Google vs. Evil

wideangle writes "'The world's biggest, best-loved search engine owes its success to supreme technology and a simple rule: Don't be evil. Now the geek icon is finding that moral compromise is just the cost of doing big business. Take Brin's decision to refuse all alcohol and tobacco advertising. The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on Brin's morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not. It's a policy that would become progressively harder to defend were Google to go public.'"

Comments

It makes sense

[SteweyGriffin]

Alcohol and cigarettes kill people.

Pornography does not.

Re:It makes sense

[garcia]

also along those lines... Typically pornography isn't intentionally, directly, marketed towards children. Alcohol and tobacco is.

Re:It makes sense

[pVoid]

On a funny note,

Porn is religiously 'evil', whereas cigarettes aren't.

Go figure.

Re:It makes sense

[mskfisher]

Actually, Christians are instructed that their body is "the temple of the Holy Spirit," and that we're not to defile it.
Smoking, or other destructive behavior, is disrespect and defilement.
Here are some other references and reasons.

Re:It makes sense

[Usquebaugh]

This depends on your religon and your faith.

Re:It makes sense

[kernelistic]

Mind you, Christianity is not the only religion which states that you're not to defile the body: The Hindus and Muslims have this very same belief.

Re:It makes sense

[mskfisher]

And Jews. But I figured I would only speak from my own experience.

Re:It makes sense

[241comp]

The verse you are referring to is:
1 Corinthians 6:19 - Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

What most people forget is the verse before that which states:
1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
Which clearly states that the verse following it refers ONLY to sexual sins, not smoking/drinking/drugs/etc.

Re:It makes sense

[registro]

Well, alcohol and tobacco advertising is illegal now in most democracies, including most of the EU, Internet biggest market, so I guess they are all right: they agree with the mayority of a 300+ million union, good enought for a One Person World View.

After reading the article, I must said that I think Brin is all right. Lets hope he have the streng to resist commercialization's dark side. They have showed signs of weakness recently, anly partially corrected now.

Re:It makes sense

[Cyno01]

Yeah, but us Catholics (im catholic by birth, but non-practicing) get booze at mass.

Family Guy Quote

Peter: Woah, if this is the blood of Christ he mustve been wasted 24/7.

Re:It makes sense

[Malcontent]

" Actually, Christians are instructed that their body is "the temple of the Holy Spirit," and that we're not to defile it.
Smoking, or other destructive behavior, is disrespect and defilement."

You wouldn't know it from listening to the christian leaders. They protest abortion clinics, adult video stores, strip clubs, homosexual marriages but I have never heard any religious leader protest a beer company or a cigarette company. In fact they are usually on the side of the cigarette companies as a part of their pro business agenda.

Re:It makes sense

[Danse]

Yea, I know, very small % do the bomb thing, but... *shrug* those people are the most devout.

Not the most devout, just the most manipulated. And it's not like "devout" christians haven't committed some truly horrible attrocities over the centuries either. Religion is a powerful tool. When it's abused, it can cause incredible suffering.

Re:It makes sense

[ReaperOfSouls]

Nothing in the world makes people do more insane and idiotic things, then the belief that their invisible man in the sky is more right and valid then your invisible man in the sky...

Re:It makes sense

[Pseudonym]

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Almost every atrocity which you would attribute to religion is in fact traceable to greed and/or politics. This is partly a function of poor separation of church and state. If church and state are blurred, the church gets blamed for everything the state does.

Re:It makes sense

[Regul8or]

Religion is not a powerful tool, it is merely a crutch for the weak minded.

Re:It makes sense

[Danse]

Actually it's the fact that the various religions seem more intent on teaching people to do as they're told than teaching them to think for themselves. That's why religious people are so easy to manipulate. Even though most people will tell you that their religion encourages questions, there are nine million ways to twist the answers, all of which can be backed up with some choice quotes from the whichever religious text is applicable. Most people can't fight the peer pressure and stand up to someone with authority in the church and tell them that they're wrong. So you end up with a mass of people that believe what they're told. That makes it quite easy for the people in power to use them as they please. So it's not just greed/politics that's the problem, it's greed/politics combined with religion.

Re:It makes sense

[Pseudonym]

Actually it's the fact that the various religions seem more intent on teaching people to do as they're told than teaching them to think for themselves. That's why religious people are so easy to manipulate.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but everyone is taught to do as they're told, by their parents, by the education system, by politicians, by advertisers, by employers, by the news media, by people who write books and so on and so forth.

