Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites?

[jasendorf]

So private companies are exempt from morality? Maybe you're not a lib.

Just the opposite. I think Google has a responsibility to not present right-wing hatred as "news."

 

[jasendorf]

Still at it eh?

I think i've already said everything that needed to be said in my first post, but here are some quotes for you to chew on.

Have those sites been banned from Google's SEARCH ENGINE? Or, just from Google News? If the first, then those comments are useful. Otherwise, they're superfluous and misleading.

 

[GotZoom]

Have those sites been banned from Google's SEARCH ENGINE? Or, just from Google News? If the first, then those comments are useful. Otherwise, they're superfluous and misleading.

Umm..those comment are from Google itself.

Sheesh.

 

[jasendorf]

Umm..those comment are from Google itself.

Sheesh.

Yes, and the quotes are about their SEARCH ENGINE>.. which is different from Google News.

 

[GotZoom]

Yes, and the quotes are about their SEARCH ENGINE>.. which is different from Google News.

Ohhh..Google has two different mission statements: One for the search engine and one for their news.

One so sinister that it can't be written anywhere for the public to see. One so sinister that if it was revealed, the world, as we know it, would end.

I understand now.

 

[jasendorf]

Ohhh..Google has two different mission statements: One for the search engine and one for their news.

One so sinister that it can't be written anywhere for the public to see. One so sinister that if it was revealed, the world, as we know it, would end.

I understand now.

Evidently you've never worked for a multi-billion dollar corporation... here at the one I work at you can't swing a dead cat and not hit a mission statement. One for the corporation, one for every division, one for every sub-division, one for every team...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Evidently you've never worked for a multi-billion dollar corporation... here at the one I work at you can't swing a dead cat and not hit a mission statement. One for the corporation, one for every division, one for every sub-division, one for every team...

Dorfo, this is an uttely pathetic justification of their disgusting censorship.

 

[GotZoom]

Evidently you've never worked for a multi-billion dollar corporation... here at the one I work at you can't swing a dead cat and not hit a mission statement. One for the corporation, one for every division, one for every sub-division, one for every team...

I tremble and shake at your multi-billion dollar corporation.

Yawn.

Individual unit/division/branch/subdivision Mission Statements don't go direct the companies main over all mission statement.

Well..maybe yours does.

 

[jasendorf]

So, "exposing hypocrisy" is your only goal?

Then where's your thread on the #1 Item from the Republican Contract with America?

I think you're real goal is to increase the false perception of **vicitimization** of the right-wing. We get it... the right-wing is sooooo oppressed... you're all victims of the evil left...

 

[5stringJeff]

Just the opposite. I think Google has a responsibility to not present right-wing hatred as "news."

Do you feel the same about left-wing hatred?

 

[jasendorf]

Do you feel the same about left-wing hatred?

Sure. But that wasn't the topic so I didn't state it. If you find it you should report it. If enough people report it... I'm sure Google will act accordingly.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Gee, so Google is restricting stuff that may or may not be hate speech. I'm curious: are they also restricting porn? Child porn? Bomb-making information? Anti-Christian speech?

And here I thought the liberal mantra was that anything should be allowed, and if we don't like it, well, we can just turn away, turn it off, or filter it ourselves. And as for protectig our children from all the garbage- well, that's our sole respsonsibility as well. But now I see that they have made an exception. Apparently hate speech is the single thing that we can't be trusted to see.

My God, the hypocrisy is truly stunning.

 

[jasendorf]

Let's get one thing straight... you can still get to all these sites JUST FRIGGIN' FINE through Google Search.

No censorship exists in this witchhunt you've created.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Let's get one thing straight... you can still get to all these sites JUST FRIGGIN' FINE through Google Search.

No censorship exists in this witchhunt you've created.

I happen to think it is a real problem when news censorship starts, whether it is a 100% block or not.

So which do you think is more likely to hit that slippery slope libs are so fond of bringing up, and turning into a major encroachment on our freedom: restriction of news and opinions by the #1 Internet search engine, or the placement of a Christmas tree in the town square?

 

[Annie]

Lots of links:

http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/06/neutrality_for_.html

Neutrality for thee, but not for me

Sonia Arrison points out that one of the lead proponents of “net neutrality”, Google, apparently thinks that neutrality should be forced upon certain, other billion-dollar corporations, but not itself. (Background here.)

The essential “moral” point of the neutrality proponents is the preservation of equal access to all Internet content. Meanwhile, Google News has taken upon itself to censor a number of news and commentary sites from its service. It has deemed them unacceptable.

Now, let me be clear: I believe that any private organization is within its legal rights to publish, or not publish, anything it wants. Basic First Amendment, as I have said before.

Google’s position on neutrality is one of naked self-interest. They make a lot of money, and federal enforcement of net neutrality will lock in many advantages for them — not least, making the entrance of new competition more difficult. If they believe they have the right to choose what information flows through its own infrastructure, they should advocate a similar right for all players on the Internet.

Please do not be suckered by those who would tell you that the neutrality argument is “of the people”. It is a big old wrestling match between big corporations, looking for favorable laws to improve their business. More importantly, it is a huge power grab by government over the infrastructure of the ‘net.

Rule of thumb: when invasive new laws are proposed that are “for the people” or “for the kids”, you should give it as much credence as when a celebrity tells you it is “not about the money”.

Instead of picking which corporation is the most “moral”, perhaps we should do the math and argue the merits. The merits say, the fewer laws, the better.

------

Update: Sonia has another excellent piece on broadband expansion here, reinforcing my previous article here.

