Dissecting Localized Google Censorship 261
carpe_noctem writes "Linuxsecurity.com 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."
Google is a private company (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google is a private company (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google is a private company (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google is a private company (Score:5, Insightful)
I would never argue that they don't have the right to do this, or filtering in such a way is morally wrong for them. Google is a company and can do whatever the hell it wants as far as censorship is concerned.
We should, however, be aware of their actions. If they are pushing a product (unbiased information searches) that product should be deliverd. If they don't, we, as users, should know about it so we can stop treating it as such.
Of course they have the right to do this, it's just that we, as users, should know about it. I am also not saying that Google is somehow obligated to tell us how it all works. I would prefer that they do so, but AFAIK, there is no law requiring that.
Re:Google is a private company (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, as one of their many target customers they ARE in business to serve me (and they usually do a great job of it too). I'm sure anyone at Google would agree.
The people who think that we shouldn't complain because Google is a private business need to get a bit of a clue about free market capitalism.
In a free market based society the best alternative is usually not to go out and start your own competitive business or even to simply stop using an otherwise good service whenever you disagree with one of their policies or have a bad experience (although you're certainly free to do either or both of these but its usually to your own disadvantage if the service/product is otherwise fine).
An equally valid alternative is to voice your concerns to the company as an individual or a community like we're doing here. At the very least, a responsible company should listen to your concerns and a surprisingly large number actually will make changes based on user suggestions or outcries. If you're a fan of Google and you don't like whatever policy they seem to have - I'm sure they would be happy to hear that feedback through forums like Slashdot, direct communications, and the media.
Whether they do anything about it is up to them, and you can decide what to do based on how they handle the issue, but its pretty weak to suggest that stories, complaints, and suggestions are not a valid way of participating in a free market. Part of the reason why Google has such a great product is that they HAVE responded (and anticipated) to criticisms in the past (and I expect them to continue or they will risk losing their customers).
Re:Google is a private company (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [stormfront.org]'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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Ford won't sell you a car in the colour you want? Buy something else. Burger King won't let you have it your way? Go to McD. Don't like Google's results? Search elsewhere.
Re:Google is a private company (Score:2)
There's also no contract between you and ANYBODY. Contract law? That's a result of bills passed by Congress, itself a result of the Constitution, which was the end result of the Constitutional convention, which resulted from a declaration a few years before that stated (among other things) "We hold these truths self-evident..." The formation of the USA and its legal foundation had the notion of natural rights as a heavy influence. The government doesn't censor, tort
Re:Google is a private company (Score:2)
That's what you read as the "implicit statement". Where on the site does it claim to be impartial? or fair? or balanced? I couldn't find it anywhere. Which means you are making the assump
Re:Google is a private company (Score:5, Insightful)
That's very different from a moral censorship. As the post you totally ignored while replying to pointed out, if it were a moral censorship, why would they block it only in Germany?
language or location? (Score:2)
If they're filtering out Stormfront on the German-language pages and not the English ones, presumably that means any German with enough English skills for Googling will find it.
Considering Germans, *especially* neo-Nazi types, are well aware of the censorship laws, it seems reasonable that they would be Googling in English in the first place, whether for research or for Skinhead Love.
Censoring by language might (weakly) pass as a good-faith effort, but if they really want to comply with German censor
Re:Google is a private company (Score:2)
Sometimes it's hard to find a distinction. Especially where corporates have undue inflence over government.
because the Government has very clear lines on what should be censored and for whom.
At least in theory. That dosn't stop them interpreting "national security" to mean whatever is in the interests of the "government of the day" or even whatever is in the interests of certain government officials. (The latter including covering up
Re:Google is a private company (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google is a private company (Score:3, Informative)
You may be right with the former, but we know it definitively only after google says they did so. But there are no laws which force search-engines to suppress specific search results. There are indeed laws which obligate ISP to block access to sites with indictable content, as for exemaple denying the holocaust. But this law is very new and controversial, and there was n
Re:Google is a private company (Score:2)
Libel and slander are illegal; copyright & trademark violations are illegal (where things are slanted a bit too much in corporate favour). But, hurting people's feelings is perfectly legal, as long as what you say is fact or opinion, and not a lie. And economic and reputational damage is legal, again, given that you aren't telling lies. (I can say that Eddie Murphy picked up
Re:Google is a private company (Score:2)
The difference is made when someone expresses his opinion about the holocaust. Because if he denies is this would be counted as slander towards the victims. That's all. Maybe we shouldn't focus too much on terms.
Re:Google is a private company (Score:2)
In practice these rules tend to only exist (or be enforced) with politically incorrect "hate speach". The most hateful of speach goes unchallenged where it is PC, sometimes to the point where anyone challenging it is likely to be accused of "hate speach".
Also college campuses are not independent states, "illegal" only makes sense in the context of laws. Not rules, regulations, codes, etc.
Google is a private multinational company (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Google is a public tool (Score:2, Insightful)
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 free
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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 "eth
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:3, Interesting)
The phone company provides a free servide - the PHONE BOOK, which lists 'all' of the phone numbers. However, some phone numbers are not included because those people have unpopular views. Therefore, you can't call them because you don't know the number, even if they would welcome your call.
