Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dissecting Localized Google Censorship

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the bowlderization dept.

Censorship 261

carpe_noctem writes " has a link to a rather interesting story regarding Google's use of localized censorship. While not much information is given from the political side of why Google might be censoring information likely to annoy certain governments, it certainly isn't the first time Google has come under fire for censoring results on account of external pressures. Makes one wonder how many pages get filtered out around the world."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Google is a private company (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531650)

Not a government. Who cares if they choose to censor things in order to make their business stronger/more profitable? If they don't censor it, they'll get locked out of those countries or censored by a third party, which is even less likely to be accurate. Fight government censorship, that's the real problem.

Re:Google is a private company (5, Interesting)

WotanKhan (150429) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531773)

I care, esp. if it affects my attempts to retrieve information. Corporate censorship can be harmful too, and the way to combat it is by exposing it, and letting it affect customer patronage.

Re:Google is a private company (1, Insightful)

flynt (248848) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531796)

Well boo-hoo for you. Google (which you no doubt have never paid a penny to) has not given you a bill of rights. You should be thankful they even let you search for free, as they could definitely charge for such a useful service.

Re:Google is a private company (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531937)

Why is this modded as troll? Flynt is 100% correct. The problem with the /. crowd is that everyone expects everything for free. Linux is free, and commerical software costs too much so I will just steal a warez copy, the music companies are stifling creativity so I am going to download pirated mp3s, services should be free and thankful that I use them, banner adds are bad, but if you try to charge for the service you are bad too, etc. etc.

Get some priorites! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532013)

I just heard on the radio that Saddam Hussein has draped our Statue of Liberty in a green burka and you guys are whining about google filtering their results?

Re:Google is a private company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531804)

Well lets give you a big 'boo hoo' and send you on your way. This /. self-entitlement attitude is enough to make any normal person want to puke.

Re:Google is a private company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531868)

Well if it affects you ability to retrieve information perhaps you should think about why your government has such a bug up their ass about certain things. This is happening because of government pressures (and not US in this case).

Re:Google is a private company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532097)

Saddam Hussein? There is no Saddam Hussein,he was invented by the CIA to allow US presidents to play around with their weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Google is a private company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531903)

Than use a different search engine. You are not entitled to use Google. Google is not around to serve you.

Re:Google is a private company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532095)

Google is not around to serve you.

Correct, hu-man! Google is here to serve me! Come Google! Sit by your master and regale me with tales of French Hu-man Military Victories.

Re:Google is a private company (4, Interesting)

Cyberdyne (104305) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531775)

Not a government. Who cares if they choose to censor things in order to make their business stronger/more profitable? If they don't censor it, they'll get locked out of those countries or censored by a third party, which is even less likely to be accurate. Fight government censorship, that's the real problem.

I agree that Google's own filtering is OK - for one thing, almost by definition they do it to improve the search engine, rather than to achieve some nefarious goal. However, the exclusion of Stormfront [] 's pages from the German view only? Given the nature of their site (a "White Nationalist Resource Page", for those too scared or monitored to look for yourselves), I suspect very strongly this is the result of German government censorship. I expect either Google did it themselves, to prevent attacks from the German government, or they were forced to do so by said government.

It's possible this is some sort of moral judgement by Google themselves - except then, why would they suppress the site only from the German view, not the main index?! No, this smells to me very much like government censorship; Germany's approach to free speech seems to be "Say what you want. As long as it doesn't promote political views we don't like, question our official version of history..."

Re:Google is a private company (5, Interesting)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531918)

Well, see, I see a problem here. What if Google decided to make only the result for any search on Search Engines?

Or what if (since I am in the US), I did a Search for Democratic Presidential Candidates, and only got George W Bush as a result?

Corporate censorship is oftentimes more insidious in that Government, because the Government has very clear lines on what should be censored and for whom (Not that I agree with it, but generally, saying no porn for the kiddies is a good idea)

Corporations have no such compunctions, thier censorship is based on thier own bottom line. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Google is a private company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532005)

Well, basically, you just stop using Google. It's not rocket science. Google isn't the only search engine. You can't really compare Google to a government. You don't have much choice about the government as a whole, but you have more than a handful of choices about search engines.

Re:Google is a private company (4, Insightful)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531936)

Yes because it is banned in Germany. So they don't want to get into a fight with the German government so the comply with the laws of the land. The Germans need to work on changing Germany not Google. So I must be missing something cause I really don't see your point as it seems like the parent post, you and I are all thinking the same thing but you sound like you think you disagree.

Re:Google is a private company (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532030)

What a fascist government they have over there! You aren't allowed to own a firearm, you aren't allowed to speak your mind... Iraq has more freedom than Germany! I'm thankful I live in the USA.

Re:Google is a private company (1, Redundant)

Gefiltefish11 (611646) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531780)

Of course Google has the right, as a for-profit business, to do as it pleases (within the bounds of the law). I don't believe that this is the point of this article.

Since Google is perhaps the world's most heavily-used search engine, it is critical for the public to understand how it works, what it does, and what it does not do.

The argument that, "Google is private, so who cares," is tantamount to McDonald's making their burgers out of tofu and not publicizing it. While it may not be illegal and it may be the right of the company, it sure as hell is news and I, as a McDonald's customer, definitely want to know what lies between the buns.

Re:Google is a private company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531889)

Except that McDonalds by law has to tell you what you are eating. There is a big difference between something you are putting in your mouth and a free service that is one of dozens like it. Who knows, it is probably in their EULA that they can do this anyway.

Re:Google is a private company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531971)

"The argument that, "Google is private, so who cares," is tantamount to McDonald's making their burgers out of tofu and not publicizing it. While it may not be illegal and it may be the right of the company, it sure as hell is news and I, as a McDonald's customer, definitely want to know what lies between the buns."

You think beef lies between the buns of what you eat now? Hah, you are even dumber than your post makes you sound. BTW, your example is way off. McDonalds advertising HAMBURGERS, i.e. made of BEEF. Pulling a switcharoo with tofu would be illegal. Google is not selling you a service they are labling censorship free. In fact they are not selling you anything.

Re:Google is a private company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531794)

It's the responsibility of those who have what governments want to use their resources wisely. Fighting government censorship could include Google denying to kiss their asses. A service which has some of it's content blocked at the border routers should block the rest, too. The government either allows people to access all content or you don't provide the facade of freedom to that goverment.

Google is a private multinational company (4, Insightful)

Dukeofshadows (607689) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531805)

Certainly Google is a private company that can do as it damn well pleases. Yet it operates an international scope with several countries having their own laws on censorship that they feel must be obeyed for whatever reason. As long as the government tells people about the censorship, there's less of an argument than when a government claims to respect free speech outright then decieves its own people in practice. Note the author's example of, a site that would test the boundaries between free speech and incitive speech.

Here in the US we have faced the same problem when Klan or other sites tried to get attention. If there are public decency laws are in place, how is it possible to both follow those laws (regardless of whether we think those laws are just or not) and provide free content? Should a whole country or region get a different search engine result based on its laws? In short, yes. To try and espouse American ideals to the planet doesn't work as the recent UN vote clearly shows. We don't have to agree with them, but they have a right to speak and vote regardless of what we think. Google has a responsibility as a multinational company to obey the laws of the countries it operates in, and given the legal right of people to sue internet companies according to the laws of their own country (Australia has a case like this), they damn well better learn what rules they need to play by.

