Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites?

[dmp]

Anything I can do to feed your paranoia... I aim to please. Nothing like a bunch of conspiracy theorists to really make the right look whacked out... and the more paranoid I can make you, the better chance there is of that happening.

We're also eating aborted fetuses and trying to make Ramadan a National Holiday too.

Are you so dense you can't see what's going on? "hate speech". The very TERM is ANTI-Freedom. ANTI-American.

"Hate Speech" is as stupid as "hate crimes" - Both are insults to society. It's VERY clear - read the f'ing article, trooper. If you can't understand, try reading slowly.

 

[KarlMarx]

There is a reason for the nickname GOPgle. Its news searches provide more NewsMax and Freep hits than I thought were even possible.

This may come as a shock to many ... but I remember back long ago, during the age of Network Media Dominance, when people referred to CBS as the "Conservative Broadcasting System"..... boy, were we wrong!

Maybe editorialized hate speach just doesn't cut it as news? Oh, wait, that might be too reasonable an explanation! It must be a CONSPIRACY!!!! We're under attack!!! Save us! We're VICTIMS!!!! And, don't forget to save Christmas too!!! Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!111oneoneone

Look at who's talking.... the Left has come up with more conspiracy theories in the past 6 months than Hollywood has movie scripts.

You people are all nuts!

Too bad I don't shop at WalMart, then I'd be a Walnut!

P.S. that was supposed to be funny.....
P.P.S. you can laugh now....

 

[Redhots]

Maybe editorialized hate speach just doesn't cut it as news? Oh, wait, that might be too reasonable an explanation! It must be a CONSPIRACY!!!! We're under attack!!! Save us! We're VICTIMS!!!! And, don't forget to save Christmas too!!! Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!111oneoneone

I could really care less if the articles / sites in question really were just "editorialized hate speach". So what if they are, why should it be censored from me? If I want to I can just stop reading it.

Its not like all these sites are endorsed by Google or anything (then it would be a different story). Google News was / is billed as a sort of unfiltered information gatherer, a great tool to find information or stories that you might not get if you only had access to mainstream American media.

What they're doing, even if it is just a few sites out of the millions that are out there is very Un-American, even if it is perfectly legal.

If Google News is going to return results for all sorts of non-news opinion articles in the first place then I want them to give me access to everything they can. I don't want them to make up my mind for me about what I want to read or be exposed to.

 

[insein]

Anything I can do to feed your paranoia... I aim to please. Nothing like a bunch of conspiracy theorists to really make the right look whacked out... and the more paranoid I can make you, the better chance there is of that happening.

We're also eating aborted fetuses and trying to make Ramadan a National Holiday too.

Oh you wanted conspiracy theorists? Head here. nutjob

 

[William Joyce]

"hate speech"

Say no more! Censor away! I'm all for FREE speech. But if it's HATE speech, well then, lock up the speakers!

 

[jasendorf]

You may want to rethink your totally inneffective discussion style? The angry, bitter, elite Im better than you liberal stuff doesn't spin here.

Poking your conspiracy theories with a stick isn't angry... it's fun. Conspiracy theorists of all flavors are a joke and should be treated as such.

 

[jasendorf]

You're spinning. We see that their sense of morality sees censorship as just another service. They do not value freedom of thought and speech, at least not it if interferes with getting government contracts.

Does this mean you want to get in to a discussion about every American business that is doing business in China? If you want to blame someone... blame Nixon for normalizing relations with the commies. I personally think that we shouldn't be allowing American companies to use their virtual slave labor until those workers have some real rights. But, until we (and by "we" I mean Americans as a whole) stop buying things made in the PRC, we get what we deserve.

 

[jasendorf]

Too bad I don't shop at WalMart, then I'd be a Walnut!

See there! We do have at least ONE thing in common! Life is grand!

 

[jasendorf]

Are you so dense you can't see what's going on? "hate speech". The very TERM is ANTI-Freedom. ANTI-American.

"Hate Speech" is as stupid as "hate crimes" - Both are insults to society. It's VERY clear - read the f'ing article, trooper. If you can't understand, try reading slowly.

Read my entire sentence... maybe I should have bolded EDITORIALIZED hate speach. Google News loosely contains... uh, well, news. Just because years of brainwashing by FAUX News and NewsMax have altered your perceptin of what is "news" doesn't make it so.

And, really, Google's a privately owned company... they don't owe anybody JACK SQUAT. Not promoting some whackos' web sites isn't an infringement on those sites' free speach. That's like me saying, "I told you about the speach I was giving last night and you didn't tell anyone... WHY ARE YOU RESTRICTING MY FREE SPEACH?!?!?!?!" Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?

 

[jasendorf]

Oh you wanted conspiracy theorists? Head here. nutjob

Hmmm... site won't come up... something about "being banned for being too conservative"????

