Google Censorship?
-
-
Same with Amazon - censorship by kicking Wikileaks off it's Cloud.
-
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 said:
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?
-
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
-
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)...?
-
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.
-
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.
and another, on the same site by American writer Sean Collins;
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
-
@khai said:
@notareal said:
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.
-
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) -
This is going to make a great movie...
Run Julian run....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
-
Eco about Wikileaks etc
-
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
-
@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... -
"Listen, b*tch ... I know your address. I’m one bridge over."
Mr. Borker needs an educational kick in the groin.
-
@solo said:
This is going to make a great movie...
Run Julian run....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/ -
That's a bit OTT isn't it?
Why doesn't he just encourage journalism to be less lazy?
-
@starling75 said:
@solo said:
This is going to make a great movie...
Run Julian run....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/Sounds fairly ridiculous and scary. Why not to start learning to keep secrets as secrets
Honestly, when a "secret" is leaked outside some organization then there is something already gone wrong badly - It's usually some employer who feels that the secret must be make public and/or security measures are broken (like lost USB stick).
I sure understand that these leaks are bad for US government and they foreign relations, but I cannot understand the rage against Wikileaks. The in-house leaker could as easily have picked some (or multiple) established traditional journals. Well... actually they have published the material (even before Wikileaks made the documents public) and still I have not hear any rage against washingtonpost or any US media. At the same time, some government official begging for assassination of Julian Assange - some hypocrisy? (maybe this needs a own topic) -
@unknownuser said:
Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation
@unknownuser said:
some government official begging for assassination of Julian Assange
The old cronies are scared and this is all they have left.
Advertisement