Google Censorship

[Chris Boggs]

I read with interest this article (http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3492361). I do feel that this racist/facist content is for losers, but it is an interesting debate.

"Google is making an editorial decision on who it carries and who it doesn't," Kaplar said. "News organizations have editorial discretion over what they run and don't run. No one can force them to run something if they don't feel like it."

I feel that the more that Google does this kind of thing, however, the more they lessen their goal to provide as much possible information. Let's say someone is writing a paper on racism, shouldn't this content be available to them at Google? Perhaps labeling the content as "offensive in nature to many" would be a better policy?

[cline]

Freedom of the Press accrues to the owner of the press.

Which is less evil: helping to promote hate or choosing not to publish?

[seobook]

I feel that the more that Google does this kind of thing, however, the more they lessen their goal to provide as much possible information.
the goal is not as much information as possible. its organizing it and making it useful.

allowing overtly biased / racicst news into the system generally does not make the service more useful.

[DarkMatter]

I don't think this has anything to do with freedom of the press. Google is not a government entity, its a business. It's not censorship if you or I make a website and choose not to publish material we dont agree with, it's not censorship if Walmart chooses not to sell music that it deems offensive.

Just because Google is a huge company and the biggest search engine doesn't obligate them to include anything on the basis of free speech. Let them publish their material elsewhere. I wouldnt publish garbage like this or link to sites that did. I fully support G in this move.

[cline]

It has everything to do with freedom of the press. Google should be free not to publish materials it finds offensive.

[I, Brian]

Can't say I'm a fan of the neo-Nazi lit, but it does seem that a lot of bloggers think that any Google News policy should be according to the bloggers' own political/personal biases. That is what underlines this argument, IMO.

[Everyman]

The problem is not whether Google should include or expel neo-Nazi material. Rather, the problem is Google's persistent, geeky, stupid assumption that by using machines, the humans at Google are no longer responsible for the behavior exhibited by their machines.

If the machines at Google rank neo-Nazi material the same as inoffensive mainstream material, assuming the keyword density and everything else is equal, then this is a sin of omission and a value judgment by humans at Google who program their machines. It's not the fault of the machines, it's the fault of those who are too lazy to exercise control over the machines.

It's true that human editing, or programming around every new problem, doesn't scale as well as some catch-all robot algo spun out by a Google PhD. Nevertheless, every employee and shareholder at Google is partially responsible or what is produced by their machines. If Google cannot make human editing, labeling, and judgment scale at a minimally-acceptable level, or they cannot improve their software to be more selective, despite a $49 billion market capitalization, then Google should turn over their assets to someone who can.

[seobook]

The problem is not whether Google should include or expel neo-Nazi material. Rather, the problem is Google's persistent, geeky, stupid assumption that by using machines, the humans at Google are no longer responsible for the behavior exhibited by their machines.

If the machines at Google rank neo-Nazi material the same as inoffensive mainstream material, assuming the keyword density and everything else is equal, then this is a sin of omission and a value judgment by humans at Google who program their machines. It's not the fault of the machines, it's the fault of those who are too lazy to exercise control over the machines.

It's true that human editing, or programming around every new problem, doesn't scale as well as some catch-all robot algo spun out by a Google PhD. Nevertheless, every employee and shareholder at Google is partially responsible or what is produced by their machines. If Google cannot make human editing, labeling, and judgment scale at a minimally-acceptable level, or they cannot improve their software to be more selective, despite a $49 billion market capitalization, then Google should turn over their assets to someone who can.

humans make mistakes. so do algorithms programmed by humans.

any gateway to the web will bring up some rubbish.

the very act of creating value and having users means people will try to exploit you

[St0n3y]

My opinion is that Google is free to do what they want with their search results, including eliminating sources. The idea of a disclaimer is not bad but this is a society that likes to get offended, if you put an "offensive" disclaimer on this, somebody will be yelling for such a disclaimer to be put on other search results that *they* want to be offended by, such as religious content, sites about fat chicks, political sites, etc.

[I, Brian]

Rather, the problem is Google's persistent, geeky, stupid assumption that by using machines, the humans at Google are no longer responsible for the behavior exhibited by their machines.

Actually, by using machines they move away from dumb subjective bias, and try to create a platform of objectivity.

For some reason I'm only just beginning to really appreciate the approach, and I really respect Google for it. Especially when there is a constant - perhaps growing - pressure on Google to conform to one subjective ideology or another.

[NFFC]

> Actually, by using machines they move away from dumb subjective bias

I don't see it that way, I see them [in terms of news search] using "machines" to hide from liability.

There is a huge difference from crawling the www in a random [well not random but a judge would take it as so] manner and choosing by algo or not which sites you decide to crawl.

Having said that and liability aside, don't facists have a right to be represented in the news?

[DarkMatter]

Having said that and liability aside, don't facists have a right to be represented in the news?

Sure. No one is stopping them from appearing in any news outlet that wants to run stories on them. One such outlet has chosen not to.

Maybe this is a dumb question but: What possible benefit can an "enlightened" culture gain from divisive, destructive ideas like this? Why would we ever, under any circumstances, want to disseminate this information?

[NFFC]

>an "enlightened" culture

Posted from New Jersey, boy you have some front. ;)

>Why would we ever, under any circumstances, want to disseminate this information?

I don't disagree, its not a culture that I have any love for. On the other hand are you saying it is something that should never be seen?

I really don't want to drift into Politics, it is not the job of a webmaster, but are you saying that back in the day [if we had a time machine] Google news shouldn't have shown any "free Nelson Mandala" news. Or maybe any Ghandi stuff [great film, never seen the guy since, wierd]. Maybe they should have blocked anything from Martin Luther King too?