It is somewhat loathsome that censorship be brought about, especially because the same rights used by the hatemongers to spread their intellectual bile is the same one I use to post here in disagreeance with their thoughts and, occasionally, the politics of the world at large. And anyone in the United States should also be guarding every right they have with vigilance given the blatant thirst for power of our current regime and their willingness to intrude on our rights and lives in the name of "security". Again, we should protect our rights here in the US and ensure that Google does the same by following the laws of other countries.

May the question of free speech and its legality in the face of "terrorism" never turn into a possible threat against the 1st amendment here in the US, lest we have to resort to the 2nd amendment to defend both...

the real problem (1)

themusicgod1 (241799) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531810)

are you sure? should i sell all my property, buy an assault rifle, to take up arms against my local government and it's censoring of %P [where %P is being censored locally? ]? or perhaps it's the mindset that allows for widespread agreement with the government [especially in a democracy such as Canada] when it censors? i mean, who would stay in power longer, a 'democratic' government with support of a public who supports censorship, or a 'democratic' government without? perhaps my problem [that the mindset/frame of reference/set of memes in the society which we are discoursing about is outdated, innefficient, pro-censorship, dogmatic, irrational, sadistic, and just plain evil?]

Google is a public tool (2, Insightful)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531817)

There come times when things are no as longer black and white as you would like them to be.

Google's role in society is no longer one of profit, it has become the navigator for millions of people to access free information. With great power comes great responsiblity.

Therefore, as human beings, those who run google have moral and ethical obligations to protect the free flow of information.

It may be legal for them to censor, but it is wrong as it damages the exchange of ideas which promote thought and freedom.

Fight censorship on all fronts.

Re:Google is a public tool (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531879)

Bull crap. If this free 'exchange of ideas' is so damn important to you, write your own search engine. Quit whining about how unfair the world is and do something about it.

Typical worthless /. rhetoric.

Re:Google is a public tool (3, Insightful)

cheezedawg (413482) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531892)

So is forcing a private company to post information that it doesn't want to post your idea of 'freedom'?

Re:Google is a public tool (2, Interesting)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531952)

I would say that given the fact that the sites are only censored in certain regions, google must want to post them. After all if they didn't want to post them, these wouldn't appear anywhere in the world.

Oh wait, we're making the mistake of attributing "wanting" of something that wasn't a liquid asset. After all, companies in the US are expected to be money grubbing, coldhearted, amoral (or is that "immoral" in the light of Enron?) bastards who don't give a shit about anything but money, Money, MONEY $$$.

Re:Google is a public tool (3, Interesting)

blamanj (253811) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531994)

No one has proposed "forcing" anything. What these people are doing is merely to inform. All they are saying is that Google does not behave in a way that they believe or may be led to believe. This is a tremendously important thing to do, whether or not it results in any changes, because of the role Google has in the internet community.

We should never blindly support any entity, corporate, religious, or governmental. These people are merely providing a view to what might otherwise go unseen.

Re:Google is a public tool (1)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531900)

Despite the standing of a corporation as a "person" as far as legal issues is concerned. They are not a person. Ethics is conveniently hidden behind the corporation mask.

Don't take this to mean I am against corporations, The Man(tm), and capitalism in general.

I just don't think that it is possible to expect something specific to a human from a corporation, despite being run by humans. Unless the corporation itself developes inteligence and self awareness, then it is just a name on paper and has no "ethical obligations."


Re:Google is a public tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531916)

What a liberal load of shit. Google has not such moral obligation. They have only one obligation and that is to their shareholders. It is not their responsibility to "fight the good fight" against government censorship. They don't have deep pockets. If you are concerned about the flow of freedom then get freenet or something. I really hate bleeding heart liberals.

Re:Google is a public tool (5, Insightful)

danheskett (178529) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531954)

Therefore, as human beings, those who run google have moral and ethical obligations to protect the free flow of information.
Ahh, bullshit.

The purpose of Google is too limit the flow of information. Yes, that is there state entire purpose.

Google is not BLOCKING you from visiting this site. Google only reports what it has in its index relevant to what you asked for in the context of where you are. That's all. It's whole job is too discriminate information. The goal of Google is to censor bad, irrelevant information from the good, useful information.

What Google is doing is so far from censorship as to be an abhorrent use of the word. They have decided in certain cases to not directly publish links to illegal content.

It may be legal for them to censor, but it is wrong as it damages the exchange of ideas which promote thought and freedom.
In fact, it may be ILLEGAL for them to NOT censor.

If you have beef, take it up with Germany. Google here is doing what is required of them, and that's all you can reasonably ask. I'm sure Google would like nothing more than to be able to abandon this sillyness.

Re:Google is a public tool (1)

skillet-thief (622320) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532040)

Google's role in society is no longer one of profit, it has become the navigator for millions of people to access free information. With great power comes great responsiblity.

I totally agree with this. After all, Google has become a monopoly of sorts, and so one would hope that they become a benevolent dictator, rather than taking the road of some other recent monopolies...

I realize that as a multinational, Google has to deal with a lot of different governments who have different ideas about the Web's role in society, and I'm sure that it ain't that easy to make everybody happy.

There needs to be a kind of consensus, however, that Google is not a content provider, but rather a description of what is out there. It's a pretty fine line to walk, I'm sure. (Yahoo got in trouble in France because someone was using one of their marketplace forums to sell Nazi gear...)

Re:Google is a public tool (5, Insightful)

Xerithane (13482) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532045)

Google's role in society is no longer one of profit, it has become the navigator for millions of people to access free information. With great power comes great responsiblity.

This is fundamentally wrong. If it is a public tool, it should be paid for by tax dollars and be institutionalized by the government.

Google is a company, and that is black and white. Regardless of ideological ideas of what a public tool should or should not do, it is there business what they do. People are not obligated to use Google, and Google is not obligated in any way to humor certain peoples thoughts on what is moral and just.

Therefore, as human beings, those who run google have moral and ethical obligations to protect the free flow of information.

At the sacrifice of their business? At which point does this free flow of information end? If someone posts a video of you doing something embarassing, is it your right to censor or attempt to? There is no moral obligation for any company to anybody outside of that company.

It may be legal for them to censor, but it is wrong as it damages the exchange of ideas which promote thought and freedom.

Take issue with the governments that require censorship, not with a tool that tries to reach as many people as possible. It's better that Google is available in China, even if it is censored, than if they don't have access to google at all.

You are fighting the wrong people here. You are shooting the messenger.

Re:Google is a public tool (2, Interesting)

Hentai (165906) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532085)

You know, if it only blocks results to certain regions, what's to keep someone from making a 'region-free' Google proxy and piping results to anyone who wants it?

Re:Google is a public tool (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532150)

What a load of baloney. Last I checked, Google's owners hadn't decided to give up their bottom line for some "public good."

If you don't like the fact that Google obeys local laws--for example, banning Germans' access to results like Stormfront (a neo-Nazi website) which are banned by German Law, not by moral fiat--then use a different search engine. Altavista's still out there.

Re:Google is a private company (1)

asscroft (610290) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532146)

You are correct, it's ok. but I still care. Being OK and being favorable are two different things entirely.

