Google Censorship?

solo

Yup, those are the wing-nuts I'm referring to, destroying the world one word at a time.

fortunately it only takes one click of a remote control to switch them off.

linea

Alex Jones is a nutter. People who follow him are fools. Society is correct to protect these fools by blocking their access to Alex Jones

john senior1973 on Wed Dec 01

@unknownuser said:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
General Assembly of the United Nations
December 10, 1948

Alex Jones may be a fool but Google do not have the right to decide that for us

Stinkie

@tfdesign said:

Here, you'll enjoy this!

Loved the singer.

@linea said:

Alex Jones may be a fool but Google do not have the right to decide that for us

That's not what they're doing.

JuanV.Soler

@gaieus said:

Google Censorship?

so it seems, from his words in the video.
maybe he does not deserves to be in the NEWS of Google, though he has been there until now. Google´s action responds to something. That is clear for me.
I think that what this man says is quite interesting to hear.
His insistence in the search for the truth of the 9/11 disaster is enough for me to take him into consideration
@mike lucey said:

I would not be so quick to totally write off any perceived 'nutter'! Just look at the current situation here in Ireland and the Inter-Alpha Group?

Yes Mike, things are not clear at all.

And it makes no harm to listen to non_ official news.
Though it seems that some people here, do get hurt by them.

I have a first-aid kit to share.
Not all of it, but may help.

tomsdesk

@tfdesign said:

Here, you'll enjoy this! :lol:

Thank you, Tom...wonderful!

notareal

Same with Amazon - censorship by kicking Wikileaks off it's Cloud.

Khai

actually it's hardly censorship.

Google are a private company. as such, they can do whatever they want. they decide that image search only shows dwarves doing the can can while painted pokadots, they can do that. they make their own rules.

and anyone got Google's say in this? I see alex jones claiming he's got problems with youtube ..on Youtube...??

notareal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

Khai

@notareal said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

then we disagree. if you own something you get to make the rules about that. company or private individual - you get to make the rules about your property so long as it's within the laws of the land.

plus I'm still not seeing the other side of this, eg the google side? no one got anything?

Mike Lucey

Yes, I fully agree. Google own You Tube and they can do with it as they please BUT there is always a downside to censorship of even crank News!

I've been following this guy for quite some time and while I find him OTT on a lot of things, some of the questions he raises merit further investigation.

Ireland is currently in the throws of what I consider to be a vice grip and I emphasis the 'vice' portion. People say Ireland's Banks have caused the current problems BUT as far as I'm concerned the Banks in question are privately owned Banks and for the most-part owned by foreign entities, the Inter-Alpha Group et al!

These hidden World Financiers also control the major newspapers and much of the media. Fortunately, for the time being, they do not have a vice grip on the Net, although I imagine they are figuring out ways to achieve this but the very nature of the Net works against this!

So maybe it worth popping into Mr Jones occasionally to see what he has to say for himself! What harm can it do? We can do our own further investigation on the Net to get to the bottom of things.

Knowledge is Power and these days even the man on the Clapham omnibus can research and find much of the truth! The bottom line is never close your mind to these so called cranks as there is often a grain of truth in what they are saying!

Mike

tomsdesk

Google news search and google web search are two different things...right?

Google web searches are manipulated by advertisement dollars...right?

Seems to me obviously keeping some of the crackpots off a news search is less offensive than surreptitiously pushing products in a web search...right?

Besides, google censors the type of advertising sites they accept (to protect the company image, I assume), why not the type of sites they call "news" (for the same reason)...?

linea

But surely the definition of what is "news" is a very subjective thing. The BBC regularly features "news" which is no more than celebrity gossip and trivia (in my opinion). They often do this on days when there are much more significant news stories, but presumably anything that might make the British government look bad has to be sandwiched between a story about a z-list celebrity divorce and an neighbourhood argument about high hedges.

tfdesign

I don't think anything should be censored. What right does someone else have to say what we should or should not watch, listen and think about? People are intelligent enough to make their own minds up- even if many appear to be rooted firmly in the eyes of sensationalism.

There's a good article by Brendan O'Neill on Spiked about Wikileaks. Worth a read.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9348/

and another, on the same site by American writer Sean Collins;

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9377/

We do need a few less 'gobshites' like Jones around. Perhaps we just need to poke more fun at them though, rather than simply ban them? Does anyone remember ex-BBC Sports presenter, David Icke?

Tom

notareal

@khai said:

@notareal said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

then we disagree. if you own something you get to make the rules about that. company or private individual - you get to make the rules about your property so long as it's within the laws of the land.

plus I'm still not seeing the other side of this, eg the google side? no one got anything?

Google is doing a business decision, but that does not meat it has no censorship like implications. Such business decisions most likely are not politically motivated, but they can have political consequences.

mitcorb

I wish those clowns would go away. But, what I wish is not important. However, the only thing that will drive them away is indifference, even if it is studied indifference.
In other words, the perpetrators must decide to censor themselves. (probably ain't gonna happen)

solo

This is going to make a great movie...

Run Julian run....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/

Starling75

Eco about Wikileaks etc

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/01012305696-hackers-vengeurs-et-espions-en-diligence

solo

Counter balance the Google debate, see they are good guys.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/02/5567082-google-sucker-punches-online-retail-bully

Starling75

@solo said:

Counter balance the Google debate, see they are good guys.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/02/5567082-google-sucker-punches-online-retail-bully

Interesting..

I would expect that the amount of bad referencies he was deliberately created would have to sink his business
Better search ranking should catalyze his decline...

Stinkie

"Listen, b*tch ... I know your address. I’m one bridge over."

Mr. Borker needs an educational kick in the groin.