Want me to go on, I can, ad infinitum if you wish.

[DarkMatter]

I really don't want to drift into Politics, it is not the job of a webmaster, but are you saying that back in the day [if we had a time machine] Google news shouldn't have shown any "free Nelson Mandala" news. Or maybe any Ghandi stuff [great film, never seen the guy since, wierd]. Maybe they should have blocked anything from Martin Luther King too?

Want me to go on, I can, ad infinitum if you wish.

I dont see the correlation between the ideas expressed by these people and racist ideas that basically have no function but to create an atmosphere of division and perhaps even advocate violence. I'm as much an advocate of free speech as anyone, information wants to be free and you really cant stop it. But sometimes noble ideas don't pan out the way we hope they will (take your pick of any religion for an example). Common sense should always win out over rules carved in stone.

The weakness is my argument is evident even to me: who decides what is too destructive? I wouldnt give that power to the government. Maybe leave it in the hands of citizens? I don't see too much blatantly racist, hateful material in popular media...so maybe they arent doing such a bad job of it.

[PhilC]

don't facists have a right to be represented in the news?In a word - no. Nobody has a "right" to be represented in the news.

Google is dead right in this case.

[NFFC]

>In a word - no. Nobody has a "right" to be represented in the news.

I agree, with one exception. If you are white, middle class, median income, first world, male then you do. It seems that way anyhow.

>Google is dead right in this case.

I agree, but then I'm white, middle class, median income, first world, male. You too I guess?

[PhilC]

Not even if you are a white, middle class, median income, first world, male.

[NFFC]

>Not even if you are a white, middle class, median income, first world, male.

I agree again, but in the real world.....

[I, Brian]

Maybe this is a dumb question but: What possible benefit can an "enlightened" culture gain from divisive, destructive ideas like this? Why would we ever, under any circumstances, want to disseminate this information?
You can throw that charge at most political/religious ideologies, though. :)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

The question is not if Google should make political editorial judgements or not - they already do so! The question is: What do they include and what do they not include.

If "my" newspaper starts to report directly from neo nazis and the like I find another newspaper. It's that simple. Google can do what they want and so can I. Except, in some countries there are laws about this and Google, like any other global player, have got to learn that.

[Marcia]

Some materials, IF included, should either have warnings posted, or should have filters applied, just the same as adult materials are filtered.

Question: what's the policy on guns and firearms, and what's the reasoning behind it?

Another question: how about materials that are liable or likely to lead to violence or crime? How about terrorism - should that be included?

Are people being hurt, damaged or discriminated against by nazism today?
Is property being destroyed or desecrated by nazism?
Are laws being broken by nazism?

Yes, on all three counts. In this country, in California, in Los Angeles.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

In many countries Naxi organisations is illegal and the views they want to publish too. If Google want to bring those publications and views to the people in those countries they have to be ready for some serious lawsuites. Just look at what happend to Yahoo :)

[I, Brian]

Are people being hurt, damaged or discriminated against by nazism today?
Is property being destroyed or desecrated by nazism?
Are laws being broken by nazism?

Yes, but...

...if you throw that charge into most any discussion forum with a strong conservative representation, you may well find the equal retort that Liberalism is not simply as dangerous, but even murderously more so, and throw in words like "abortion" and "Terry Shiavo".

Without trying to justify any particular politcal viewpoint, I'm simply trying to bring to the fore the concept that political bias can be a very difficult subject to handle - - - remember how the bloggers were up in arms over a perceived pro-Republican bias in Google News?

Also - Google is an American company that operates in a country that has Free Speech as a pillar of American rights - the effective preservation of minority opinion against majority censorship. Which is why you can find groups with contentious and very controversial views outside of the mainstream political spectrum - NAMBLA, anyone? So if Google allows for a spectrum of political opinions, then it is operating entirely within the boundaries of US constitutional issues.

Now, of course, here in Europe we had the Holocaust on our doorstep, so while countries such as the UK may simply legislate aginst inciting religious violence, in other European countries even looking at Fascism can be an issue of national humiliation - put a Swastika on your website (even in an education context) and watch you lose your German surfers. That's what leads to issues such as the Yahoo! Nazi court ruckus (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/Y/YAHOO_NAZI_AUCTIONS?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT).

Are Google aware of issues of national censorship? Sure they are (http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/040928-185324). But it's worth revisiting their statement on the issue of censoring Google News for a Chinese audience:


Naturally, we want to present as broad a range of news sources as possible. For every edition of Google News, in every language, we attempt to select news sources without regard to political viewpoint or ideology.
I personally took the step of preventing one of my sites being used as a platform by European Neo-Nazis, because it was in the interest of the site to make that decision.

However, in dealing with news sources, once you start preventing the expression of any single political view, the question arises of where that censorship should end - should the far-left be also censored?

Google News as an automated system to avoid issues of liability? Nah - in line with their policy on search, I'd still say an attempt at objectivity. And I should certainly applaud that brave aim.

[Chris Boggs]

I have to say I just went a re-read the article and realized my initial post stated my misunderstanding that people wouldn't be able to search Google for National Vanguard. In fact, since this is only for Google News, this seems to be more of a token gesture than an actual ideological self-distancing. It certainly falls under the rights of Google to squash any "news" from them.

I searched for National Vanguard and their site comes up number one at this SERP (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-12,GGLD:en&q=National+Vanguard). It is I must say a disturbingly calm facade (in the sense of the Princeton definition: "a showy misrepresentation intended to conceal something unpleasant") for such an organization.

Perhaps Google should even go a step further as to de-index this site if it really "means it?"

[lots0]

When you expose any kind of perverted belief system to free and open examination and questioning the basic faults of the belief system are exposed for all to plainly see.