It's ok for them to do this, sure, because it's their company, their search engine, etc.

However it's also ok for me to not like it and choose a different search engine should I want to find uncensored results.

And, to take it one step further, if I were to "reverse engineer" googles censoring to inform "consumers" so that they can make an informed decision about which search engine to use that would be fine too, despite their inevitable "trade secret" lawyer speak.

Look, if you are filtering or censoring, you have a right to do it, and we have a right to not use you. And, to some extent you have a responsibility to admit to it, otherwise you are misleading the public/consumer. If google is selling an uncensored search engine, and providing a censored search engine then something is amiss. I think it's this misleading that is probably drawing the most outrage.

Maybe it's because Google censors webpages... (2, Funny)

Chardish (529780) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531655)

That China censors Google. ;)


If this isn't the first post... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531662)

I will read up on my dophinsex [] literature and relieve the tensions of the day upon an endangered whale.

As usual, links to pictures will be posted.

Re:If this isn't the first post... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531699)

Man, not only did I not get the first post, but I fucked up the link! I am truly a failure, but at least I don't have to fuck a cetacean.

Googledot dot org (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531667)

Welcome to Googledot dot!!!!

Bringing you every single fucking piece of news about Google you can dig up!!

Can I be a slashdot editor now?

Re:Googledot dot org (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531705)

Google doesn't even have it's own icon! To quote the wrestler Hurricane, "Whats up wit dat?"

If you don't like it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531670)

Use [] another [] search [] engine [] ! []

Re:If you don't like it (4, Informative)

s20451 (410424) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531876)

You'd be better off using smaller search engines that might fly under the radar. Things like WiseNut [] , Teoma [] , SurfFast [] , or My Way [] .

Hard without disclosure (1)

astrashe (7452) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531940)

I agree with you in principle, but it's hard without disclosure. How do you know those other sites are doing anything differently?

Re:Hard-on without disrobing (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532018)

You like to have sex with dogs, right? I found that out by using a search engine.


Can you image the look on your grandma's face when she opens her email and there here little boy is, all naked and mounting a German Shepherd. Well, I emailed her, alright. You need to be taught a lesson about having sex with animals, and how to do it properly. There are many well written articles explaining how to have mutually gratifying sex with dolphins, dogs, monkeys a personal favorite), prairie dogs, and your butt-ugly next-door neighbor (she looks like a fricken animal).

Anyway, use a SEARCH ENGINE to find these documents and put them into practice immediately! Avoid embarrassing yourself further.

Re:If you don't like it (1)

rwiedower (572254) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531967)

Or a meta-search engine, like ixquick [] . They just came out with a new beta a few days ago which is worth a look. Maybe one of these days there'll be a meta-meta search engine.

Choking on it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531671)

You dickwads wouldnt know real censorship if it crawled in your lap and sucked your tiny penises.

Google's 'censorship' is less annoying and less subjective than slashdots "mod everyone down who doesnt agree with us" policy.

Google Censorship? (-1, Troll)

intermodal (534361) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531674)

how about Slashdot censorship? i got mod-bombed today and i dont see an article about that.

Re:Google Censorship? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531740)

You know what I like about /. moderation?

If you disagree with the moderators on some ultra-important hot-button issue, like KDE vs Gnome, your comment get "-1 Flamebait" to make it look like your some kind of asshole for having a diffenent opinion. But not only that, they'll go for your posting history and mod away every bit of karma bonus you may have had.

I've seen posts I've made a full month earlier, in a long dead and buried article, that were +5, go to -1 just moments after criticizing, say, linux on the desktop. Its usually the editors that do it (michael), since they have unlimited mod points and no sense of reality.

It's such a lame system designed to make sure noone has any sort of insightful discussion, and only sycophants bubble to the top.

Its pathetic. And michael has the nerve to call himself a crusader against censorship.

Re:Google Censorship? (0, Troll)

intermodal (534361) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531760)

exactly. Karma be damned, I'm gonna say whatever I feel. They can mod me down all they want, it doesnt change the fact that it isn't fair or beneficial to the users.

Re:Google Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531802)

Maybe there should only varying mod-up points (+1,+2,+4, whatever), instead of mod-down points?

Re:Google Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531828)

Hmmm, not that you're necessarily wrong, but prove it. Prove that your long dead and buried article got modded. Prove that it was Michael who did it. Prove that Michael even tends to do that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm certainly not going to get up in arms over unfounded accusations.

Re:Google Censorship? (0, Offtopic)

intermodal (534361) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531871)

Thats exactly the thing. it cannot be proved unless you sit in my office and watch, refreshing, as a post which was previously modded to 3 drops to -1 in the time it takes to hit refresh. Then you'll know.

Re:Google Censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532057)

I actually was referring to the other poster more so than you. I think there's probably a lot of, at least user witnessed, evidence of mod bombing, I'm not sold that it's editors. Nor do I believe that the other poster's claim that it's Michael holds any water. There's no way of knowing.

Re:Google Censorship? (3, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531862)

That's nonsense. I've said negative things about Linux before and the worst that happens is a -1 hit. Most of the time nothing happens or I got modded up. You have to be more careful when you cut against the grain and make better points.

The karma system in my experience tends to keep away people that are too oppositional, too hostile... There is a certain point at which core debate overwhelms discussion. You can't discuss lutheran vs. calvinist theology if aggressive atheists or catholoics were barging in. You can't discuss Windows 2000 advanced Server vs. Windows datacenter server if aggressive pro linux people were barging in....

So for example if you bring up anti linux things on a thread about a particular linux related topic (like say a discussion of mandrake) of course that will get modded down as off topic. The discussion is mandrake vs. debian, mandrake vs. redhat... not mandrake vs. windows.

piffle and post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531677)

first!!!! no longer appears in google (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531678)

./ "did some evil*" by criticizng the Almighty Goolgle.

*Reference to the Wired article that said Google's "guiding principle" is to "do no evil".

Slashdot runs friggin Google ads! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531731)

They're one of Google's big new content partners for text ads. Rumor has it that Google may buy Slashdot and the whole OSDN/VA thingamabob.

Sorry, no. (-1, Troll)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531687)

I'm not going to click on a link that goes to Seth Finkelstewathever's crappy "oh how they hate me" website. Any mirrors, alternate sources, etc?

Re:Sorry, no. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531768)

Jeez, Michael, don't have the balls to post under your real nick?

Re:Sorry, no. (1)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531807)

I bet google has a mirror. ;)

OT: the lameness filter needs to realize that one line of text can be typed in a much faster time than 20 seconds.

well I know that (5, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531708)

my Nazi-Skinhead-Kiddy-Porn-Warez-Make Money Quick-How To Be A Terroist site gets filtered out pretty much everywhere, Google or otherwise.

Ashcroft, NSA, FBI: This is only a joke done in poor taste. I don't have a site, much less with any of the above.
Sucks having to put that kind of disclaimer on things....

Re:well I know that (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531803)

if you are really worried that you have to put up a disclaimer, then you are doing something illegal. Believe me, they aren't going to waste their time tooling /. for kiddies...

Re:well I know that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531929)

if you are really worried that you have to put up a disclaimer, then you are doing something illegal.
Your logic escapes me. Every time I have ever seen a disclaimer anywhere its a cover up for illegal activity? Im sure they dont waste their time on /. (probably not during working hours anyways (but then again here I am)).