(NOTE: this analogy ignores people who have unlisted numbers out of choice).
Wow - that sounds a lot more subversive than the way some are spinning it, huh?
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:4, Insightful)
A single company publishes phonebooks in every country in the world.
Some country, x, makes either certain content or specific phone numbers illegal.
The company then goes out of it's way to obey local laws by presenting different information based on your geographic location, so as not to have their entire service banned in that country.
Google is not filtering "unpopular views" in the case of Germany. They are filtering "illegal views." You'll notice they don't do any content filtering in the US, aside from the filtering done to provide "better" results (ie. filtering out searchking).
Germany is fucked up. So is most of the world. People in the US don't realize how lucky they are to have a Constitution giving them protected freedoms. Europeans have no such luck.
Most European government's constitution's read:
"You have permission to do specific activities x, y and z until such a time that the government chooses to pass laws restricting said activities."
Scary shit.
Justin Dubs
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:2)
On it's own a constitution is only "ink on paper". What's of more practical relevence is how the government actually acts.
This whole idea that the US is somehow the light of the world is so deeply arrogant, I can't even start to describe how irritating it is.
You don't need to, the signs are obvious. Why do you think that the US is so unpopular. Amongst governments and peop
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:2)
Re:Bad analogy (Score:2)
And, you may have missed it, but choosing to keep an unlisted number is not the same as your listing being dropped by the phone company.
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:2)
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 r
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Which Government? (Score:2)
The last thing I need is to not be able to find the DeCSS haiku because your government doesn't like it.:)
Re:Which Government? (Score:2)
Ah, you are Canadian judging by your email address. You may not have an army, but at least you can view the DeCSS haiku and easily smack a french person.
This is more of my point, Google isn't a public tool any more than any other internet site is. Especially not one that is more in debt to the US than to China. Yes, they are located in the US, but no, they don't need to cater to the whims of ideal
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:2)
Example:
Chinese government says "No XYZ can be displayed." Google says, "Ok." Chinese person searches for XYZ, Google says, "I have no results to display from you."
They are not Google's omissions. Do you think Google wants to omit results? No! But they do want to reach the highest number of people, and deal with it. You should instead compliment their efforts of a good piece of design, instead of chastizin
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:2)
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 public tool (Score:3, Insightful)
I just can't agree with this. Unlike other replies, I do agree that it damages the exchange of ideas...sure they can still go to the site, but if they depend on google to find those sources, they will not know they exist. But if some government wants to ban a site that teaches you something rediculous, like how to abuse your children and not leave marks so you don't get caught, wou
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:2)
Re:Google is a private company (Score:2)
I wish I didn't have to *remember* a time when Google was a company that did great things and never seemed to do anything wrong.
Re:Google is a private company (Score:2)
Re:Google is a private company (Score:2)
Maybe it's because Google censors webpages... (Score:3, Funny)
-Evan
Re:Maybe it's because Google censors webpages... (Score:2, Informative)
If you don't like it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you don't like it (Score:5, Informative)
Hard without disclosure (Score:2)
Slashdot.org no longer appears in google (Score:2)
*Reference to the Wired article that said Google's "guiding principle" is to "do no evil".
well I know that (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:2)
Re:well I know that (Score:3, Funny)
Nah, it's just because your name sounds French.
Google isn't immune to everything (Score:4, Insightful)
Disclosure would be kinda nice though...
I knew it... (Score:4, Funny)
Crafty bastards..
"Its not off topic; its humor."
Not the first time this has happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the first time this has happened? (Score:2)
This is one there are more.
Do not leave it is not real.
Just part of being a global supplier. (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is (legally) selling vodka in Saudi Arabia.
No one is (legally) selling swastikas in Germany.
Etcetera.
Google is just doing their best to play by the rules. Successfully, apparently.
So they censor the results... (Score:2, Funny)
is not the number one result on all searches.
I knew there was a reason
Utopian Theory (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:Utopian Theory (Score:2)
and the difference is? whether is a police man censoring, or the leader of a country, it is still government censorship.
"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
Server Crash ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Server Crash ? (Score:2)
what topics?
Other search engines (Score:2)
Capitalism: Refresher course (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
robi
idiot (Score:2)
Re:Capitalism: Refresher course (Score:2)
Re:Capitalism: Refresher course (Score:2)
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.
OR
b) representatives that you elect, vote.