When warped, twisted and perverted belief systems are hidden, not questioned and are not exposed to the “light” they tend to grow and spread like fungus.

Don’t hide these morally corrupt and warped belief systems, put them on display, people will see them for what they truly are and they will fade away.

My opinion.

[mcanerin]

I feel there is a difference between being open minded and having holes in ones head ;)

Until Google is acknowledged to be a world government, concepts like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc don't really affect them much, except indirectly, like everyone else.

Do I think that controversial information should be available to those with a legitimate need for research? Yes. Do I think it should be indiscriminately available to anyone with an internet connection and the ability to spell a search term? No. That's not a high enough standard, IMO.

I would think that access to hate materials should be subject to *at least* the same level of access restrictions as to p0rn, for example - possibly more.

Ian

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Google better work out who they want to target with their news service ...

- If they want to take it global, they have to accept that some countries have limitations on what you can publish - that goes for adult stuff as well as hate sites and Nazi promotion.

- If they want to reach people like me, they better strip out that Nazi stuff and get a proper editorial strategy in place. Personally I just don't want to waste my time on Nazis or the like and their worthless writings

Freedom of speach is the least important factor. I don't really care about Googles "right to speak" - if what they have to say is something I don't want to listen to I don't have to.

To be honest, for now I am not using Google News for the very reason that their editorial judgement is too poor

[Brad]

I make a distinction between Google News and Google Web search for this conversation.

Google News should not be in the business (and it is a business) of publishing every crackpot, wacko or extremist view that walks in the door in their News section. The reason their are news editors in the news business is to make judgement calls as to what their readers as citizens need to know, should know and want to know. OTOH this does not mean that every extreme website should be purged from the web listings but editorial judgement in web search is not usual and customary as it is in the news business. Publishing news requires good judgement and a firm grounding in civic values like: pluralism, civics, rule of law and at least in the West, The Enlightenment to name a few.

Ask any newspaper editor - they are deluged with press releases from every fringe group and almost none of those ever make it into print in the mainstream press.

Let's talk about responsibility: Google has made a big deal about webmasters being responsible about what appears on their webpages - who you link to being foremost amongst these. Fair enough, Google News is not exempt from this either - they have to take editorial responsibility over what sources they include or the mainstream user will go elsewhere for their news or worse.

In this Google's attempt to totally automate news coverage is a massive failure.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

In this Google's attempt to totally automate news coverage is a massive failure.

It may be a failure in the current form and edition but I think the idea of trying to automate the collection and ranking of news into such a format is good. That just dosn't change the basic nature of news: It has to be good (for me), it has to be legal and you, as the creator of it, are still responsible for what comes out.

[Brad]

It may be a failure in the current form and edition but I think the idea of trying to automate the collection and ranking of news into such a format is good. That just dosn't change the basic nature of news: It has to be good (for me), it has to be legal and you, as the creator of it, are still responsible for what comes out.

That could be true. But you still have to chose your sources for news and maybe Google should think about hiring some real human editors to handle that and to spotcheck for quality.

Ranking stories is a different matter and I'm sure Google's ongoing research in this has a lot of value.

[Gurtie]

this is very dangerous territory. In the UK we have the BNP who are, IMHO, about as offensively wrong as you can conceivably be on virtually every subject. However they are a legitimate political party, and as such they have as much right as any other party to have their views heard, their press releases published and their arguments subjected to wide judgement.

If Google are going to remove sources on the basis of their normal content then they should really list the sources they remove somewhere - yes Google have every right to only show things they want to show on their site, and yes some content is offensive, but personally I find the Daily Mail quite offensive and I don't see that being banned.

If someone who wants to see this muck is looking for propeganda they'll go find the original site anyway. How far should 'big brother' look after us? Is it better that people don't even know people like that exist or that they know and also find contrasting reports in the same place? I accept that some things should be censored, but I'm not sure Google is the right person/company to make that decision - if an opinion is legal then should it not be shown? Some extra filtering options may be the better option - if they gave me a list of all news providers I could happily filter my news results down and see hardly anything that I don't like. I'm not sure I'd do that - sometimes it's good to have something to get outraged about - but the option would be great.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I don't think it's the means but the results of a news source (or any information source for that matter) that counts. I don't really care, as a reader, how Google, the Washington Post, NYT or any other mdia select, sort and filter their news - I care about what I am served. And none of the other medias I read are anywhere "objective" or bring everything that is legal to bring. Far from! They make a choice. Some based on political views, some on other editorial strategies, but they all have their limits. Even Google News do. They select what sites to include and which ones not to add. That alone is a huge decision with a great impact as many have pointed out before.

Google don't have to include any news souce, or any view, in their service. Thats their choice. But if they chose to help spread the words of some of the worst scum on earth, even if they might be legal somewhere, I just don't want to read it.

And for the ones that think I need to listen to what the Nazi's have to say too and accept their inclusion in the Google News, I say no. No, I don't have to accept it - I can abandon it.

[I, Brian]

And for the ones that think I need to listen to what the Nazi's have to say too and accept their inclusion in the Google News, I say no. No, I don't have to accept it - I can abandon it. Personally, I'd rather not see far-right information disseminated on a mainstream news outlet either.

However, as a point of discussion, it's worth trying to weigh the moral relativism of the situation. I moderate on religious forums, where Liberalism is often bandied as much more evil than Fascism - because Liberalism has been accepted and instutionalised in a number of extremely contentious areas of social policy involving life and death issues on a wide scale.

So if people start campaigning for Google News to start reflecting their own personal political biases, I wonder where the limits and boundaries are drawn up. Some decisions may seem very easy - but once accepted, they create potentially dangerous precendents and grey areas.