What you are telling me is:
If(worried>=enough && SomethingIllegal==True)

Yeah, I dont understand your logic...

Re:well I know that (2, Funny)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531898)

my Nazi-Skinhead-Kiddy-Porn-Warez-Make Money Quick-How To Be A Terroist site gets filtered out pretty much everywhere, Google or otherwise.

Nah, it's just because your name sounds French.

Re:well I know that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531996)

Good thinking! Last time I didn't put a disclaimer on a post, Ashcroft was knocking at my door 18 minutes later. But with your clever little disclaimer, your safe!

wow, you missed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532078)

thats pretty funny. The disclaimer was tounge-in-cheek, but you took it seriously... thanks, AC! (-1, Flamebait)

Lebofsky (141548) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531717)

My friend Morris has a new band with their (rather weak) home page:

Googlebots keep scanning it, but it never shows up in a Google search. I even put a link to it on my site, and the link on my site doesn't show up in searches.


- (1)

word munger (550251) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531752)

bull [] . (1)

kirun (658684) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531835)

Well, that didn't work for me.

What seems to be happening here is that although the site has been indexed, it hasn't fully been added to Google yet (which takes a bit longer).

This behaviour is to be expected [] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531980)

worked for me [] Now mod this pathetic parent down.

Google isn't immune to everything (4, Insightful)

BeerVarmint (553698) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531727)

Although google may seem like an angelic creation; it isn't. It is a real-world entity, subject to lawsuits and other real-world unpleasantness. Of everything out there; they are still the best option.

Disclosure would be kinda nice though...

I knew it... (3, Funny)

Metallic Matty (579124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531730)

Clearly, some government has a problem with my website, and has pressured google to censor it's existence through their searches!

Crafty bastards..

"Its not off topic; its humor."

War .... (1)

bushboy (112290) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531734)

War is about to go down - it's hardly suprising there's some wierd censorship on the line.

Re:War .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531825)

Nice try troll but this has nothing to do with the impending war. This is about censor heavy countries (i.e. Germany, France, etc.) that try to deny their past. Google is just trying to avoid the whole Yahoo fiasco [] .

Not the first time this has happened? (4, Insightful)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531747)

Nobody seemed to care when Cisco developed routers for the Chinese government that helped them spy on their own people's internet usage and squelch dissenters. So why would this be a big deal?

Just part of being a global supplier. (4, Insightful)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531748)

Sorry, but this is just one of the aspects of being a suppliers of goods and services across the globe. Local governments, customs, and/or religions will always have the final say on what can be brought into their county (either as items or information). If you want your services to be welcome in that country, you've got to play by their rules.

No one is (legally) selling vodka in Saudi Arabia.
No one is (legally) selling swastikas in Germany.

Google is just doing their best to play by the rules. Successfully, apparently.

Yes, this is globalism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531842)

This is the new world order. Globalism is not free trade or freedom; globalism is order and progress. People can not handle freedom. Intelligence is better off as commodity to be managed by the wealthy, then as a tool for freedom. It is more important to work for the rich than to have the right to freedom of the press or the right to vote. Democracy was a 240 year old mistake. Oligarchy is the natural order things.

So they censor the results... (2, Funny)

dr.wurst (597445) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531751)

... that is why my page about the Wonderful World of Hamsters
is not the number one result on all searches.

I knew there was a reason ;o)

Utopian Theory (4, Insightful)

rwiedower (572254) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531777)


Contrary to earlier utopian theories of the Internet, it takes very little effort for governments to cause certain information simply to vanish for a huge number of people.

I'm not sure that this conclusion can be taken very seriously. First of all, it posits "earlier utopian theories of the Internet" and doesn't back up such a claim with any data. What were these theories, and how do they apply to Google's behavior? Second, the author claims that "very little effort" was made on behalf of certain governments to remove information. In the case study of the town of Chester, the information was removed at the behest of a local authority, not a national government. Thirdly, the information didn't "vanish" as the author suggested. If it had been completely removed from google, no traces would exist. And since google is under no obligation to store all the copies of web pages it indexes, claiming that the information "vanished" misinterprets how google stores the information to begin with. The site in question should be the focus, not google's cacheing mechanism.

Wired Magazine (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532079)

You don't remember all the Wired magazine articles about how this wonderful new thing called the "World Wide Web" was going to knock down governments and topple old customs and basically cause revolutions around the world? It was supposed to destroy China's tyrannical regime and expose all sorts of injustices and affect social change.

You're honestly saying you don't remember any of that or the deafening silence when none of that happened? (One exceptional exception to this can be South Korea's recent Prime Minister election which was co-ordinated via cell phones although it is arguable that this was a telecom and not internet inspired incident).

Server Crash ? (3, Interesting)

subri (658313) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531781)

I have seen times when I search for some topics which could be construed as offensive, Google will report a "Server Error". Funny it never happens when I search for Java or Linux! I am almost positive this is one mechanism of censoring that they adopt!

Re:Server Crash ? (1)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531988)

Please provide an example as I have never seen this. Yes as a matter of fact I do think you are lying but please prove me wrong if I'm wrong.

Other search engines (1)

Winterblink (575267) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531834)

Other search engines can't possibly all be doing this kind of thing. And if that's the case I have to wonder: who cares if Google's censoring? There are other decent engines out there to use, so use them instead. What engines do others use? I occasionally used Altavista and Hotbot.

Capitalism: Refresher course (3, Insightful)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531844)

Unless I am mistaken, Google Inc, resides in the USA. And unless my recent vote for the local elections is a ruse, the USA is still a democratic nation. AND unless my recent purchase of clothing made in Mexico (read: not by State sponsored company) then the USA is also a capitalist economy.

So lets recap. Democratic and Capitalist.

So that means that
a) no matter how much you hate a company (MS, Google, AOL, whatever) you have a choice. Just because that choice involves moving to an arguably inferior product does not mean you have no choice. IE some other search engine, ie dial up with no "features", ie OS with less popular apps: linux.
b) You choice is not foced on you. You are allowed to use any service you want as long as that service does not provide products illegal in your state or in the USA.

With alternate choices available it makes sense that a company would do well to appease its users to increase its users or keep the current ones happy. To do this companies will do all sorts of things, some of which include eliminating irrelivant data, old data, offensive, or data that would cause unrest (ie everything about democracy, capatolism, or any religion in China).

Why are you complaining again?


Re:Capitalism: Refresher course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531910)

I thought that the USA was technically a republic not a democracy. Can someone clarify?

Re:Capitalism: Refresher course (1)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531992)

Hummm good point. I can't remember from my high school government class if a republic was where

a) "1 person is 1 vote." Example, the greek system where everyone went to a big auditorium and votes were counted. If you didn't show, then you had no vote.


b) representatives that you elect, vote.

Any body have more info?


Re:Capitalism: Refresher course (1)

nelziq (575490) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532106)

Since when is slashdot trolled by 5th graders looking for help with their homework. ;) Seriously though.The US of A is a republic in that we elect representatives to act on our behalf. Democracy generally a form of government but rather a state of government that has certain qualities (i.e. majority rule, minority rights, freedom of political participation, etc.). For example both Britian (a constitutional monarchy) and the United States (a federal republic) can both be considered to be democracies.

vanishing information in textbooks (3, Informative)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531845)

on an offtopic side-note about localized censorship, consider textbooks for high-schools. i used to have a neighbor who edited textbooks for a living. to my surprise, most history textbooks come with a basic core, and then about 30% of the material varies from state-to-state, mostly due to political or religious beliefs. this type of silent localized censorship is even more nefarious than Google, i think, especially when occuring in the US.

