Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil: Left Deploys the Googlebomb

How cute. A collection of left-wing authors and bloggers have decided to break out the Googlebomb.

(A Googlebomb is essentially link manipulation of commonly-indexed blogs, websites, etc. in order to achieve a certain result. In this case, go to Google, type in 'miserable failure,' and click "I'm feeling lucky.")

Simpleminded and foolish would be the two best words I can think of in order to describe this, but I guess someone thinks it's cute. And of course, since the phrase used to belong to Dick Gephardt, it probably reduces his exposure very marginally.

Before this little round of mutually assured destruction escalates beyond control, I'd like to call on my fellow right wing websites not to push our little red buttons. Right now, Google works as a resource, but every conscious manipulation like this will detract just that extra bit from its accuracy. Right now, this hardly matters, but what happens when this becomes commonplace? It's not worth tearing down this institution for a few cheap laughs, even if you've really got your hate on for somebody. (Come to think of it, there's not really a Democratic candidate on offer worth hating.)

Besides, we can always get our enjoyment by watching the frothing at the mouth of those who think this is particularly amusing.

And if you're one of those who find the Googlebomb a work of genius, well, maybe you'll enjoy the I Hate Republicans Song. The "Bush is a Nazi" theme has become so much a part of polite society these days that I can't even get upset about it any longer. (Link found at Bloggerheads.com, who finds this stuff 'thought provoking.')

Comments

Eek, I fear the studying may have gone to my head, for I actually agree with you on this one. Not only is the juxtaposition of Nazis and the KKK with Bush in that flash offensive and factually incorrect, meddling with a public utility such as google is just downright reprehensible.

Posted by: MattP | December 6, 2003 6:58 PM

You dont really believe that anyone will take you more seriously than an ignorant punk with a fake British accent seeing as you can't spell Gephardt correctly, do you?

Posted by: LA | December 6, 2003 7:00 PM

I don't know. I generally think people aren't anal-retentive enough to dismiss arguments over spelling mistakes. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, it's fixed now. Thanks for the pointer, even if you have no tact. (I think I'll just shake my head and hope that while you seem to be from Manhattan, you're not a classmate.)

Posted by: A. Rickey | December 6, 2003 7:39 PM

I like this one better & I hope it spreads like wildfire. http://www.kucinich.us/dk.html

Posted by: nyclawgal | December 6, 2003 10:49 PM

I always wonder if the people who complain about soldiers dieing actually know anyone who has died, or even who has gone to Iraq. I don�t mean in the my second cousin�s plumber�s son kind of way, but how many of these people actually have brothers or friends over there. I don't. I am not expressing a view one way or the other on the issue, just curious.

Posted by: Josh | December 6, 2003 11:41 PM

As a person of confessed left-wing preferences myself I have to say I always regard these sorts of strategies as own goals. A lot of effort for very little result. I wonder if it would be possible to set up Google so that it works in a "network of trust" style way ? You'd need a lot more computing power (and they already have more than 8000 machines). Essentially, you tell Google which sources you either rate up or rate down and it modifies pageranks accordingly. So in my case a link from the BBC or Slashdot would rank a site up, whilst links from Geocities or Tripod pages would be ignored entirely.

Posted by: Bateleur | December 7, 2003 5:44 AM

FFS. 1. Google isn't a public utility, its a private company and exits for profit. 2. Lots of people meddle with Google for fun and profit, Google tacitly supports this and is not going to break as a result. 3. Last election an entirely 'natural' googlebomb had George Bush as a 'Dumb Motherfucker' which was almost as funny as the one returning Bill Gates as 'More evil than satan himself' (you should go for that one Tony.) 4. Dont (sic) has an apostrophe in it LA, so I shall leave you hoist by your own petard. 5. In the unlikely event that you are capable of restraining the right Tony could you ask your President to stop treating my homeland as a campaign opportunity? 6. In a nation where the words 'liberal', 'left' and 'socialist' have been distorted in some circles to mean 'traitor', 'anarchist' and 'communist' you can hardly complain about the words Nazi and Fascist being compounded with the word 'right'. 7. The above may make directions difficult, I mean if you turn traitor on 43rd and Main then fascist at 35th where would you be? Sheesh. Its all getting a bit het up round here isn't it? Yours M (whose English accent is entirely natural and who always insulted Tony to his face)

