29 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
29 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Censorship has hit the net..........

by HeySal
25 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
What this article fails to answer is whether these services comply with the requests or not.

Google reports record spike in government requests to remove content | Technology | guardian.co.uk
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    I'm firmly and clearly and unambiguously on your side, about censorship.

    That said, I do find some of the language of these reports to be both sloppy and misleading.

    In this instance, the sub-editors of The Guardian (which is actually a pretty good newspaper, as these things go) should be ashamed of themselves.

    People habitually talk about Google "removing content" as if they imagine (and as a result, some others reading this stuff really do imagine!) that Google is somehow actually removing the content from the web rather than simply removing a link to it from their own search engine listings! It's really very regrettable. (It also helps to foster the illusion that Google is "in charge of the internet": there are people who believe that, too - and dishonest "journalism" like this is part of the reason for that.)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8015190].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      I'm firmly and clearly and unambiguously on your side, about censorship.

      That said, I do find some of the language of these reports to be both sloppy and misleading.

      In this instance, the sub-editors of The Guardian (which is actually a pretty good newspaper, as these things go) should be ashamed of themselves.

      People habitually talk about Google "removing content" as if they imagine (and as a result, some others reading this stuff really do imagine!) that Google is somehow actually removing it from the web rather than from their own search engine listings! It's really very regrettable. (It also helps to foster the illusion that Google is "in charge of the internet": there are people who believe that, too - and dishonest "journalism" like this is part of the reason for that.)
      Actually, I thought the Guardian was a rag but could be wrong because I don't really read it - just found this piece. I didn't post it because it was excellent journalism or writing - I posted it because of the subject matter. I know for a fact that certain pieces are being taken down from FB - and I know that Youtube is at least sometimes in compliance with requests solely because it makes an "official" look bad.

      My main question was really if Google complies or not. I know that some pretty damning stories disappear because I'll read them then I can't find them again anywhere in 24 hours. They just vanish. I remember the tussle a few years between google/china, in which google refused to be censored and am concerned about it - so it's more the issue than the article I'm asking opinions about.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8015557].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        Actually, I thought the Guardian was a rag
        The Guardian is the paper that broke the Hackgate scandal.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8015613].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          The Guardian is the paper that broke the Hackgate scandal.
          I didn't know. It's an unfortunate name. LOL. I thought it was something like our tabloids here in the US so never read them (that I know of).

          Anyhow - I saw this one, wasn't impressed with it on a technical level, but the subject has me interested as heck lately. People say google "can't do". I don't believe that for a second. China would have never have been an issue otherwise.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017269].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author BFriendly
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      People habitually talk about Google "removing content" as if they imagine (and as a result, some others reading this stuff really do imagine!) that Google is somehow actually removing the content from the web rather than simply removing a link to it from their own search engine listings! It's really very regrettable. (It also helps to foster the illusion that Google is "in charge of the internet": there are people who believe that, too - and dishonest "journalism" like this is part of the reason for that.)
      Someone should make a search engine that has everything that Google "removes". "Bannedfromgoogle.com" and see how well it does. "blackgoogle", "anti-google", etc...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017553].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by BFriendly View Post

        Someone should make a search engine that has everything that Google "removes". "Bannedfromgoogle.com" and see how well it does. "blackgoogle", "anti-google", etc...
        Damn good idea - ya shouldn't have just spit it out like that:rolleyes:
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018253].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author LarryC
        Originally Posted by BFriendly View Post

        Someone should make a search engine that has everything that Google "removes". "Bannedfromgoogle.com" and see how well it does. "blackgoogle", "anti-google", etc...
        It is a good idea, but if anyone tries it they should probably leave the name "Google" out of the name. For something like that, they'd almost certainly have legal trouble if it became popular.
        Signature
        Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018482].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          The first amendment really protects VERY little speech!
          Good point. I heard a commentary on the radio this week while driving - tried to find it online but couldn't.

          It made sense - was about the very basic "rights" the Constitution provides to us. The point of the comment was our basic rights are guaranteed but not our entitlements and not rights as we want to "interpret" them.

          We have a right to free speech - but if we go too far with our words the rights don't protect us from repercussions. We don't have a right to a cell phone, or food stamps or a certain level of income, etc.

          It was a rather short commentary but very powerful - wish I could find the wording!
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          ***
          2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018518].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            Good point. I heard a commentary on the radio this week while driving - tried to find it online but couldn't.

            It made sense - was about the very basic "rights" the Constitution provides to us. The point of the comment was our basic rights are guaranteed but not our entitlements and not rights as we want to "interpret" them.