Any body have more info?
robi
Re:Capitalism: Refresher course (Score:2)
vanishing information in textbooks (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:vanishing information in textbooks (Score:2)
please re-read my post, you missed my point entirely.
having an entire county decide to change history because it doesn't fit with their local culture is exactly the same thing as your examples of a madrassa, north korea or china.
is there a difference between (a) some New England school choosing a history book that focuses on the Contra Affiar and puts reagan in a negative light, or (b) the same textbook in Nebraska that ignores the Contra affair and focuses on Clintons perjury or (c) a textbook elsewhere
Re:vanishing information in textbooks (Score:2)
But this is a pet peeve of mine: Just because someone has it much worse than you doesn't mean you have no right to complain. He's not saying we're the worst in the world, or coming anywhere near implying that he'd rather live under T
Re:vanishing information in textbooks (Score:2)
The history of 1st century AD Judea (for example) doesn't change based on where you are in the United States. But some states don't like the truth, so they would rather remove that part of the history, so their students never learn about it. Call it what you want, but it isn't for academic freedom and teaching children the truth.
Only a satrical page (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:black line (Score:2)
Information NOT in the ToS (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Information NOT in the ToS (Score:2)
well.. that's an idea for a new webpage, page listing all the censored sites.
HMMMM, what about US? (Score:2)
Can we even find out?
The Value and Threat of the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [dmoz.org] is for.
--CTH
Re:The Value and Threat of the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
--CTH
google.com (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't think removing one page to appease the citizens of one village in the UK is that big of a deal.
Re:google.com (Score:3, Informative)
For instance, they recognize my IP as being from Canada, and all links to google.com [google.com] redirect to google.ca [google.ca], no matter what I do.
Re:google.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:google.com (Score:3, Informative)
Google needs to be transparent (Score:5, Insightful)
Google should be completely transparent if they remove information. They should create a section called "Censored Sites" and list what sites (in text-format) these nazi's have asked them to not link to, with the threat of a lawsuite to back up. This way, everyone knows what draconian nazi's are forcing Google's hand by threatening them with impeding lawsuites. It should be like a news section, and they should post the following:
(1) Who (what corp., country, business, etc) requested what to be removed.
(2) Their letter requesting such.
(3) What Google decided to do about it.
(4) Why they decided to do such.
(5) The address and e-mail of the offending corporation, so we can let them know what we think.
Re:Google needs to be transparent (Score:3, Informative)
Google Censosrhip Travesty (Score:2)
Here in the US, they've even gone so far as to remove the St. Patrick's Day logos from the Google main page.
Outrage!
MjM
Ye Flipping Gods (Score:2)
Google in Latvia (Score:2, Informative)
I haven't noticed any censorship on google yet, but their "customer care" is really annoying and stupid for users from Latvia ( http://www.lv/ [www.lv]).
Major problem. They redirect any request from latvian subnets to google.lv which in fact is located somewhere outside latvia. The problem here is that almost any Internet user in Latvia use proxy to access foreign hosts. For efficiency, we set our browsers to bypass proxy for *.lv URL's. Obviously, google.lv cannot be reached directly. So we have to turn *.lv ex
Re:Google in Latvia (Score:2)
Better Local than Global (Score:5, Insightful)
As I see it, Google is doing exactly what it should be doing. The company has an obligation to obey laws in each country about what material is and is not legal to view. Not every country has the same views about whether censorship is acceptable, and what things should be censored if it is. Google could get in very serious trouble if it chose to show people things that their governments have decided that they shouldn't have access to. At the same time, Google does seem to be trying hard to do the least damage it can in the process. Specifically, it's not censoring material everywhere just because it's considered objectionable in one place. Americans can still see Holocause denial sites (if they have some bizarre desire to do so), Germans can see Chinese dissident sites, etc.
Re:Better Local than Global (Score:2)
After a glorious 3 years... google starts to suck (Score:2, Interesting)
Do monoply arguments apply here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is/may become a monopoly in the search space. As a previous discussion [slashdot.org] noted, it has entered into our common vocabulary. In such a situation, where do the rights of a private organization end, and that of the public good begin?
For instance, if PacBell (substitute your local phone company here) stops carrying calls over its physical network that use other long distance services, or Microsoft [redhat.com] tries putting roadblocks for third party applications on its platform .. umm- scratch the last one.
Re:Do monoply arguments apply here? (Score:2)
That is because it is very cheap to enter that market. The moment Google starts abuse an alternative provider will enter. They may not have google's patented search engine, but other search engines are possible.
Telcos and Microsoft, on the other hand, have a lot more to keep others from entering the market.
Aspirin had also arrived in our common vocabulary but that did not preven
metasearch is a workaround... (Score:2)
While they (any "they) probably can probably get most of them, they probably can't get them all.
On Windows, there's Copernic 2000 [copernic.com] What's good for Windows and on the Web?
From a business standpoint, remember that what sold us on google to begin with and why we spread the word about it was that it was unbiased and effective, i.e. likely to come u
Re:metasearch is a workaround... (Score:2)
If we can't depend on Google for honest results, most of us will go on to something else, and we will probably be taking a large chunk of the user community as a whole with us.
How I wish this were true. But I think the masses are comfortable with their biases and seem to thrive on distorted information flows where it unifies them in their biases. They would only revolt if their own personal interests were greatly offended, or if there were a search engine that led you to free archives of usenet binary
Re:Sorry, no. (Score:2)
OT: the lameness filter needs to realize that one line of text can be typed in a much faster time than 20 seconds.
Re:Google Censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.