info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Google's Power to Censor
25 views
Skip to first unread message
RonB
Feb 25, 2017, 11:56:12 AM2/25/17
to
Pretty good article on Google's power to censor the Internet.
~~
Google’s power of censorship: who controls the controllers of the internet?
Imagine a world where Google has no secrets, where all search engines play
fair, and where SEO doesn’t have to be synonymous with “page one.” Sound
like a fairy tale?
The Internet is often cast as the great democratizer, and Google its noble
gate-keeper. There’s no doubt that search engines help us easily navigate
the web, but we have to remember that Google is a corporation, not a public
service.
Our faith in its wisdom and guidance is based on little more than a
carefully planned PR scheme. Behind that curtain, few of us really have any
idea what’s going on. That kind of blind trust may be dangerous for content
creators and consumers alike, both in terms of what we see and what we get.
...
At the same time, though, how can we know when and where to draw the line?
At what point does “corporate responsibility” become a catch-all phrase for
“Google does what Google wants”?
The point Epstein makes is that with virtually every case of good Samaritan
censorship practiced by the “do no evil” company, similar tactics have been
used to justify some pretty blatant power grabs or downright bullying.
...
It comes as no surprise that Google harbors a tremendous power to influence,
say, the results of a certain upcoming political election, or even to sway
public opinion on the latest Taylor Swift/Kanye West escapade. The question
is – and it’s a contentious one – where does it all end?
At what point (and sooner or later, there must come a point) will the
authorities and powers-that-be have to reign in Google’s master controls
over internet content and searchability?
After all, the FCC’s net neutrality ruling last year made internet service
practically a public utility – in regulation, if not in name. And after
broadband service providers, no one has more influence and control over the
flow of the web than Google does.
“If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying ‘we reserve
the right to refuse service to anyone’, that would be one thing,” Epstein
writes. “But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly
become an essential in people’s lives – nearly as essential as air or water.
We don’t let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about
denying people services; we shouldn’t let Google do so either.”
~~
http://tinyurl.com/j9u8vzw
I would like to add that mom-and-pop shops are no longer allowed to put up
"we reserve the right to refuse" signs.
Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
--
Zero Tolerance for iCultists and WinTrolls
~~
Google’s power of censorship: who controls the controllers of the internet?
Imagine a world where Google has no secrets, where all search engines play
fair, and where SEO doesn’t have to be synonymous with “page one.” Sound
like a fairy tale?
The Internet is often cast as the great democratizer, and Google its noble
gate-keeper. There’s no doubt that search engines help us easily navigate
the web, but we have to remember that Google is a corporation, not a public
service.
Our faith in its wisdom and guidance is based on little more than a
carefully planned PR scheme. Behind that curtain, few of us really have any
idea what’s going on. That kind of blind trust may be dangerous for content
creators and consumers alike, both in terms of what we see and what we get.
...
At the same time, though, how can we know when and where to draw the line?
At what point does “corporate responsibility” become a catch-all phrase for
“Google does what Google wants”?
The point Epstein makes is that with virtually every case of good Samaritan
censorship practiced by the “do no evil” company, similar tactics have been
used to justify some pretty blatant power grabs or downright bullying.
...
It comes as no surprise that Google harbors a tremendous power to influence,
say, the results of a certain upcoming political election, or even to sway
public opinion on the latest Taylor Swift/Kanye West escapade. The question
is – and it’s a contentious one – where does it all end?
At what point (and sooner or later, there must come a point) will the
authorities and powers-that-be have to reign in Google’s master controls
over internet content and searchability?
After all, the FCC’s net neutrality ruling last year made internet service
practically a public utility – in regulation, if not in name. And after
broadband service providers, no one has more influence and control over the
flow of the web than Google does.
“If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying ‘we reserve
the right to refuse service to anyone’, that would be one thing,” Epstein
writes. “But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly
become an essential in people’s lives – nearly as essential as air or water.
We don’t let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about
denying people services; we shouldn’t let Google do so either.”
~~
http://tinyurl.com/j9u8vzw
I would like to add that mom-and-pop shops are no longer allowed to put up
"we reserve the right to refuse" signs.
Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
--
Zero Tolerance for iCultists and WinTrolls
Snit
Feb 25, 2017, 1:21:51 PM2/25/17
to
On 2/25/17, 9:54 AM, in article o8scrl$63l$1...@dont-email.me, "RonB"
> Googleąs power of censorship: who controls the controllers of the internet?