Simply trying to indicate that there is perhaps a more complex issue involved here. I find the idea of an attempt at objective information coverage laudable, though as covered in this issue, there are ethical dilemmas in lacking a subjective editorial policy on content distribution.

[rogerd]

Any news organization has to make some editorial decisions. Google has tried to automate the process as much as possible, but a key part of the formula for making this work is deciding which inputs to accept. If I set up the Rogerd Times and publish demonstrably false stories about flying saucers and politicians who are really disguised space aliens, should Google be required to index my stories? I hope not.

Of course, people with different political views and religious views perceive different truths, making any editorial selection process open to criticism from one quarter or another. Google, and any news organization seeking to be broadly inclusive while avoiding false or misleading information, has to muddle forward like any other editorial group; one approach would be to establish a diverse "editorial board" that represents a broad political, religious, and geographic spectrum and solicit input on questionable sources; someone will still have to make the decision, but at least a range of opinion will have been obtained.

[Gurtie]

objectivity is the key, the board to choose which sites are acceptable is a good idea in principal if it can be onjective enough - the alternative of course is to do what most offline media do and accept a bias one way or another - then at least when you're reading/watching you know that the source isn't entirely objective and where it's likely to lean.....

Google also shows different news results dependent on your country (not necessarily as blatent as China but in the UK we get different geo-biased results) so this could actually be done for every country if it made things more acceptable (er - can anyone say slippery slope?).

I really think news is one area where personal preferences could be made to work incredibly well.

[Sapphire]

Don’t hide these morally corrupt and warped belief systems, put them on display, people will see them for what they truly are and they will fade away.

I second it. I'm still surprised how many people are sincerely unaware this sort of thing goes on. Awareness is the only way to stop it.

I'm surprised to learn that filters don't catch sites like this - then again, any search involving certain innocent words will bring up erotica sites that aren't quite porn. It appears this site found a way into that twilight zone.

To my thinking, if a site like this comes up under a search word like "Jew", it's a failure of filtering. Just as if a porn site comes up when you're searching for information on something like breast augmentation.

[farmerTom1985]

Depends on whether Google is liable for its content...if the courts say that google has a responsibility to screen its content (say for children) then it does or if Google decides that a publicly traded company can only afford to show so much controversial material, they can. But if their ultimate goal is to simply display all the pages on the internet, discretion would kill their index count.

[St0n3y]

I wouldnt give that power to the government. Maybe leave it in the hands of citizens?
This is exactly right. If Google was owned and operated by the gov't this would be censorship. But Google is a private company and they can choose to eliminate any "news" they deem inappropriate.

[FeldBum]

Remember that we are talking about Google News here and not Google. Google News is not just an automated bot collecting news sources. Unlike the search engine, human editors have to make a decision about what news sources they think will add value to the News page.

If you want to read the Vanguard and Nazi Quarterly or whatever, add it to your RSS reader.

Google News makes decisions about other "news" sources as well. My high school's newspapers isn't indexed but my college's is. Why? Because The Commentator (http://www.yucommentator.com/main.cfm) provides something Google wants to its News Page.

[Jorge]

Someone brought up the world morality which for those who might confuse the term with religion, is "conformity to accepted rules of conduct". If Google as a global business begins applying it's own "rules of conduct" who's accepted rules is it accepting? I believe only illegal content in each country should be banned, child pornography in most or all is an example. If Google begins banning hate sites then it should ban most political blogs too (as well as foxnews). Most commentary during the past US elections regarding the candidates can be considered as hate. On the other hand we should have the right to hate things, people, parties, acts, and not be censored. Google News should simply give people to options: "Censored main stream media" and "Not censored all inclusive news".

[I, Brian]

As a possible aside on the issue of inclusion, is that there appears to be some bad duplicate content issues from those small US publications that all share the same content. "The Allure Of Going Private".

[Jorge]

"I believe only illegal content in each country should be banned, child pornography in most or all is an example. If Google begins banning hate sites then it should ban most political blogs too (as well as foxnews). Most commentary during the past US elections regarding the candidates can be considered as hate".

I guess someone misunderstood my inclusion of foxnews in my post...a perfect example of how the political debate has become a little too heated allowing for it to become almost as hateful as more extreme "political" groups such as the nazis.

When I included the (as well as foxnews) I meant that not only blogs are becoming hateful but also main stream media, maybe if I had simply used the term main stream media (instead of an example) I would not have been called a Dumb A..

I try not to express my political views in this forum as it is not its place. However I am open to a private debate with whomever misunderstood my post.

[lots0]

For those of you (and it looks like most of you) that support censorship, I would like to give you some food for thought.

Right wing, Left wing or Center... Who cares, when someone else is deciding what you think

What people think can be controlled if you have the ability to censor the information they receive. I believe that is why censorship is (or used to be) considered “evil”.

If you want to sell a massive amount of books or dvd’s just get them censored or banned...

There is ample evidence that the rapid growth of these radical “groups” over the last few years is in large part due to the censorship of these warped belief systems imposed by different governments.

The worst and most hard core of these hate “groups” are growing the fastest in countries where government censorship of them is heaviest.

Being censored gives these twisted “groups” validation, their warped beliefs become important in some peoples minds in part because they are censored. The Romans tried to censored the Christians and all dictators and totalitarian governments have (attempted to) censored their opposition.

In my opinion, censorship is NOT the answer, the answer is and always has been open and free exchange of knowledge.

[Jorge]

Your right. Censorship is applied in many ways though. In the US it is more obvious in the press and television with the bleeping of swearing and no nudity shown. As you said censorship spawns followers and that is maybe why the States is the largest consumer of pornography.