They're also trying to censor DRAGONS!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531859)

check it out []

Only a satrical page (4, Informative)

kill-hup (120930) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531897)

The worst part, IMHO, is that the original page was reported to have been a joke. Perhaps in bad taste, but only a joke.

The fact that a city successfully lobbied Google to remove a humor page from its index just because it appeared in a search for their city name is just sad. Granted, Google can do whatever the heck it wants with its own data; it's just bad mojo to censor something that was (supposedly) obviously satire. The interesting part in all this is that, having chosen to censor its index, one wonders if Google can remain a "common carrier" (for lack of a better term). I recall (but cannot for the life of me find the link) a case where an ISP was held liable for some objectionable newsgroups they carried because of their history of censoring groups they did not approve of. IIRC, the judge made it a point to say the ISP would not have been liable had they not censored other groups in the past. By chosing to censor information, they lost the right to hide behind a veil of "we're just a conduit".

Again, this comment would be much more informative if I could find the URL for that damn story ;)

this is important (4, Interesting)

astrashe (7452) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531907)

I think that these issues are important. Google is probably the most significant reference work in the world. It's made very fundamental changes in the ways people do research. is already one of my main news sites -- I use it all the time.

So I think that these issues are very important.

I'm a huge google fan, both of the site and the people who run it. I think they're doing their best to sort through these issues. Government rules are a reality that has to be dealt with.

The thing that I think that google could be criticized for, in all of this, is a lack of transparency. I think they should explain, in detail, what they're doing and why, and make some effort to listen to people who disagree with their policies.

I'm not saying that they should open it up to a vote, or that they should do things that aren't in their company's best interests. Just that they should listen, and tell us what they're doing.

Google looms large in the world's conciousness, and it's getting bigger all the time. It would be an overstatement to say that leaving something out of google erases the fact from the world in an orwellian sense. But it does seem to me that leaving stuff out does take a step down that road.

black line (4, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531909)

I just wish that goggle indicated they were censoring the results with someting like "230 results removed due to government contols". People should know about censorship it shouldn't be hidden. Perhaps even display the match with a black line through the link (i.e. you can't read the link nor click on it but you are aware of what happened).

I understand that google thinks it has to do this. The US government can be pretty nasty regarding things like facilitating child porn. European governments can be nasty about political / religious viewpoints they don't agree with (though not as bad as the US regarding child porn). Non western governments can be far worse. Frankly I wish google had the guts to fight because I think they would win but the very least they can do is not cover up for the government.

Yeah the great firewall in China, etc... (1)

L0stb0Y (108220) | more than 11 years ago | (#5531912)

Well, get used to it. Besides marketing filtering, governmental filtering, etc...we have very distored views/search results...

Remember using metacrawler, ask jeeves, etc? Google probably does some 'behind the routers' filtering of their own~

I'm not paranoid, and I know 1984 passed a long time ago; but the #1 motivating force in the universe, $$$, can do anything...why should filtering/controlling how one gets info on the web be above the power of $$$?


a thought.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531934)

google has a filter that will remove porn sites from results. the filter can be disabled. also, different parts of the world have different definitions of what qualifies as porn - hence slightly different results by country.

the search queries used would return thousands of porn sites.

did the researchers have this filter enabled and not know it?

Information NOT in the ToS (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5531949)

The real problem is that they don't inform the users about the censoring. I've taken a look around Google, and so far without luck in finding the information - mayby they censor what they censor..

If Google openly tells the users what they censor, then the users have a choice - and like in China get more and more aware of the conditions they are living under (ok that was a wee bit idealistic).

I just wonder, why _Google_ thinks what they censor should be kept a secret.

I'm used to being censored - truth is power (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532004)

Who Rules America?
The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken

By the Research Staff of National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330 Hillsboro West Virginia 24946 USA

There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America's mass media of news and entertainment.

Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.

The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know -- or think we know -- about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television.

It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.

For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations -- all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.

On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way.

Molding American Minds

For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist -- that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America -- is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.

The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.

And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion.

As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict and that it served Jewish interests, rather than American interests, to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel's principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.

Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan -- with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the position that "multiculturalism" and racial mixing are here to stay, and that they are good things.

Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about "managed news" falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers' influence by believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion is acceptable to the media masters -- and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it.

The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media -- television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures -- speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world -- a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous, White one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends -- and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.

And who are these all-powerful masters of the media? As we shall see, to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn't simply a matter of the media being controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich gentiles to rich Jews. Despite a few prominent exceptions, the preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming that we are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance.

Electronic News & Entertainment Media

Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increased competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The largest of these conglomerates are rapidly growing even bigger by consuming their competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting station or via cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine -- it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies.

AOL-TW. The largest media conglomerate today is AOL-Time Warner, created when America Online bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The merger brought together Steve Case, a White gentile, as chairman of AOL-TW, and Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. A brief history of the company is in order.

The four (gentile) Warner brothers founded their movie company in 1907 and had their first major success ten years later with My 4 Years in Germany. WB incorporated in 1923 and went on to cartoon success with Porky Pig and Bugs Bunny. In 1944, a court ruled that WB must release Olivia de Havilland after her seven-year contract. This decision prevented any one company from controlling a pool of creative talent, but it did nothing to stop the Jews from controlling the entire industry with which that talent was obliged to work. In 1948, WB sold its film library to MGM. In 1949, another court ruling forced WB to sell its cinema chain, obstructing vertical integration by a single movie-making company, while doing nothing to prevent the Jews from establishing such integration through an ethnic collaboration.

In 1958, WB created Warner Brothers Records, which was later renamed WEA. In 1968, Jack Warner sold his shares to Seven Arts, while DC and All-American Comics were bought by Kinney National Services (a funeral parlor conglomerate). Kinney turned around and bought a talent agency, then turned around again and bought Warner-Seven Arts, becoming Warner Communications.

Warner Communications bought Elektra Records in 1970, the same year that Jew David Geffen started the Asylum label. (The name is synonymous with crazy-house.) Time bought HBO from Charles Dolan in 1972. Ironically, 1972 was also the year when Money magazine began publication, while the (original) magazine Life ceased.

Ted Turner entered the major media scene in 1976 when his TV station WTCG (Atlanta) was carried on US cable networks. In 1979, Turner Communications Group became Turner Broadcasting System, and WTCG was renamed WTBS. The following year, CNN became the world's first 24-hour all-news cable network. Turner tried to buy CBS in 1985, but he was blocked when Lawrence Tisch, a Jew, bought 25% of shares. Instead, Turner bought MGM's film library (1986). TBS merged with Castle Rock and New Line Cinema in 1994. In 1996, Turner made a career-busting faux pas by selling TBS to Time Warner. AOL bought Time Warner in 2000.