> łGoogle does what Google wants˛?
> the right to refuse service to anyoneą, that would be one thing,˛ Epstein
> writes. łBut as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly
> become an essential in peopleąs lives nearly as essential as air or water.
> We donąt let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about
> denying people services; we shouldnąt let Google do so either.˛
mom and pop shops cannot have such signs?
> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
> Googleąs power of censorship: who controls the controllers of the internet?
>
> Imagine a world where Google has no secrets, where all search engines play
> fair, and where SEO doesnąt have to be synonymous with łpage one.˛ Sound
> Imagine a world where Google has no secrets, where all search engines play
> like a fairy tale?
>
> The Internet is often cast as the great democratizer, and Google its noble
> gate-keeper. Thereąs no doubt that search engines help us easily navigate
>
> The Internet is often cast as the great democratizer, and Google its noble
> the web, but we have to remember that Google is a corporation, not a public
> service.
>
> Our faith in its wisdom and guidance is based on little more than a
> carefully planned PR scheme. Behind that curtain, few of us really have any
> idea whatąs going on. That kind of blind trust may be dangerous for content
> service.
>
> Our faith in its wisdom and guidance is based on little more than a
> carefully planned PR scheme. Behind that curtain, few of us really have any
> creators and consumers alike, both in terms of what we see and what we get.
> ...
>
>
> At the same time, though, how can we know when and where to draw the line?
> At what point does łcorporate responsibility˛ become a catch-all phrase for
> ...
>
>
> At the same time, though, how can we know when and where to draw the line?
> łGoogle does what Google wants˛?
>
> The point Epstein makes is that with virtually every case of good Samaritan
> censorship practiced by the łdo no evil˛ company, similar tactics have been
> The point Epstein makes is that with virtually every case of good Samaritan
> used to justify some pretty blatant power grabs or downright bullying.
> ...
>
>
> It comes as no surprise that Google harbors a tremendous power to influence,
> say, the results of a certain upcoming political election, or even to sway
> public opinion on the latest Taylor Swift/Kanye West escapade. The question
> is and itąs a contentious one where does it all end?
> ...
>
>
> It comes as no surprise that Google harbors a tremendous power to influence,
> say, the results of a certain upcoming political election, or even to sway
> public opinion on the latest Taylor Swift/Kanye West escapade. The question
>
> At what point (and sooner or later, there must come a point) will the
> authorities and powers-that-be have to reign in Googleąs master controls
> At what point (and sooner or later, there must come a point) will the
> over internet content and searchability?
>
> After all, the FCCąs net neutrality ruling last year made internet service
>
> practically a public utility in regulation, if not in name. And after
> broadband service providers, no one has more influence and control over the
> flow of the web than Google does.
>
> łIf Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying Śwe reserve
> broadband service providers, no one has more influence and control over the
> flow of the web than Google does.
>
> the right to refuse service to anyoneą, that would be one thing,˛ Epstein
> writes. łBut as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly
> become an essential in peopleąs lives nearly as essential as air or water.
> We donąt let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about
> denying people services; we shouldnąt let Google do so either.˛
> ~~
> http://tinyurl.com/j9u8vzw
>
> I would like to add that mom-and-pop shops are no longer allowed to put up
> "we reserve the right to refuse" signs.
I agree Google is too powerful and, frankly, evil. But what makes you think
> http://tinyurl.com/j9u8vzw
>
> I would like to add that mom-and-pop shops are no longer allowed to put up
> "we reserve the right to refuse" signs.
mom and pop shops cannot have such signs?
> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
--
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Chris Ahlstrom
Feb 25, 2017, 2:55:48 PM2/25/17
to
RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
Bing uses Google search results, in part.
Duckduckgo is just a privacy filter.
If you're really interested, you can still use
Google to find seamy stuff :-)
--
Your boss climbed the corporate ladder, wrong by wrong.
> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
Duckduckgo is just a privacy filter.
If you're really interested, you can still use
Google to find seamy stuff :-)
--
Your boss climbed the corporate ladder, wrong by wrong.
Sprang
Feb 25, 2017, 3:40:23 PM2/25/17
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:48:51 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom, after 15 edits, wrote this:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
>
> Bing uses Google search results, in part.
>
> Duckduckgo is just a privacy filter.
>
> If you're really interested, you can still use
> Google to find seamy stuff :-)
>
You get to use whatever bathroom you want?
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
>
> Bing uses Google search results, in part.
>
> Duckduckgo is just a privacy filter.