There is a different type of censorship and we see it every day, that is when consumer groups threat advertisers in a particular medium with not buying their products. This is the most effective self impossed censorship used today. It looks like we don't need a big brother anymore we censor ourselves now!

I think the problem for many closed minded people and some governments (mostly dictatorships such as China's) is that the Internet is a difficult world to control or censor (self inflicted or government regulated). You have all types of news outlets, and sources. Despite all efforts made so far the Internet remains a free place to interact, with its pros, cons, and its dangers, in good taste and in bad with swearing, nudity, profanity and in every language possible.

[St0n3y]

Private companies and individuals are allowed to "censor" as they please. That is their right to do so and frankly, I don't understand the opposition to that. It's when the government gets involved in censorship where problems begin. Even then, censorship is a good thing within limitations (areas freely accessible to kids, etc.)

What Google is doing is simply making a decision of what content they don't want to be made available. Anybody who wants such content is free to go to any number of other sources to get it, this is not a full banning of such content from the Internet.

Those being "censored" are free to kick and scream about it all they want, but the reality is, Google is NOT the Internet, nor is it a representation of freedom. If Google does not offer it, someone else will.

[lots0]

Even then, censorship is a good thing within limitations (areas freely accessible to kids, etc.) These hate groups recruit kids, the kids have no guidance, because information on these groups censored and denied to them. Prepare the children to resist these terrible groups and see their ideology for what it is, warped, twisted and evil, by educating them, not by denying them information.

I have yet to hear one argument in support of censorship that makes any sense to me.

[St0n3y]

You don't teach kids to not play on the freeway by dropping them off on the shoulder. Education does not require immersion into garbage.

[DarkMatter]

I think the word censorship is being thrown around a little indiscriminately here. When most people talk about censorship, they are talking about an all out ban, ususally enforced or encouraged by the government. Thats not the case here, people can still find these websites and similar content in countless other media outlets.

I'm not trying to defend censorship here. I'm trying to defend common sense.

If Germany had censored the Nazi party before world war 2, millions of deaths could've been averted. If it comes at the price of one voice in the realm of free speech, I say so be it.

Not all great ideas are great in every situation. No idea, belief or value is above the scrutiny of common sense.

[Jorge]

... Google is NOT the Internet, nor is it a representation of freedom. If Google does not offer it, someone else will.

For millions of people Google IS the Internet. Most people are not like you. You know 100 times more about the Internet and its resources than 99% of the population online. It's part of your job. Most people only know how to "google" something. If it's not found in google it doesn't exist. Google has acquired the responsability over what content it shows due to its pervasiveness.

[St0n3y]

If 99% of the people believed that Ford WAS automobiles, that's their fault. That does not make Ford responsible to start selling Miatas, Blazers, or Maximas.

It is not Google's responsibility to develop a cure for ignorance and stupidity. Nobody put Google in charge of making every document in the world available. They routinely reject documents from their database for various reasons, and they can certainly reject news sources that they simply don't wish to include. That decision may or may not hurt their business (I suspect not) but its their decision to make. Its not mine or anybody else's to make based on other people's ignorance of the Internet.

Besides, Google only has 50-60% search market share. There is at least 40% of the population that know about other search engines.

[Justhipper]

Maybe this is a dumb question but: What possible benefit can an "enlightened" culture gain from divisive, destructive ideas like this? Why would we ever, under any circumstances, want to disseminate this information?

If we don't know what these people are saying, how can we counter it?

[DarkMatter]

If we don't know what these people are saying, how can we counter it?

Maybe we counter it by limiting the amount of exposure that clearly useless ideas receive.

Take for example, some of the conspiracy theorists that are somewhat rampant on the web: some people think the Apollo moon landings are a hoax. Now, there is ample physical proof that this event happened, but if you put this idea in front of enough people, some are going to beleive it. The result of this is basically the propagation of ignorance. You "counter" it by presenting proof, but these people won't beleive your proof no matter how valid it is. Promoting ideas like this is counter productive to our society, and serves no purpose.

As I've said in previous posts, I know my reasoning has a flaw that is not compatible with democracy and free speech (both of which I strongly beleive in). Who makes the decision on what is "productive" and what isn't? I don't claim to know. I just know that if I was responsible for providing information to someone, I would not knowingly provide them with information that I considered useless or wrong.

[lots0]

Burying your head in the sand and denying that unpleasant things exist, will not make them go away, no matter how much you wish they will.

Some say ignorance is bliss, I say it is just ignorance.

[DarkMatter]

Burying your head in the sand and denying that unpleasant things exist, will not make them go away, no matter how much you wish they will.

Some say ignorance is bliss, I say it is just ignorance.

I don't say deny they exist, I say don't give them prime time tv time or the front page of the newspaper.

[rogerd]

... Who makes the decision on what is "productive" and what isn't?

News editors make these decisions. No editor can be completely unbiased, but over time one can get a sense for what those biases are. For example, the New York Times and Fox News both report the news, and the people who make the editorial decisions at each organization probably feel that the are presenting the information in the most accurate way they can. Depending on where you (the reader/viewer) fall in the political spectrum, though, you may feel that one or the other is biased. (Or even both!)

Even if an individual considers the NYT to have a liberal bias on political topics, for example, he/she can still appreciate the general quality of information and be reasonably confident that facts have been checked. One won't find phony flying saucer stories or bogus celebrity scandals there. Publications like the NYT add considerable value to their content by the "filtering" they do, even for readers who may not agree with every aspect of the editorial policy.

Similarly, Google adds some value to their news product by excluding sources they consider to be the most unreliable news sources. At the same time, one finds a far greater diversity of news approaches (and, probably, somewhat more questionable information) in Google News than in any human-edited publication.