In 2001, Gerald Levin, who had been Chairman of Time Warner and then CEO of the merged AOL-TW, fired Ted Turner from his position during a telephone conversation. Control of TBS temporarily shifted to Robert Pittman (a White gentile), but was given shortly afterward to Walter Isaacson, a Jew, who was recruited from his former position at Time Inc., to take over the company that Ted Turner built. We're reasonably certain that Ted Turner would not have sold TBS to Time Warner if he'd known that Levin was going to fire him only five years later. Levin smooth-talked Turner in classic Jewish fashion, and Turner, having placed his trust in a Jew's honor, paid the price for that mistake.

But Levin wasn't finished with his dagger. Having backstabbed Turner, he did likewise to his other useful dupe, Robert Pittman. Pittman had been Levin's champion for the AOL-TW merger on the AOL side. While we don't know for certain what Pittman's motive was, we could guess that it had something to do with Pittman believing himself to be Levin's choice as the new CEO at AOL-TW after Levin's retirement. But when the time came to finalize his choice of successor, Levin bypassed Pittman and gave the position to his long-time pet mulatto, Richard Parsons. Parsons has been AOL-TW's CEO since May 2002. Pittman, though initially grumpy about this treatment, has moderated his tone. A paycheck less than Parsons' paycheck is still better than no paycheck at all.

Before the merger, AOL was the largest Internet service provider in America, and it is now being used as an online platform for the Jewish content from Time Warner. Time Warner, with 1997 revenues of more than $13 billion, was the second largest of the international media leviathans when it was bought by AOL.

Time Warner's subsidiary HBO is the country's largest pay-TV cable network. Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music was America's largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records (WEA). Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap." Through its involvement with Interscope Records (prior to Interscope's acquisition by MCA), it helped to popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.

AOL-TW's publishing ventures include Time-Life International Books, Time-Life Education, Time-Life Music, Time-Life AudioBooks, Book-of-the-Month Club (both adult and children's branches), Paperback Book Club, History Book Club, Money Book Club, HomeStyle Books, Crafter's Choice, One Spirit, Little Brown, Bulfinch Press, Back Bay Books, Warner Books, Warner Vision, The Mysterious Press, Warner Aspect, Warner Treasures, Oxmoor House, Leisure Arts, Sunset Books and TW Kids.

AOL-TW owns the following cable and satellite companies, among others: Cinemax, Time Warner Sports, HBO (7 US and 6 international divisions), CNN (10 divisions worldwide), Time Warner Cable, Road Runner, Time Warner Communications (primarily a telephone service), New York City Cable Group, New York 1 (a sort of CNN devoted exclusively to news in the NYC area), Time Warner Home Theater, Time Warner Security (video monitoring), Court-TV (ownership shared with Liberty Media), Comedy Central (ownership shared with Viacom) and Kablevision (Hungary).

AOL-TW owns the following TV and movie companies: Warner Brothers, WB studios, WB Television (Productions, Animation, and Network), Hanna-Barbera Cartoons, Telepictures Production, Witt-Thomas Productions, Castle Rock Entertainment, Warner Home Video, WB Domestic Pay-TV, WB Domestic TV Distribution, WB International TV Distribution, The Warner Channel (separate companies for Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Australia, and Germany), and WB International Theaters in 12 countries.

The editor-in-chief of Time Warner's publishing division is Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. AOL-TW owns the following magazines: Time, Time Asia, Time Atlantic, Time Canada, Time Latin America, Time South Pacific, Time Money, Time For Kids, Fortune, Life (the watered-down new version), Sports Illustrated (plus SI Women/Sport, SI International, and SI For Kids), Inside Stuff, Money, Your Company, Your Future, People, Who Weekly (Australia), People en Español, Teen People, Entertainment Weekly, EW Metro, The Ticket, In Style, Southern Living, Progressive Farmer, Southern Accents, Cooking Light, Travel Leisure, Food & Wine, Your Company, Departures, SkyGuide, Vertigo, Paradox, Milestone, Mad Magazine, Parenting, Baby Talk, Baby on the Way, This Old House, Sunset, Sunset Garden Guide, Health, Hippocrates, Costal Living, Weight Watchers, Real Simple, President (Japan), and Dancyu (Japan). AOL-TW owns 80 additional magazines (mostly hobby and leisure) in Britain.

AOL-TW holds the following music record labels: Atlantic Group, Atlantic Classics, Atlantic Jazz, Atlantic Nashville, Atlantic Theater, Big Beat, Background, Breaking, Curb, Igloo, Lava, Mesa/Bluemoon, Modern, Rhino Records, Elektra, EastWest, Asylum, Elektra/Sire, Warner Brothers Records, Warner Nashville, Warner Alliance, Warner Resound, Warner Sunset, Reprise, Reprise Nashville, American Recordings, Giant, Maverick, Revolution, Qwest, Warner Music International, WEA Telegram, East West ZTT, Coalition, CGD East West, China, Continental, DRO East West, Erato, Fazer, Finlandia, MCM, Nonesuch, and Teldec.

Disney. The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 1997 revenues of $23 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as "a control freak," includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television) and cable networks with more than 100 million subscribers altogether. The TV stations under Disney control include: WLS (Chicago), WJRT (Flint), KFSN (Fresno), KTRK (Houston), KABC (Los Angeles), WABC (New York City), WPVI (Philadelphia), WTVD (Raleigh), KGO (San Francisco) and WTVG (Toledo).

Disney also has a major presence in radio, owning WKHX, WYAY and WDWD in Atlanta; WMVP, WLS, and WXCD in Chicago; WBAP and KSCS in Dallas; WDRQ, WJR and WPLT in Detroit; KLOS and KTZN in Los Angeles; KQRS, KXXR, KDIZ, KZNR, and KZNT in St. Paul; WPLJ in New York City; KSFO in San Francisco; WMAL, WJZW, and WRQX in Washington; and ESPN Radio.

As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, under Walt Disney Studios, headed by Joseph E. Roth (also a Jew), includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Roth founded Caravan Pictures in January 1993, and it is now headed by his fellow Jew Roger Birnbaum. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.

When the Disney Company was run by the gentile Disney family, prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, the company under Eisner has expanded into the production of a great deal of so-called "adult" material.

In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which owns the ABC Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.

ABC's cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, who is a Jew. The corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and A & E Television Networks cable companies, with 67 million subscribers each. ABC Radio Network owns 26 AM and FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates.

Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1997. Besides these publishing concerns, Disney owns Walt Disney Company Book Publishing, Hyperion Books, and Miramax Books. It also owns six daily newspapers, including the Albany Democrat and the St. Louis Daily Record.

Disney's magazine titles include Automotive Industries, Biography (partial ownership), Discover, Disney Adventures, Disney Magazine, ECN News, ESPN Magazine, Family Fun, Family PC, Institutional Investor, Jane, JCK, Kentucky Prairie Farmer, Kodin, Los Angeles, Multichannel News, Penny Power, Talk, Top Famille (France), Video Business, and Quality.

Disney operates 660 retail stores worldwide (the figure is for April 2000). And, incidentally, it is also invested in crude oil and natural gas exploitation.

On the Internet, Disney runs Buena Vista Internet Group, ABC Internet Group,,,, Mr. Showbiz, Disney Online, Disney's Daily Blast,,, ESPN Internet Group,,,,, Infoseek (partial ownership), and Disney Interactive.

