[crisdux]

Abortion is a complex and controversial issue. Google does not have an obligation to only show pro-choice material when searching abortion, because that would be a form of censorship and bias that would violate its own principles of neutrality and diversity. I am not persuaded by your argument that these search results will harm users.

[Goronmon]

Google does not have an obligation to only show pro-choice material when searching abortion

Your twisted words here aren't helping your argument. In this situation someone is looking for healthcare options and they are being shown options for scam services that have no intention to ever provide any healthcare.

Just as if someone was searching for prescription medication and it directed them to sites that sold what appeared to be medication and instead were just sugar pills made to look like real medication.

Same concept. Same form of deceit.

[TheRealDunkirk]

Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You twisting the definition of "healthcare" to only mean abortion is just as bad. "Healthcare" to a teen on the fence might mean EXACTLY looking for an agency that can help them deliver and give the baby up for adoption.

[john-radio]

> "Healthcare" to a teen on the fence might mean EXACTLY looking for an agency that can help them deliver and give the baby up for adoption.

Yes, but not for teens googling "abortion care." Are you arguing in good faith here?

[Goronmon]

"Healthcare" to a teen on the fence might mean EXACTLY looking for an agency that can help them deliver and give the baby up for adoption.

Are you arguing that clinics don't provide services that help women deliver babies or guide them through adoption? That's ridiculous. My two children are proof that doctors aren't going around fighting against women giving birth.

[TheRealDunkirk]

Are you arguing that search results for "how do I put my baby up for adoption" should lead to "abortion" clinics getting the top results, purely from either an English-language or PageRank metrics point of view?

[mdale]

I am pretty sure there would be a fair bit of outrage if woman searching for prenatal adoption services were directed to abortion clinics adverting as prenatal adoption centers that then stear people towards the "options" of abortion.

The main point is false representation; which Google if they value their relationship with their users .. they do have an obligation to carry advertising towards some degree of truth in representation of product or service being offered.

[josephcsible]

> I am pretty sure there would be a fair bit of outrage if woman searching for prenatal adoption services were directed to abortion clinics adverting as prenatal adoption centers that then stear people towards the "options" of abortion.

Well yes, because you're supposed to steer people away from killing, not towards it. After all, it's a good thing for searches about suicide to return results about treating depression, but it'd be horrible if searches about treating depression returned results about how to commit suicide.

> The main point is false representation; which Google if they value their relationship with their users .. they do have an obligation to carry advertising towards some degree of truth in representation of product or service being offered.

Continuing with my above example, is it false representation for Google to give you anti-suicide results for searches about suicide? Should they have to be truthful by only giving you results with instructions?

[john-radio]

> Abortion is a complex and controversial issue.

Your writing the words down does not make it so. It isn't particularly complex, and it isn't particularly controversial in the United States, even among Republicans; people want abortion rights and fringe groups want to deprive them of it.

Edit: also, I can't believe you baited me into arguing about whether abortion should be allowed or not. Just in case you aren't actually familiar with these "crisis pregnancy centers" and how they work, this is about physical buildings that literally masquerade as abortion centers who are ready to help people get their needed abortions, and instead string them along until it's legally or medically too late.

Of course people who believe abortion is problematic should be allowed to freely say so. That is not the activity that these frauds are engaged in.

[lostgame]

>> fringe groups want to deprive them of it

I’d hardly call extremist right-wing Christians a ‘fringe group’, as much as I think most people wish they were...

‘Terrorist group’? Sure. Spot on. ‘Fringe’? Sadly not at all.

Look at the ongoing trans genocide as another example as to how big and how powerful these truly hate-filled people are.

EDIT: saw a disgusting uneducated dead comment below here saying it’s offensive to call the very real trans genocide a ‘genocide’ to others because I guess they’ve either done no research or are more likely just transphobic.

It’s sad to see even in usually amazing communities like this; that the denial of the trans genocide continues.

We can’t begin to fix a problem, before we acknowledge the problem exists, and this isn’t a deniable or debatable issue - it’s happening. Let’s not be ignorant hateful cretins by denying it. Please.

[john-radio]

"Fringe" in terms of their popular support in this nominal democracy, I mean, not in terms of their power; you're quite right.

[ramraj07]

Abortion is a complex and controversial issue for one religion and one political party. If every religion or political party’s “complexities” need to affect MY google searches at that point it will likely need to look like some castrated caricature of a page trying to answer the actual question I asked.

[jeromegv]

That's how human rights get violated and start getting worse for the people who are impacted, by calling it "controversial", wanting to be "neutral". It's typically people who have no skin in the game that call it that way and will never lose anything by debating it.