------

Update again: Welcome Instapundit readers! The above may sound a bit obscure but it really is a question of who runs the ‘net: private citizens or government? Here is a primer to get you started.

 

[Annie]

Lots of links. My answer, yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13090732/#060605

Has Google peaked?


• June 5, 2006 | 4:51 PM ET

Google has been a huge deal — its founders have become rich, its name has become a verb, and its influence is international.

Lately, though, I've been wondering if Google has peaked. The reason is that, for lots of different groups of people, Google's reputation as good guys has been stained. And I'm not sure what Google really has to bank on, besides a good reputation.

Google has come under criticism from people on the left — and right — for its cave-in to Chinese demands for censorship. From "don't be evil," Google's motto has seemed to be "don't be evil unless there's a really big market at stake."

They've also come in for criticism from people on the right for alleged censorship in Google News, with charges that Google is purging itself of conservative news sites. And many people complained that Google, which puts up special logos for all sorts of other holidays, didn't do anything to recognize Memorial Day.

That last point seems minor, but for some people it seems to have been the last straw. And it made me wonder if Google's position isn't rather vulnerable. People like Google and use it, but its competition — sites like Ask.com, Dogpile.com, and Clusty.com — is just a mouseclick away. Ask.com even has a pretty good substitute for Google News.

Lots of people don't like Microsoft — I like 'em fine, but then, I get a check from them every month — but if you want to switch from Microsoft to OSX or Linux you need a bunch of new software, and maybe a new computer. To switch from Google to Ask, you just type different letters (and fewer!).

Of course, it's not just search engines. Jeff Jarvis notes that Google's ad business isn't doing especially well, and says that the reason is trust. So what, exactly, does Google have that will protect it from a sudden shift in consumer sentiments? Is it a brand, or a fad?

 

[Redhots]

Have those sites been banned from Google's SEARCH ENGINE? Or, just from Google News? If the first, then those comments are useful. Otherwise, they're superfluous and misleading.

Which is why I added in the quote from the judge in the Apple lawsuit case.

For me this is about how Google decides what is news and what isn't news.

Someone (even if that someone is me) finding the opinion given in an article offensive just doesn't cut it for me.

Infact that was one of the main reasons I quickly grew to love Google News. That I could do a search and it would quickly pull up so many different sources representing many different viewpoints. Even though as I've said before that I don't really consider opinion peices news (in the strictest sense), I figure if they're going to still classify them as such they better give me access to everything they can so I can better form my own opinion.

Except now it seems i'm being shielded from some viewpoints, not because it wouldn't meet some objective criteria for "news", but because somebody at Google found the views expressed in the article offensive.

Maybe you can explain to me why an article that contains "hate speach" isn't news?

 

[007]

Still at it eh?

I think i've already said everything that needed to be said in my first post, but here are some quotes for you to chew on.

And this is everything I need to say on the subject... FUCK GOOGLE. It's been common knowledge for some time now that they're a bunch of mouth breathing liberals.

Use this instead... http://dogpile.com/ (Thank you for that one Kathianne.)

 

[Annie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_hi_te/google_censorship

Perhaps some:

Brin says Google compromised principles

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press WriterTue Jun 6, 7:32 PM ET

Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin acknowledged Tuesday the dominant Internet company has compromised its principles by accommodating Chinese censorship demands. He said Google is wrestling to make the deal work before deciding whether to reverse course.

Meeting with reporters near Capitol Hill, Brin said Google had agreed to the censorship demands only after Chinese authorities blocked its service in that country. Google's rivals accommodated the same demands — which Brin described as "a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with" — without international criticism, he said.

"We felt that perhaps we could compromise our principles but provide ultimately more information for the Chinese and be a more effective service and perhaps make more of a difference," Brin said.

Brin also addressed Internet users' expectations of privacy in an era of increased government surveillance, saying Americans misunderstand the limited safeguards of their personal electronic information.

"I think it's interesting that the expectations of people with respect to what happens to their data seems to be different than what is actually happening," he said.

Google has battled the U.S. Justice Department in court seeking to limit the amount of information the government can get about users' Internet searches. It also says it has not participated in any programs with the National Security Agency to collect Internet communications without warrants.

Google's free e-mail service is among the Internet's most popular.

Brin visited Washington to ask U.S. senators to approve a plan that would prevent telephone and cable companies from collecting premium fees from companies such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! for faster delivery of their services. Brin, dressed casually in jeans, sneakers and a black sport jacket, said he wasn't sure whether he changed any lawmakers' minds.

Google's China-approved Web service omits politically sensitive information that might be retrieved during Internet searches, such as details about the 1989 suppression of political unrest in Tiananmen Square. Its agreement with China has provoked considerable criticism from human rights groups.

"Perhaps now the principled approach makes more sense," Brin said.

The Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders said Tuesday that Google's main Web site, http://www.google.com, was no longer accessible in most Chinese provinces due to censorship efforts, and that it was completely inaccessible throughout China on May 31.

Brin said Google is trying to improve its censored search service, Google.cn, before deciding whether to reverse course. He said virtually all the company's customers in China use the non-censored service.

"It's perfectly reasonable to do something different, to say, 'Look, we're going to stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there.' That's an alternate path," Brin said. "It's not where we chose to go right now, but I can sort of see how people came to different conclusions about doing the right thing."

 

[theHawk]

Go to google and do a search for "failure". The first page to come up is whitehouse.org's Bush bio. No where on the page is there the word "failure", yet this is the first website to pop up.

Now you libs going to tell us google isn't slanted to the left?