Viacom. Number three on the list, with 1997 revenues of just over $13 billion, is Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), a Jew. Viacom was formed in 1971 as a way to dodge an anti-monopoly FCC ruling that required CBS to spin off a part of its cable TV operations and syndicated programming business. This move by the government unfortunately did nothing to reduce the mostly Jewish collaborative monopoly that remains the major problem with the industry. In 1999, after CBS had again augmented itself by buying King World Productions (a leading TV program syndicator), Viacom acquired its progenitor company, CBS, in a double mockery of the spirit of the 1971 ruling.

Viacom produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 13 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Redstone acquired CBS following the December 1999 stockholders' votes at CBS and Viacom.

Working for Redstone as CBS's chief executive is a Jew named Melvin A. Karmazin. He is the boss and biggest individual shareholder of the company that owns the CBS Television Network, 14 major-market TV stations, 160 radio stations, the Country Music Television and the Nashville Network cable channels, and a large number of outdoor advertising assets.

Viacom's publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, Fireside, Archway Paperbacks and Minstrel Books, Anne Schwartz Books, MTV Books, Nickelodeon Books, Pocket Books, and Washington Square Press. It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores (including the Video Flicks chain in Australia). It is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games.

Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. The first quarter of 2001 was the 16th consecutive quarter in which MTV was rated as the #1 cable network for viewers between the ages of 12 and 24. Redstone, who actually owns 76 per cent of the shares of Viacom, has offered Beavis and Butthead as teen role models and currently is the largest single purveyor of race-mixing propaganda to White teenagers and sub-teens in America and in Europe. MTV Networks acquired The Music Factory (TMF) from the Dutch media and marketing group Wegener in 2001. TMF distributes music to almost 10 million homes in Holland and Belgium. MTV is expanding its presence in Europe through new channels, including MTV Dance (Britain) and MTV Live (Scandinavia). MTV Italy is active through Cecchi Gori Communications. MTV pumps its racially mixed rock and rap videos into 210 million homes in 71 countries and is the dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world.

Nickelodeon, with about 65 million subscribers, has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and also is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy that is MTV's trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV. As of early 2001, Nickelodeon was continuing a nine-year streak as the top cable network for children and younger teenagers.

Viacom operates two major motion picture enterprises jointly with Vivendi Universal (detailed hereafter): United Cinemas International (UCI) and United International Pictures (UIP).

Vivendi Universal. Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress. Seagram owned Universal Studios and Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of "gangsta rap." These companies now belong to Vivendi Universal.

Bronfman became the biggest man in the record business in May 1998 when he also acquired control of PolyGram, the European record giant, by paying $10.6 billion to the Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips. With the revenue from PolyGram added to that from MCA and Universal, Bronfman became master of the fourth largest media empire, with annual revenues around $12 billion. One especially unfortunate aspect of the PolyGram acquisition was that it gave Bronfman control of the world's largest producer of classical music CDs: PolyGram owns the Deutsche Grammophon, Decca-London, and Philips record companies.

In June 2000, the Bronfman family sold Seagram to Vivendi, a French utilities company formerly led by gentile Jean-Marie Messier. The combined company, Vivendi Universal, retains Edgar Bronfman, Jr., as the vice chairman of the new company, and he will continue to be in charge of its entertainment division. As with the AOL-TW merger, the strategy seemed to be infect and wait. The debt Vivendi incurred by buying Universal was used to scandalize Messier, who had to resign. Jean-René Fourtou became the Chairman/CEO of Vivendi on 3 July 2002. Subsequently, to pay off its debts, Vivendi-Universal began selling assets, beginning with Seagam's alcohol business, but later selling some of its media holdings, including its Houghlin-Mifflin publishing company (educational textbooks), which had been acquired in June 2001, to a consortium formed by Thomas H. Lee Partners, Blackstone Group, Bain Capital and Apax Partners.

Jews nearly everywhere you look. With two of the top four media conglomerates in the hands of Jews (Disney and Viacom), and with Jews filling a large proportion of the executive jobs in the remaining two, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part.

What about the other big media companies?

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which owns Fox Television Network, 20th Century Fox Films, and Fox 2000, is the fifth largest megamedia corporation in the country, with 1997 revenues of over $11 billion. It is the only other media company which comes even close to the top four. Murdoch is a gentile (so far as we know), but Peter Chernin, who is president and CEO of Fox Group, which includes all of News Corporation's film, television, and publishing operations in the United States, is a Jew. Under Chernin, as president of 20th Century Fox, is Laura Ziskin, a Jewess who formerly headed Fox 2000. Jew Peter Roth works under Chernin as president of Fox Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New York Post and TV Guide, and they are published under Chernin's supervision. Murdoch told Newsweek magazine (July 12, 1999) that he would probably elevate Chernin to CEO of News Corporation, rather than allow the company to fall into the hands of his own children, none of whom are younger than their late twenties. It is hard to imagine a Jew giving a major media corporation to a gentile underling when he has children waiting in the wings. For his part, Chernin was quite candid: "I get to control movies seen all over the world. . . . What could be more fun?"

Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as "the premier independent TV program producer in the United States," is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew who also owns Revlon cosmetics and who offered a job to Monica Lewinsky when Bill Clinton was trying to keep her quiet.

The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big four.

It is well known that Jews have controlled most of the production and distribution of films since shortly after the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century. When Walt Disney died in 1966, the last barrier to the total Jewish domination of Hollywood was gone, and Jews were able to grab ownership of the company that Walt built. Since then they have had everything their way in the movie industry.

Films produced by just the four largest motion picture companies mentioned above -- Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram) -- accounted for two-thirds of the total box-office receipts for the year 1997.

The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson; NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert; and CBS first by William Paley and then by Laurence Tisch. Over periods of several decades these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong.

NBC provides a good example of this. The executives at NBC recently were shuffled among the key positions. Andrew Lack, who had been chief of the network's news division, ascended to become its president and chief operations officer. Neal Shapiro, who had been producing Dateline NBC, moved into Lack's old job. Jeff Zucker, who had been producing the Today show, was promoted to NBC entertainment president (a job that apparently was created for him), and Jonathan Wald moved into Zucker's old spot after shoving aside Michael Bass, who had been filling in for Zucker with Today. Some time ago, Wald became the producer of the NBC Nightly News, taking the position from Jeff Gralnick. When Wald moved to Today, Steve Capus took over as Tom Brokaw's producer. It is not known at this time whether Capus is a Jew or not, but everyone else is.

A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the other networks. For example, in February 2000, Al Ortiz moved to head the "Special Events" coverage at CBS, making gentile Jim Murphy the executive producer of The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather -- and the only exception that we know of to an otherwise solidly Jewish cadre of television news producers. The new CBS Early Show, which replaced CBS This Morning, had an internal shakeup in which three producers were fired, ostensibly for not being "aggressive" enough. One wonders whether they were also not Jewish enough. The shakeup did not, however, affect the outgoing executive producer Al Berman, who transferred to a new job as a program developer, and Steve Friedman has become the executive producer of the Early Show.

Paul Friedman is still the executive producer of ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Rick Kaplan, once an executive at ABC, moved to CNN in 1997, where he became the president of CNN/USA.

The Print Media

After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1483 different publications (this figure is for February 2000). One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against minority control and distortion. Alas, such is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of majority interests than a casual observer would think.

