ad-revenue-driven.

However, this profit (or revenue) above all else model is something Google's unusual stock voting structure was supposed to address.