[lots0]

You don't teach kids to not play on the freeway by dropping them off on the shoulder. Education does not require immersion into garbage.
No, you NEED to teach/educate the children that speeding cars are dangerous and not to play by them. You can't do that if you censor all the information about cars or freeways...

I don't say deny they exist, I say don't give them prime time tv time or the front page of the newspaper. So your saying "just a little" censorship is OK? How little, how much? Who decides?

Free speech and freedom from censorship are so important, that countless people have died defending the ideal. I personally believe that free speech is worth fighting and/or dying for.

[DarkMatter]

So your saying "just a little" censorship is OK? How little, how much? Who decides?

There are a significant amount of people in the world who beleive that an image of the virgin Mary appeared on a peice of grilled cheese last year, I think the sandwhich sold on ebay for $20,000 (don't quote me on that).

To some people in the world that was an important news story. To me and (I hope) most of the world, it was complete and utter nonsense. I didn't see any reputable news organizations running that story. I didn't hear religious leaders touting the "miracle". Plenty of people still heard about it, so the lack of mass media coverage didn't prevent anyone who was interested from finding out.

There are countless other "news" events, stories and ideas that don't make it into the general media because of the fact that they are judged, as rogerd said, to be of dubious quality. Is this censorship? I don't think so.

It is foolish to beleive in an idea so strongly that you cease to look critically at it. Situations can change, nothing is absolute, no idea is perfect, most rules have exceptions.

[St0n3y]

The fact is, some censorship IS ok. Of course, that's using the word 'censorship' loosely. I'm free to censor what my kids watch on TV. I'm also free to censor the content that goes in my blog. Google is free to censor any "news" source it wants, and you're free to censor Google by not going there. Freedom to censor is just as important as freedom of speech.

What is NOT ok is Gov't censorship, telling us what news we can or cannot read on the internet, what political opinions can or cannot be given ad time on the TV, etc.

[PhilC]

What is NOT ok is Gov't censorship, telling us what news we can or cannot read on the internet, what political opinions can or cannot be given ad time on the TV, etc.You are happy to censor your children because some material may be harmful to them. But you don't think that governments should censor material that can harm either individuals or the country? I don't see your logic in that.

[DarkMatter]

What is NOT ok is Gov't censorship, telling us what news we can or cannot read on the internet, what political opinions can or cannot be given ad time on the TV, etc.


You are happy to censor your children because some material may be harmful to them. But you don't think that governments should censor material that can harm either individuals or the country? I don't see your logic in that.

I agree with Stoney on this. I think that the average citizen/media outlet/business has a right to decide what they include in their own outlets. I would never want to give this power to the government, because frankly, the government does a pretty poor job at most things and it's not necessary (or democratic) to get them involved. That government is best which governs least.

I think it is very logical to censor what children watch because they are not capable of deciding what is best for them. Adults are capable of making that decision. I don't think the government should mandate what adults or children can see, adults can choose for themselves and parents can choose for their children.

[St0n3y]

I would never want to give this power to the government, because frankly, the government does a pretty poor job at most things and it's not necessary (or democratic) to get them involved. That government is best which governs least.

Well stated. I do believe there are some cases where the gov't is free to and should censor. That being I don't want an XXX theater next to my church or a strip club operating out of my neighborhood. I also think its fair for the gov't to impose restrictions on the free airwaves, radio or TV, but on paid cable or satellite.

The Gov't does have a responsibility to its people to put regulations in place on how and where potentially harmful forms of "free speech" are allowed in public areas.

Gov't should not censor, but should regulate. Private companies can do as they will, as long as it falls within gov't regulations. The standards of censorship for the gov't and private companies, however are vastly different.

[PhilC]

So, if a small publication is produced which describes the exact, step-by-step instructions of how to make a dirty bomb, and includes all the information that anyone needs to set it off in a public place, such as an underground station, and if a TV company or newspaper is willing to accept advertisements for the publication, you think that the government should not step in and prevent the ads. Is that right?

That's an extreme example, so how about this one? The UK government prevents killer tobacco products from being advertised - possibly the U.S. government has similar restrictions. The reason for the prevention is to help people to avoid killing themselves. Advertisers are not free to advertise whatever they like. Is such prevention right or wrong?

Or this:- Suppose that a neo-nazi group, who openly promote the attacking of ethnic minorities, and provide all the assistance to do it, want to advertise, and a publication is willing to take the ads. Should a government step in and censor them?

At what point do you draw the line and say that government censorship is acceptable? If you agree that there has to be a line somewhere, then it follows that you agree with government censorship.

[St0n3y]

I have already stated that I do agree with some forms of gov't censorship, but most things can simply be regulated in their distribution. None of your examples require gov't censorship. Just gov't regulation on certain forms of distribution of said materials.

It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to speak threats of physical harm to another. All fine and good. Call it censorship, call it regulation. Doesn't matter really. Such things have their place.

I don't come down on either extreme side of this debate... I don't believe that we have to right to do anything and everything we want wherever we want regardless of the consequences. I also don't believe in freedom of speech and the right to say what we want.

What we don't have a right to is to have our views published wherever we want. This post can be removed by the mods if they wish. Google can choose not to consider my blog news. I don't think NAMBLA should be allow to distribute a step-by-step guide on how to rape boys, and I don't think the gov't can tell political groups how, when, where they can advertise.

With all freedom comes responsibility and the elected officials and their constituents have to determine where that line is. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

[Sapphire]

I think a lot of TV shows and films are promoting the idea that women can't hack it in the real world and are better off wrangling a man to rescue them - to my ears, that's a message of hate. But instead of wanting it hidden, I confront it vociferously on and off the web, turning the tables on those who send the message by asking what exactly it says about them.