 

[insein]

Hmmm... site won't come up... something about "being banned for being too conservative"????

lol, yea that sounds about right. Anything right of Stalin is too conservative for those guys.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Read my entire sentence... maybe I should have bolded EDITORIALIZED hate speach. Google News loosely contains... uh, well, news. Just because years of brainwashing by FAUX News and NewsMax have altered your perceptin of what is "news" doesn't make it so.

And, really, Google's a privately owned company... they don't owe anybody JACK SQUAT. Not promoting some whackos' web sites isn't an infringement on those sites' free speach. That's like me saying, "I told you about the speach I was giving last night and you didn't tell anyone... WHY ARE YOU RESTRICTING MY FREE SPEACH?!?!?!?!" Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?

Editorials have long been a standard part of ANY news dissemination. That's not a valid argument. Sure, they don't owe anyone freedom of speech, but let's just recognize that, in fact, they do not value a free market place of ideas, like ALL totalitarians.

 

[jasendorf]

Editorials have long been a standard part of ANY news dissemination. That's not a valid argument. Sure, they don't owe anyone freedom of speech, but let's just recognize that, in fact, they do not value a free market place of ideas, like ALL totalitarians.

A free market place of ideas would assume that the company could buy or choose not to buy. You want to ram these sites' viewpoints down their throats like all dictatorships and wrap it in "FREE SPEECH"!

Question. If the Republican National Convention website won't post a link to the NAACP's website... is the RNC guilty of "not valuing a free market place of ideas"?

 

[insein]

A free market place of ideas would assume that the company could buy or choose not to buy. You want to ram these sites' viewpoints down their throats like all dictatorships and wrap it in "FREE SPEECH"!

Question. If the Republican National Convention website won't post a link to the NAACP's website... is the RNC guilty of "not valuing a free market place of ideas"?

The RNC is a political site. ITs 1 site. Its not a search engine. Google is the most widely used website on the internet and the largest search engine, holding well over 3 billion sites, in the world. With that kind of weight comes responsibility. If google starts censoring some things, then why not censor others like child pornagraphy or terrorists sites or sites on how to make bombs or sites that promote sex between adult men and young boys. Why then would they have the sudden decision to censor media sites with opinions that disagree with their viewpoints removed?

ITs disengenuous and i beleive it will be their downfall if they continue. MAny will learn of the creeping censorship and start to use other search engines like dogpile or yahoo. Less traffic will mean less ad revenue which while not an immediate threat to such a large company, will eventually hurt them financially.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Just because years of brainwashing by FAUX News and NewsMax have altered your perceptin of what is "news" doesn't make it so.

And years of brainwashing by the NYT, WaPO, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc. haven't altered your perception of what is "news" and what is a political agenda?

 

[jasendorf]

The RNC is a political site. ITs 1 site. Its not a search engine. Google is the most widely used website on the internet and the largest search engine, holding well over 3 billion sites, in the world. With that kind of weight comes responsibility. If google starts censoring some things, then why not censor others like child pornagraphy or terrorists sites or sites on how to make bombs or sites that promote sex between adult men and young boys. Why then would they have the sudden decision to censor media sites with opinions that disagree with their viewpoints removed?

ITs disengenuous and i beleive it will be their downfall if they continue. MAny will learn of the creeping censorship and start to use other search engines like dogpile or yahoo. Less traffic will mean less ad revenue which while not an immediate threat to such a large company, will eventually hurt them financially.

So, in other words... since Google is ONLY (???) a privately held company... they should have to do what you think they should?

Wrong.

You have two choices. Ask the government to force them to run their business a certain way or stop going there. Your choice. My guess is that you want more government forcing companies to do what you want them to do.


Oh, and as for dogpile and yahoo... BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... why didn't you just throw ask, lycos and webcrawler in there for good measure!

 

[insein]

So, in other words... since Google is ONLY (???) a privately held company... they should have to do what you think they should?

Wrong.

You have two choices. Ask the government to force them to run their business a certain way or stop going there. Your choice. My guess is that you want more government forcing companies to do what you want them to do.


Oh, and as for dogpile and yahoo... BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... why didn't you just throw ask, lycos and webcrawler in there for good measure!

I guess you didnt read my post. Never in there did i say the government should do anything to Google. I simply pointed out Google's hypocracy on "Censorship in their best interest." If many people begin using other sites, google will eventually lose money. It will take awhile, but that is how the Free market works.

Government involvement in pretty much anything ends up screwed up.

 

[Avatar4321]

Interesting how the left is always the side that encourages censorship isnt it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So, in other words... since Google is ONLY (???) a privately held company... they should have to do what you think they should?

Wrong.

You have two choices. Ask the government to force them to run their business a certain way or stop going there. Your choice. My guess is that you want more government forcing companies to do what you want them to do.


Oh, and as for dogpile and yahoo... BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... why didn't you just throw ask, lycos and webcrawler in there for good measure!

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

 

[Redhots]

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.

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.

http://news.google.com/corporate/index.html

"The perfect search engine," says Google co-founder Larry Page, "would understand exactly what you mean and give back exactly what you want."

http://news.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

In rendering his decision Judge James Klienberg said, "we can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060526185414.shtml