>
> If you're really interested, you can still use
> Google to find seamy stuff :-)
>
I piss on the floor, then read the sign.
--
SpringSprangSprung
John Gohde
Feb 25, 2017, 3:49:41 PM2/25/17
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 11:56:12 AM UTC-5, RonB wrote:
> Pretty good article on Google's power to censor the Internet.
>
> ~~
> Google’s power of censorship: who controls the controllers of the internet?
>
> Imagine a world where Google has no secrets, where all search engines play
> fair, and where SEO doesn’t have to be synonymous with “page one.” Sound
> like a fairy tale?
You guys are morons. Google has been blacklisting Web sites for a decade or two. It has happened to thousand of different sites for thousands of different reasons. Google simply NEVER notifies you why, or at least they originally did not.
> Pretty good article on Google's power to censor the Internet.
>
> ~~
> Google’s power of censorship: who controls the controllers of the internet?
>
> Imagine a world where Google has no secrets, where all search engines play
> fair, and where SEO doesn’t have to be synonymous with “page one.” Sound
> like a fairy tale?
There is no way of contacting Google either, cause everything at Google is done by computer algorithm to the max.
Chris Ahlstrom
Feb 25, 2017, 4:01:58 PM2/25/17
to
Sprang wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
Umkayyyy.
--
Everything that you know is wrong, but you can be straightened out.
--
Everything that you know is wrong, but you can be straightened out.
RonB
Feb 25, 2017, 6:51:15 PM2/25/17
to
On 2017-02-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
>
> Bing uses Google search results, in part.
>
> Duckduckgo is just a privacy filter.
>
> If you're really interested, you can still use
> Google to find seamy stuff :-)
StartPage seems to do the job. I think I'll work with them for now.
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
>
> Bing uses Google search results, in part.
>
> Duckduckgo is just a privacy filter.
>
> If you're really interested, you can still use
> Google to find seamy stuff :-)
Liberals seem to be more than willing to accept censorship when it's not
their ox that is being gored.
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus
Feb 25, 2017, 7:24:09 PM2/25/17
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 23:49:19 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "RonB
<ronb02...@gmail.com>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<o8t55v$vsg$3...@dont-email.me>:
subject updated.
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
<ronb02...@gmail.com>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<o8t55v$vsg$3...@dont-email.me>:
--
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
RonB
Feb 25, 2017, 9:39:50 PM2/25/17
to
On 2017-02-26, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> subject updated.
... and sender killfiled.
> subject updated.
... and sender killfiled.
Chris Ahlstrom
Feb 26, 2017, 8:01:56 AM2/26/17
to
RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> On 2017-02-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
>>
>> Bing uses Google search results, in part.
>>
>> Duckduckgo is just a privacy filter.
>>
>> If you're really interested, you can still use
>> Google to find seamy stuff :-)
>
> StartPage seems to do the job. I think I'll work with them for now.
>
> Liberals seem to be more than willing to accept censorship when it's not
> their ox that is being gored.
"Some" do. And it's not just liberals. It's human nature:
> On 2017-02-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Bing? DuckDuckGo? Time to choose a new search engine.
>>
>> Bing uses Google search results, in part.
>>
>> Duckduckgo is just a privacy filter.
>>
>> If you're really interested, you can still use
>> Google to find seamy stuff :-)
>
> StartPage seems to do the job. I think I'll work with them for now.
>
> Liberals seem to be more than willing to accept censorship when it's not
> their ox that is being gored.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
Mercier and Sperber prefer the term “myside bias.” Humans, they point
out, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument,
we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the
positions we’re blind about are our own.
Why? It is speculated:
Living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, our ancestors were primarily
concerned with their social standing, and with making sure that they
weren’t the ones risking their lives on the hunt while others loafed
around in the cave. There was little advantage in reasoning clearly,
while much was to be gained from winning arguments.
--
Stay away from hurricanes for a while.
Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus
Feb 26, 2017, 3:22:54 PM2/26/17
to
On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 02:37:53 -0000 (UTC), LO AND BEHOLD; "RonB
>On 2017-02-26, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus <ro...@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>subject updated.
>
>... and sender killfiled.
>
Now you have your "safe space", SNOWFLAKE!
LOLOL
<ronb02...@gmail.com>" determined that the following was of great
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<o8tf21$h31$1...@dont-email.me>:
importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
>On 2017-02-26, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus <ro...@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>subject updated.
>
>... and sender killfiled.
>
LOLOL
0 new messages