            We have a right to free speech - but if we go too far with our words the rights don't protect us from repercussions. We don't have a right to a cell phone, or food stamps or a certain level of income, etc.

            It was a rather short commentary but very powerful - wish I could find the wording!
            If you have not already done so and recall which station you were listening to,
            then go to their website and look for podcasts. Or contact them for the commentator
            and get the transcripts?

            Dan
            Signature

            "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018551].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              That would require me remember who was saying it - knowing what their site is, etc. I don't have that info so can only hope I'll come across it again in my online travels.
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
              ***
              2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018600].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            Good point. I heard a commentary on the radio this week while driving - tried to find it online but couldn't.

            It made sense - was about the very basic "rights" the Constitution provides to us. The point of the comment was our basic rights are guaranteed but not our entitlements and not rights as we want to "interpret" them.

            We have a right to free speech - but if we go too far with our words the rights don't protect us from repercussions. We don't have a right to a cell phone, or food stamps or a certain level of income, etc.

            It was a rather short commentary but very powerful - wish I could find the wording!
            Well, if you read the first amendment, it could be argued that it only really protects FOUR things! ALL are laid out very clearly! They are fully unambiguous! Thy have TORN DOWN BUILDINGS and even GRAVE MARKERS to violate 2 of them! They have written laws, etc... to specifically violate ALL FOUR!

            Cell phone, food stamps, etc,,, aren't mentioned anywhere. Even the welfare clause, that ANYONE should be able to understand due to context, is SPECIFICALLY defined!

            NOW, holder is claiming that the rest of the world has a right. A right that would NEGATE the right for *****EVERYONE*****, including the citizens that actually DO have the right. And HEY, if all had the right everywhere, it would negate the right of ****ANYONE****, INCLUDING HOLDER, to lay down any controls or claim taxes. How would they feel if I said I would take a world tour for the rest of my life and, as such, not be a resident anywhere or subject to their taxes? I wonder what they would say? The current tax code says I would not owe a PENNY!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8018766].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The IDEA that the a bomb could cause that is just DUMB! I looked carefully at the chart at Twitter Causes A Flash Crash, Highlighting Market's Structural Problems and I almost started to talk about this. APPARENTLY what REALLY happened was that something happened around 5:45 or so and drove the market a LITTLE. I am only looking at THIS chart, but it changed the short term trend, and maybe crossed some average that may have helped drive things down. COMPUTERS DON'T READ! And TWITTER, of all things, IS NOT RELIABLE!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8015329].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author socialentry
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      The IDEA that the a bomb could cause that is just DUMB! I looked carefully at the chart at Twitter Causes A Flash Crash, Highlighting Market's Structural Problems and I almost started to talk about this. APPARENTLY what REALLY happened was that something happened around 5:45 or so and drove the market a LITTLE. I am only looking at THIS chart, but it changed the short term trend, and maybe crossed some average that may have helped drive things down. COMPUTERS DON'T READ! And TWITTER, of all things, IS NOT RELIABLE!

      Steve
      It's true, computers can't read but they can parse text.

      I think it was some harvard or stanford geek who had found evidence of a link between pump-and-dump spam and the price of specific penny stock.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017034].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        The White House urged him to remove the story....for security reasons.
        The weekend the pres played with Tiger Woods while the "girls" went west to ski? Security? Or a video record of big spending for a fun weekend at the time when sequester was kicking in?

        No telling why some things are removed - some may be totally wrong, some need to be hidden, and some are removed because the powers that be request it.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017197].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          The weekend the pres played with Tiger Woods while the "girls" went west to ski? Security? Or a video record of big spending for a fun weekend at the time when sequester was kicking in?

          No telling why some things are removed - some may be totally wrong, some need to be hidden, and some are removed because the powers that be request it.
          I would submit that no such situation exists where the daily activities of our leaders needs to be hidden. ...and that our government sees it differently should worry you.

          The problem with this sort of activity is that it is in effect, altering history. Whether or not the event is big or little, important or of little significance...how many times is this taking place every month across the whole country...bits of details dissapear ....I'm not willing to give the government a pass on any kind of censoring activity.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017255].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            It does worry me - and I'm worried even more that media outlets allow themselves to be dictated to in this way. Hard to imagine a threat to "security" existing after the fact of a vacation weekend at a ski resort.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017271].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

            I would submit that no such situation exists where the daily activities of our leaders needs to be hidden. ...and that our government sees it differently should worry you.