In 1945, four out of five American newspapers were independently owned and published by local people with close ties to their communities. Those days, however, are gone. Most of the independent newspapers were bought out or driven out of business by the mid-1970s. Today most "local" newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Today less than 20 percent of the country's 1483 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only 104 of the total number have circulations of more than 100,000. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest must depend on these few for all of their national and international news.

The Associated Press, which sells content to newspapers, is currently under the control of its Jewish managing editor, Michael Silverman, who directs the day-to-day news reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Silverman had directed the AP's national news as assistant managing editor since 1992. He was promoted to his current job in 2000. Silverman reports to Jonathan Wolman, also a Jew, who is executive editor for the AP.

In only 47 cities in America are there more than one daily newspaper, and competition is frequently nominal even among them, as between morning and afternoon editions under the same ownership. Examples of this are the Mobile, Alabama, morning Register and afternoon Press-Register; and the Syracuse, New York, morning Post-Standard and afternoon Herald-Journal -- all owned by the Jewish Newhouse brothers through their holding company, Advance Publications.

The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip. The Newhouses own 30 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country's largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.

This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age of 84, he bequeathed media holdings worth an estimated $1.3 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald. With a number of further acquisitions, the net worth of Advance Publications has grown to more than $8 billion today.

The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue -- not the small change collected from a newspaper's readers -- that largely pays the editor's salary and yields the owner's profit.

Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the last century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing gentile newspapers -- primarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants.

Furthermore, even those newspapers still under gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers

The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America's newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation's three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America's financial and political capitals, are the newspapers that set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones that decide what is news and what isn't, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands.

The New York Times, with a September 1999 circulation of 1,086,000, is the unofficial social, fashion, entertainment, political, and cultural guide of the nation. It tells America's "smart set" which books to buy and which films to see; which opinions are in style at the moment; which politicians, educators, spiritual leaders, artists, and businessmen are the real comers. And for a few decades in the 19th century it was a genuinely American newspaper.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two gentiles, Henry J. Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones's estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-great-grandson, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper's current publisher and the chairman of the New York Times Co. The executive editor is Joseph Lelyveld, also a Jew (he is a rabbi's son).

The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion; twelve magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines.

Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its "leaks" throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.

The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John R. McLean, and later inherited by Edward B. McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier and former partner of the infamous Bernard Baruch, industry czar in America during the First World War. The Washington Post was run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer's daughter, until her death in 2001. She was the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co. and appointed her son, Donald Graham, publisher of the paper in 1979. Donald became Washington Post Company CEO in 1991 and its board chairman in 1993, and the chain of Jewish control at the Washington Post remains unbroken. The newspaper has a daily circulation of 763,000, and its Sunday edition sells 1.1 million copies.

The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers (the Gazette Newspapers, including 11 military publications); in television (WDIV in Detroit, KPRC in Houston, WPLG in Miami, WKMG in Orlando, KSAT in San Antonio, WJXT in Jacksonville); and in magazines, most notably the nation's number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Washington Post Company's various television ventures reach a total of about 7 million homes, and its cable TV service, Cable One, has 635,000 subscribers.

In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Post publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English-language daily in the world.

The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation's largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron's, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter R. Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

Most of New York's other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In January 1993 the New York Daily News was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm. And, as mentioned above, the New York Post is owned by News Corporation under the Jew Peter Chernin.

News Magazines

The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, films, music, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any importance published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report.

Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subsidiary of Time Warner Communications, the new media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. Although Gerald Levin has retired, Time Warner Communications is still essentially Jewish in character.

Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jew Donald Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.1 million.

U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.2 million, is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who also has taken the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York's tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country.

Our Responsibility

Those are the facts of media control in America. Anyone willing to spend a few hours in a large library looking into current editions of yearbooks on the radio and television industries and into directories of newspapers and magazines; into registers of corporations and their officers, such as those published by Standard and Poors and by Dun and Bradstreet; and into standard biographical reference works can verify their accuracy. They are undeniable, and when confronted with them Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce triumphantly, as if that settled the issue. If pressed further they will accuse the confronter of "anti-Semitism" for even raising the subject. It is fear of this accusation that keeps many persons who know the facts silent.

But we must not remain silent on this most important of issues! The Jewish control of the American mass media is the single most important fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today. There is nothing -- plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war -- more dangerous to the future of our people.

Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian Gulf war, for example. There would have been no NATO massacre of Serb civilians. There would be no continued beating of the drums for another war against Iraq.

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.

The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character -- except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority, with values and interests different from our own. But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.

Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into their minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.

Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary end.

Owners, managers, and corporate relationships change from time to time, of course. All of the names and other data in this report have been checked carefully and are accurate as of December, 2002.

HMMMM, what about US? (1)

peripatetic_bum (211859) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532008)

I wonder what sites googles censors from the US?
Can we even find out?

The Value and Threat of the Internet (3, Insightful)

hillct (230132) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532011)

It is both a value and the greatest risk introduced by the advent of the web, that now fringe ideas can be sought out and the relitively few indeviduals who share these ideas can congregate and cooperate to advance their ideals in a society where those ideas are in the extreme minority. In fact, you can now insulate yourself from reality by seeking out nerws sources and those of similar fringe ideoligies, and limiting your world view, by surrounding yourself with those who share your fringe ideals.

This allows the crackpots who were once spread thinly throughout society, to become a meaningful force within modern social styructures.

Google has positioned itself as one of the few gatekeepers between the majority of internet users, and these fringe ideas. It is neither right nor wrong, that the management of google has deemed certain material, not worthy of delivery to users. Google as a corporation has a mission; to deliver the greatest shareholder value. Google management has decided that in order to deliver the greatest value, they must provide results which the greatest number of users, find acceptable, appealing, or otherwise paletteable. They're in this to make money, not as a public service. That's what the Mozilla Directory Project [] is for.


How dare you michael! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5532021)

I am calling for a boycott of Michael Sims, America's number one enemy in the fight against anti-anti-censorware, until he gives me an apology for his rampant goatse'ing [] and [] usurping [] of the Censorware Project [] , my pride and joy.

Frankly, I'm shocked that I am not revered by all of Slashdot. My contributions to the world of anti-censorware research are comparable to the contributions of Jesus Christ to the field of religion. I won more awards from that project than Michael won in his whole damned life.

Do not underestimate me. I will be heard.

Though this message is posted anonymously, I will attest to it and verify it if needed. Other message posted by similar-looking accounts, or not attested, are frauds. - Seth Finklestein, uid#582901 (3, Insightful)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532072)

If I'm reading the article correctly, the deal is this - the versions of Google ending in something other than .com are censoring things based off of the region that the extension is in (i.e., the things that are verboten in Germany are excluded from, but not So why not just have everyone use I mean, it's not like Google is doing something to figure out where you are via your IP address, so just use vanilla Google, and look for any DMCA stuff at the bottom - you'll get your results in either event.

And I don't think removing one page to appease the citizens of one village in the UK is that big of a deal.

Thank you thank you thank you (1)

UselessTrivia (653926) | more than 11 years ago | (#5532142)

Not so much for the google-blacklisting info, but for the embedded link to the following news item...
Vigilantes mistake pediatrician for pedophile and attack home
Im still laughing over this one
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>