What would I do if the message went underground, but its results were still everywhere around me? An invisible enemy has a great advantage over you.

[lots0]

So, if a small publication is produced which describes the exact, step-by-step instructions of how to make a dirty bomb, and includes all the information that anyone needs to set it off in a public place, such as an underground station, and if a TV company or newspaper is willing to accept advertisements for the publication, you think that the government should not step in and prevent the ads. Is that right? No it is not right, the government should not have the final say in what adds the TV company decides to air. However, If the TV company decides to run these ads they would suffer the consequences of viewers tuning out and advertisers dropping them as public reaction/opinion slaps them around.

As far as the little book with the step by step instructions to making a dirty bomb, for 30 some odd years prior to 9/11 you could find one in every public library in every city in the US. Funny, no one ever used one of them to make a bomb, until after the book was censored...

[PhilC]

So you think that governments should not censor material that is a real danger to people. I takes all kinds, I suppose, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Personally I *want* governments to do what they can to prevent things like terrorism, violent racism, etc., and if it means censoring certain material, then I'm all for it.

[NFFC]

>So you think that governments should not censor material that is a real danger to people.

Yes.

Google, et al, ain't the govt BTW.

[PhilC]

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if some of you are wrong ;) I'd hate to live in a world where anything goes, but if that's what you want, thankfully you ain't likely to get it.

[lots0]

Personally I *want* governments to do what they can to prevent things So do I.
Censorship does not make anyone safer, just the opposite.

That has been my point all along, censorship does NOT make you safer or smarter or have a less risk of being blown up by a terrorist.

[seobook]

So do I.
Censorship does not make anyone safer, just the opposite.

That has been my point all along, censorship does NOT make you safer or smarter or have a less risk of being blown up by a terrorist.
if people have the drive they will do whatever they want to. making something wrong or bad only makes it more appealing to those who would like to do such things.

make a book illegal some will think "this must be good"
make a drug illegal some will think "this must be good"
etc etc etc

[PhilC]

Of course it does. The less that certain types of information spread, the safer the world is.

[lots0]

The less that certain types of information spread, the safer the world is. Ok, The idea of Freedom is truly dangerous. These ideas of freedom and free speech should not be propagated, they are dangerous, people get killed all the time in the name of "Freedom" and "Free Speech". Should we censor "freedom" and "Free Speech" for your own good...

[PhilC]

If what is being propagated is dangerous, of course we should. It common sense.

[St0n3y]

I think this is just about the right approach:

"If you don't like something, don't watch it, and presumably advertising dollars will wither and the show will go off the air. But I have no problems with standards being set to help parents make good decisions."

--GWB, 4/14/05

Of course this is dealing the television shows and the like, and nothign to do with Google News, but still relevant to this discussion.

[Gurtie]

Or this:- Suppose that a neo-nazi group, who openly promote the attacking of ethnic minorities, and provide all the assistance to do it, want to advertise, and a publication is willing to take the ads. Should a government step in and censor them? Well here in the UK we let them run for election so I guess you've pretty much got the answer to that one. Actually the only way that type of thing can be addressed and countered is by it being done openly, people will always promote opinions that many other people find abhorrent but I find it easier to counter the arguments when I can show people that the idiots who sounded so reasonable on the radio also say something very much more extreme in their online material. Censoring that wouldn't help fight against it in the least.

I could write loads about this, but I suspect I'm outvoted. Fundamentally if you want to [start smoking][make a bomb][be a neo-nazi] then you'll find the information you need one way or another. Censorship is only helpful if you feel that the sight of the info would be unreasonably corruptive.

That's really subjective. The problem with "setting standards to help parents make good decisions" is that while Mary Whitehouse used to protest at the sight of a nipple others feel that nudity is perfectly natural. Where do you draw the line?

The first thing someones going to say in response is that just because we can't define the line doesn't make everything OK, but to me the line should be 'legal'. If it's illegal then it should be taken offline (presenting cross border difficulties I accept but Google manages it with China). If it's legal then the government has decided it's acceptable to be seen. If you don't agree with that then thats what the electoral process is for.

[PhilC]

Well here in the UK we let them run for election so I guess you've pretty much got the answer to that one.That's misleading. We don't censor political views but we do censor what people are are allowed to say publically. As you know, the leader of that political party was recently arrested for inciting racial hatred. Censorship is alive and well in the UK - thankfully!

[MikeDammann]

You also need to look ahead in time and see what kind of chaos censorship can bring along. People will sue Google for their kids reading something bad, then webmasters will sue Google for being unlawfully banned.
Once you start censoring some, they will complain about the "just as bad sites" which are still indexed.
Google needs to be either an "on your own risk" search engine or a supervised information provider such as public television and I do not see that being done successfully in the near future.

Mike

[lots0]

As you know, the leader of that political party was recently arrested for inciting racial hatred. Censorship is alive and well in the UK - thankfully! That is NOT censorship Phil! That is the government making this guy take responsibility for his actions.

If there was censorship, you would have never heard about this guy or his group in the first place you never would have known the guy was arrested and these people certainly NEVER would have been allowed to run for political office.

censor:
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.

3. One that condemns or censures.

source - http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/censor

[Gurtie]

Google needs to be either an "on your own risk" search engine or a supervised information provider such as public television and I do not see that being done successfully in the near future.
Yep I agree - I do think that if someone chooses to use a service which offers then specifically filtered results then that's up to them - so if you want a 'child safe' service then that's fine - but I feel very strongly that a service should state clearly either that it doesn't censor/filter or that it does it to certain criteria.