Posted by: martin | December 7, 2003 11:37 AM

Yes, I know that Google is privately owned and does tacitly allow manipulation of its search results, but that doesn't mean that I need to approve of that. (As a quick analogy: malls are, in some states, considered completely private and thus mall owners can restrict speech therein, but I still think that's wrong.) Google is, in general, utilized as a tool by the internet community. Everyone knows how it works, but I still consider it harfmul to deliberately skew the results. Not a big deal though, I was just pointing it out. Furthermore, the left should be spending its time on legitimate political strategy, and leave the computer manipulations to the 13 yr olds. Second, I'm not sure I follow the logic that because Communist (etc.) is equated with Liberal, that it's okay to equate Nazis with Conseratives. Both are wrong, both obfuscate legitimate political discourse, and someone as intelligent as you (at least from your comments) shouldn't approve of it. And, as a pragmatic postscript, Democrats aren't winning any new voters with rhetoric that compares Bush to a Nazi--they're just alienating people. (And for the record, I have a tad of a NY accent and one my goals for winter break is to find "A. Rickey," so perhaps I can disagree with him to his face.)

Posted by: MattP | December 7, 2003 1:01 PM

5. In the unlikely event that you are capable of restraining the right Tony could you ask your President to stop treating my homeland as a campaign opportunity? Martin, do I look like a miracle worker? Although one thing I've been pondering is where the right wing equivalent of all this is. I remember the Hilary's Hair site from back in the Clinton days, but I certainly don't remember anything with Clinton as Stalin or Lenin. I've found a t-shirt site with a lot of stuff I wouldn't wear (mostly saying unkind generalizations about the Middle East), but otherwise right-wing vitriol is at an all-time low. Not to say there wasn't a lot of this right wing stuff back in the Clinton days (oh, man, was there ever), but it seems to have gone away fairly quickly. And, funnily enough, if I don't call socialists communists, or make statements like, "I hate the whole damn Democratic Party," I reserve my right to find those who do so to be tacky.

Posted by: A. Rickey | December 7, 2003 1:28 PM

FFS II Of course calling republicans Nazis is just as bad as condemning liberals as traitors. On the other hand to suggest that all political discourse can be neatly divided in two and both sides held responsible for everything 'their' side does is ludicrous. Both sides have their fair number of lunatics and the best thing to do is ignore them. Do senior democratic politicians knive (spelling?) with fringe groups to grow the 'fascist' message, bollocks do they, they want to push the 'jobs' or the 'foreign policy' or the 'cronyism' buttons. Do senior Republicans try to brand the democrats as communists? Nah, they prefer the 'tax' and 'permissive' messages. But on the fringes of both parties lurk the loonies. But where as Tony asks are the Rights mockeries? Well I suspect they're whereever Rush Limbaugh is. Tony, you like odd movies, counter cultural books and humour and hang out online, a place created by dissident californian academics. Don't be surprised when the discourse all comes from the left ;-) Alternatively do as I do and assume that Fox News is one big joke.

Posted by: martin | December 8, 2003 4:38 AM

I certainly don't equate conservatives or Republicans with Nazis. I have the greatest respect for many Republicans and conservatives. (Including some who felt that the Republican Party had forced them out.) I quite liked George Herbert Walker Bush, a competent man. G. W. Bush, however, has been pursuing unquestionably totalitarian policies. Comparing *him* to a Nazi is entirely fair. The concerted attacks on free speech, the arrests and imprisonments of critics, the imperialist foreign policy, the conviction that he was chosen by God, the support for torture, the "all loyal Germans *ahem* Americans must support the Fuhrer *ahem* President or they are helping our enemies" speeches, the deep links to corporations, the registration of "dangerous" ethnic groups, the extreme push for party conformity -- all this is well documented, and I think I've forgotten some other similarities. Of course, Hitler was elected, and Bush wasn't, so the comparison is unfair to the Nazis. Heh. But seriously, G W Bush is not remotely conservative in the dictionary sense of the word, and his administration has awful, scary similarities to the early Nazi administration. Hopefully G W Bush will leave office peacefully and we will not have cause to discover additional similarities with the Nazis. We'll see.

Posted by: Anon | January 10, 2004 3:18 PM