|
>>>Google Censorship<<<
The
major search engines censor access to many web
sites. 11 min
They all have internal organizations responsible for executing the
censoring policies of their company. We can be confident that none of these
organizations is called the “Censoring Division”. The people in these
organizations may also sincerely believe that what they are doing is in the best
interests of their users and that every single site that they block is “doing
something wrong”.
The problem with Internet censoring is the same as any other form of censoring. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, once you start censoring it is very hard to stop. It is always possible to rationalize that people would be better off if they didn't have access to certain
information.
Google has often censored some of my own pages. These pages have completely
and utterly disappeared from their search engines. They do not exist!
(And please do not bother writing to me to explain that this might be because
their 'blind' algorithms might simply have changed - because I have far too much
evidence pointing to the conclusion that these 'algorithms' include
site-specific and/or page-specific instructions and I also know the internet
extremely well.)
You see; Google has a problem. And it is this.
Just like the telephone companies, Google claims that it cannot possibly have
any responsibility for what information flows through its system. After all, in
much the same way that the telephone companies cannot possibly monitor all the
billions of telephone conversations that flow through their systems, Google
cannot possibly monitor all the information on the billions of webpages that it
lists.
Or so it claims.
And, on the surface, this claim seems to be a reasonable one.
BUT!
If Google is, indeed, censoring information (e.g. delisting pages from its
search engines or demoting them in the rankings because of their content) then,
quite clearly, it is monitoring this information.
And if it is monitoring this information, then it can surely be
deemed to be liable for the presentation of it!
And if this was the case then, for example, this would mean that Google could
be held responsible for any libel that appeared on webpages that it had listed -
or, perhaps, responsible for aiding terrorists etc etc etc.
In short; if Google admits to monitoring, then it can be held to be 'liable'.
So, Google is somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, it proudly proclaims to be a defender of free speech and
that it would not dream of censoring (blocking, de-listing, demoting etc etc)
any webpages of information, and it insists most strongly that, therefore, it
cannot possibly be held liable for any of the content but, on the other hand, it
does not want to upset governments; and it can only do this by doing what
governments tell them.
And so Google has chosen to worm its way out of this dilemma by, quite
simply, accommodating to the wishes of governments - and lying to
the people about it.
Now some of my long-time readers might recall that the last time that I had a barney
with Google - when, if you believe it, they removed all advertising from a single
innocuous page concerning men's issues on my other website - I had to maraud around for three or four days demonstrating to
Google that I would trawl the internet here, there and everywhere in order to
spread the news about Google's heinous activities to whomsoever might seem
interested - especially journalists.
And I think that what finally convinced Google to be more accommodating was
me pointing out the fact that not only was I, clearly, a very
energetic activist, but that rushing around the internet badmouthing Google would do
absolute wonders for my site's traffic - and that, therefore, I would find the
experience most rewarding - which meant that I was very unlikely to stop
badmouthing Google hither and thither - week after week if necessary.
My ads came back.
Well, it looks as if I am now going to have to create a fuss over www.HarrietHarmanSucks.Com
- because its pages have been disappeared into the abyss - having all first
appeared for a few days hovering between pages 5 and 20 following a search for
"Harriet Harman"
And so my plan is this.
I am going to write a piece about why Google needs to be 'controlled' and
restricted in some way and explain how outrageous it is that it should have so
much power.
And then I am going to start marauding around the internet again.
Because, ....
I will not be censored!
LOL!
(And you can forget all the BS about Google being a private company and so it
should be able to de-list or demote whatever pages it likes, because it is illegal for
companies to cheat people. And if Google is censoring my pages,
then it is cheating the people most horribly!)
The alternative, I suppose, is to re-write the pieces so that they are less
'hostile'.
Hmmm.
I'll think about it.
Maybe if I grovelled to Harriet Harman in my pieces instead of castigating
her Google would re-list my pages.
Grovel. Grovel.
LOL!
Huh!
I would rather that my missus be torn apart and devoured slowly by a gruesome herd of
flesh-eating crocodiles.
(While I watched her writhing in agony, ate ice cream, and chatted to my new
girlfriend, of course!)
Anyway. The piece above is very good indeed, and definitely worth reading.
+ We
have private companies like Google deciding what we can and can't see based on
their self-interested readings of poorly-drafted national laws, taking advice
from unnamed and unaccountable Government agencies and telling nobody what is
going on. Bill Thompson
And, of course, this is one of
the ways in which western governments intend to stifle dissent. This
is the deal in a nutshell. Government:
"If you, Google, do not disappear from view those most effective pieces
that are hostile to us, then we shall bring some kind of law to bear upon
you." Google:
"Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir." Government:
"But you must not tell the people of this secret deal." Google:
"Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir." There
is no question in my mind that this is going on. And
this means that we do not have a democracy. Of
course, Google would not dare to nobble websites that were very influential -
because too many influential people might get upset about it. So,
between them, Google and the government keep it all secret and under the carpet. In
other words, as usual, our own governments - and, in this case, Google - are
cheating us. And talk
about hypocrisy! - with all our politicians forever criticising the Chinese
government for blocking access to websites that are critical of government and
its officials, when they are doing something very similar over here. Indeed, our
governments - through their officials - are lying to us all the time. Furthermore,
when, at the time, I did a whole load of research into the matter of 'adverts'
and the 'blacklisting' of them, it became fairly clear to me that the sites that had
lost their adverts were mostly on the right side of the political spectrum in
that they
were often anti-feminist and/or not politically correct. So,
as in so many other areas, my guess is that internet activists who
are anti-feminist and/or not politically correct are also having to cope with
the customary institutionalised biases against them; but this time, with the aid
of Google. But decent
lefties must also be very much concerned about this, firstly, because it might
not be too long before those who are pulling the strings are more right-wing
and, secondly, because "men's issues" have precious little to do with
being on the left or the right of the political spectrum; because when it come
to issues of concern to 'men', the official left and right are just as bad as
each other. In other
words, all men should be very concerned indeed about Google's
underhand censorship because not only does this undermine the democratic process
most seriously, it also means that those activists who are fighting the corner
for 'men' (rightly or wrongly) are being unfairly treated and that the issues of
concern to 'men' are - once again - being purposely sat upon and hidden.
|