Personally I'd prefer to have an uncensored (again as far as is legal) service and use my own judgement but if I do happen on a censored one then as long as it states what it does then that's fine too. My problem with the original question about Google is that it tends to filter by unknown criteria and doesn't state anywhere what you aren't being shown. You should aways have the option to go and look elsewhere for the information which is 'missing'.

Just to put this into a sensible context (and not to start a fight I hope, it was hard to choose a subject which was strong but not horribly emotive) In some Islamic countries women may not express opinions on certain subjects or work in professions (also Islamic law also has some good things to say about womens rights btw). Would you agree that news should be censored to remove all articles by women on these subjects?

We really cannot set ourselves up as random arbiters of what's right and what's wrong. I'd love to rule the world, but until I do I'm having to accept that other people need to make their own decisions about what's moral/ethical/reasonable and to do that they need the info.

[Chris Boggs]

This thread is very interesting, having turned into a discussion about raising children properly and the rights of governments to censor information. I agree with many of these statements, and disagree with some. I am happy to see that my original proposal of "warning labeling" has picked up some votes.

Children shouldn't be left on the side of a freeway to learn about speeding vehicles, but time should probably be taken near a road to point out how fast cars can come by. Seeing is believing.

Governments are governments: Google does not apply. Comparing the two is probably flattering to Google but possibly dangerous. Talk such as this, in my opinion, could lead to further restrictions by supposedly democratic governments on what content is allowed to be presented to Internet searchers or news-seekers. Google News has opened up a can of worms by censoring hate sites, but this topic is not main stream enough yet to warrant much attention...which could change.

Back on topic: everyone has a choice to read or not read something. Warning labels give people the choice, and, more importantly, the ability to decide for themselves the relative value or absurdity of any website's content.

[PhilC]

That is NOT censorship Phil! That is the government making this guy take responsibility for his actions.Alright. It may not have been censorship according to Yahoo!'s definition of the word, but it amounts to the same thing. He was not allowed to say what he said, and he is not allowed to print those things. Censorship is alive and well in the UK. Any form of incitement to racial hatred is illegal, as are many other things.

To censor something really means to apply the judgement before publication, but the law applied that judgement before the event in that case, so it was effectively censorship.

[St0n3y]

Censorship is alive and well in the UK - thankfully!

When people are thankful for censorship, it usually means they are happy that things that don't coincide with their beliefs are being censored. But what happens when something that YOU believe in starts getting censored because somebody else is offended by it? (not saying you, specifically, Phil, I'm just using the generic you!)

I don't think anybody is immune to that argument. If Google started "censoring" religious content because they donut' want to "offend" anyone, well, I'd be offended. Google, however has that right and would, of course, suffer whatever consequences may apply. I'm sure they have weight the risk/reward for "censoring" a bunch of neo-nazi "news". After all, who cares if you piss off a group of people that are already perpetually pissed off?

I am very happy that some things are subject to gov't regulation. I also believe in freedom of speech. But as Chris said above, comparing Google "censorship" with gov't censorship is really a red herring. Companies are free to censor, free governments are not.

[PhilC]

When people are thankful for censorship, it usually means they are happy that things that don't coincide with their beliefs are being censored.Or it means that those people prefer a world that, as far as is possible, is protected from the real evil that some people are capable of. The right censorship is a part of that protection.

[St0n3y]

But see, that's the problem. The government is very rarely capable of deciding what is the "right" kind of, well, just about anything. Here is just an easy example. Separation of Church and state is pretty common lingo now days and has been applied to keep just about all forms of religious expression out of anything run or controlled by the gov't. Separation of Church and State, however is NOT a constitutional mandate and is a severe over reach of the judiciary.

Constitutionally, we have freedom to express religious views wherever we desire, children are allowed to gather and pray in school if they wish, Congress can open sessions in prayer, and the 10 commandments and the pledge of allegiance can have a place in education. But we've got this new monster that says we have to keep religion OUT of anything that utilized gov't (read: taxpayer's) money. The original intention by our forefathers was not to keep religion out of the government but to keep government out of the business of mandating a state-sanctioned religion. When was the last time any kid in public school was forced to repent of their sins to Buddha, Mohammad, Jesus or Osama?

What we have now, in effect, is government censorship of a kind that was never intended, nor is it "right". My opinion, of course, and I'm sure others have their own, but you see, the government has a very difficult time choosing what is the "right" or "wrong" thing to censor. Which is why, government generally should not be in the censoring business. What seems right today turns into a monster of censorship nobody intended tomorrow.

[MikeDammann]

Pleasing everyone is a challenge Google is not ready for. If you want to censor, you need to be prepared to do it right. It is better to let visitors make their own decision what is good for them and what is not until you have a sound strategy and policy on what is acceptable and what is not.

[MikeDammann]

btw I have voted for a warning label since it will be a lot easier to add or remove a warning tag than simple blacklisting and reindexing in case there are complications. I do believe in protecting from bad material but who is going to decide what is good and what is not?

[PhilC]

The government is very rarely capable of deciding what is the "right" kind of, well, just about anything.The ludicracy of that opening statement means that I don't need to respond to the rest of your post, which was written to qualify it. There is just one thing though - we do not have constitution in the UK, so nothing can be unconstitutional. You err in many ways ;)

[St0n3y]

Well, PhilC, perhaps your gov't is infallible, but ours most certainly is not. Our elected officials often make good decisions and they often make very very poor decisions. The worst is when they make decisions (i.e. new laws) which they have no business making. The recent campaign finance legislation comes to mind.

You may be all aboard with censorship imposed by your gov't, right up to the point where they get the idea to censor something you don't think they should.

But again, most of what we are talking about is regulation, not censorship at all.