            The problem with this sort of activity is that it is in effect, altering history. Whether or not the event is big or little, important or of little significance...how many times is this taking place every month across the whole country...bits of details dissapear ....I'm not willing to give the government a pass on any kind of censoring activity.
            No lie. I'm getting so sick of people drooling garbage like "but what about child porn" "it's not right to show child porn". Actually the word for child porn is not "censor". Child porn is illegal and it should be "arrest" not "censor". Just another incident in which they have the public "thinking" with their emotions instead of their logical functions to keep us "safe" (read: contained). Never take a right or privilege away from an honest person using the actions of a dishonest one to excuse the power grab. What I might have said is never trust someone trying to take a right or privilege from you because of the actions of another -- but we have to start making politicians represent the better aspects of humanity. It's too late to hope that our people are even starting to be capable of rational thought. </rant>
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017282].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

        It's true, computers can't read but they can parse text.

        I think it was some harvard or stanford geek who had found evidence of a link between pump-and-dump spam and the price of specific penny stock.
        Man sites have said that the president was killed, or a bomb blew up washington DC.


        OOOOPS!!!!!!!! I guess BYE BYE DJIA, because parsing that text.....

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017386].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    It's a tricky question whether this is really censorship. Alexa, you are right that Google is only a search engine and cannot literally remove content -that they don't own at least. They can remove YouTube videos, as they own that service (as well as Blogger.com blogs).

    This is the problem with the internet being controlled by a few large companies. Right now, Google, Facebook and a few others such as Twitter, directly or indirectly, determine what we see on the web. If these companies all refused to show a certain blog post or video (or Google ranked it on page 100), hardly anyone could find it.

    This may not be censorship in the strictest legal sense. After all, you could still put up your content and email people to tell them where it is. But that would greatly limit how many people could see it and how fast it could spread. So it could be considered a kind of de facto censorship.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8015585].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Sounds like a pointless thing to do in a video, but here is what Google did in this case:
    Google refuses Argentina's request to remove raunchy video of President Cristina Kirchner | World | News | Daily Express

    Personally, I don't have a problem if things are removed that actually harm
    individuals or violate their privacy. Such as the Duchess of Cambridge naked photos,
    or photos that stalker types take of people they meet. Dr. Phil happened to
    be on the TV in my hotel lobby and he was able to get a website owner to remove
    photos (from his website anyway, who knows about cached/reposted stuff) of a gal posted by a guy she met via internet dating gone wrong. (I guess they call it catfishing.)

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8015669].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Yep, that explains a mystery to me, l try to look for some particularly controversial video on what someone found on Mars, and initially it is easy to find, then weeks and especially months later it is a nightmare to find, (have to type in the keyword that sparks off the video).

      So much for the internet being the last bastion of truth, seems like if sociopaths can't control the internet they will just pester a few company's that virtually run it!

      No doupt if l created a few controversial Mars video's with every kw, l could find, within a few months, it would be close to impossible to find it again!

      Shane
      Signature
      `
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8015932].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        I have a problem relating a controversial video about what someone found on Mars with the term "last bastion of truth".

        The internet is a beast and it's hard to know where lines should be or will be drawn in removing content. Snuff videos -hate videos - things that would not be allowed in print media appear online.

        We don't have an inalienable right to have our sites displayed in Google or our videos hosted on YouTube. There are some things you can't say even on Facebook - which is odd considering some of the crap posted there.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8016087].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
    Just this last month the manager of a local TV station here wrote a (sort of) apology letter to the public explaining why he pulled all instances of a story from the website archives that ran previously which was about President Obamas family taking a vacation to Sun Valley ( its a popular celebrity hang out town up in northern Idaho)

    The White House urged him to remove the story....for security reasons.

    My takeaway of this all this censorship...or to be fair..."probable censorship".....and the thing we should all really be alarmed about is...clearly the government is fully engaged in an active and wide spread routine of "censoring" like activities. Call it what you want.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8016112].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author visimedia
    lots of big companies are fighting on this censorship policy... including firefox, etc.
    I hope they'll win
    Signature

    For best hostel in malang https://bedpackers.com & mold inspectors orlando : https://waterdamagerestorationorland...d-inspections/

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017390].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The first amendment really protects VERY little speech! READ IT sometime! About the only speech it REALLY protects is the stuff the government always seems to be trying to stop! SERIOUSLY! People have been THROWN IN JAIL, HEAVILY FINED, and/or even SHOT DEAD for doing stuff ******SPECIFICALLY****** protected by the first amendment.

    I WOULD say more, but even a direct quote here could get me banned.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8017394].message }}

Trending Topics