Everyone is discouraged from thinking for themselves. Everyone is easy to manipulate. It has always been this way and always will be this way. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the way the system works.

And if you can't see it, you've been sucked into it too.

Re:It makes sense

[Pseudonym]

I don't claim to attribute anything to religion.

Here's what you said:

Nothing in the world makes people do more insane and idiotic things [...]

Which part did I misinterpret?

Religion is no different than any other philosophy or, "predating the modern age" as you say, any other societal norm. People do insane and idiotic things. Religion doesn't make anyone this way, they just are.

Re:It makes sense

[jericho4.0]

Two sentence fragments, two spelling mistakes, it's simple english.

Re:It makes sense

[Afrosheen]

Thanks alot for the link. That site was totally fascinating :)

Re:It makes sense

[Planesdragon]

Nothing in the world makes people do more insane and idiotic things, then the belief that their invisible man in the sky is more right and valid then your invisible man in the sky...

Close. Actually, what drives the insane and idiotic things is that they think that they know the one Invisible Man in the Sky better than the other guy.

Irish Catholics & Irish Protestants both worship the exact same God, Arabic Muslims claim to worship the exact same God as the Jews they hate... etc, etc.

Re:It makes sense

[nathanm]

Religion is not a powerful tool, it is merely a crutch for the weak minded.

Wow! This comment was modded insightful for recycling the musings of my illiterate governor (for only another month thankfully!).

A lot of very intelligent people have been religious.

Re:It makes sense

[nathanm]

Nothing in the world makes people do more insane and idiotic things, then the belief that their invisible man in the sky is more right and valid then your invisible man in the sky...

What would make people massacre their fellow human beings in large numbers? The bloodiest century in recorded history was the 20th, and most of the massacres were from political regimes that preached atheism as their offical religion.

Re:It makes sense

[Surt]

A few of us were fortunate enough to have parents and teachers who encouraged us to question the system.

Of course that's just another specific way to tell us how to think, but the practical outcomes are different.

Not to mention their wacky gun policy.

[rebelcool]

Not only do they refuse to advertise for guns, but they won't advertise companies that even sell parts for guns.

To be even stranger, the advertisements are usually not even about guns - just the company may happen to also sell parts.

One case comes to mind of an outdoorsman shop wanted to advertise its dehydrated food wares. In addition to hundreds of other outdoors materials, they sold replacement pistol barrels (they did NOT however, sell actual guns)

Google refused the ads on food on the premise of this.

Re:Not to mention their wacky gun policy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, Googles anti-killing people policy is just wacky.

It's All Relative

[Ricky M. Waite]

Sexual activity is something which life itself comes about because of. Cigarettes and alcohol are (or contain, I should say) chemicals which disintegrate the body's components - with side effects from neurotic addiction to behavioral shifts. I'd say his stance on this is primarily a sound one; although differing opinions will surely arise.

Re:It's All Relative

[Usquebaugh]

In a lot of cases alchol had a hell of a lot to do with the creation of life :-)

Alchol in moderation is not harmful. Or do you think they had 'lite' wine when Jesus was quaffing it. Or cancer free incense?

Re:It's All Relative

[TheLink]

There was also the wedding at Cana.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage =J OHN+2&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showx ref=on

After the wedding guests had _finished_all_ the wine, Jesus' mother came to him and told him the wine was all gone. Jesus then turned water into wine. Six stone jars full. Some estimates: at least 120 gallons of wine. Really good wine too according to the master of banquet who had a word with the bridegroom about it.

Definitely not watered down grape juice :).

I agree.

[PineGreen]

Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not.

It is pretty hard fact that cigarettes and booze are evil as far as health is concerned. However, porn is evil only as much as ideology / morality flags it as evil.

Personally, I would legalise all kinds of drugs, however the advertising should remain limited.

And yes, call me funny, but I just love to pull my stick and can't possibly see how porn could be evil.

Re:I agree.

[Some Dumbass...]

Personally, I would legalise all kinds of drugs, however the advertising should remain limited.

And the purchase, presumably. I assume we don't want to see 10-year-olds smoking pot, though it's hard to see why a 21-year-old shouldn't (given that they have access to alcohol and cigarettes.)

Re:I agree.

[vbweenie]

Porn has, and to some extent is, its own ideology; like other ideologies, it plugs a hole in the world with a fantasy version of the thing it's supposedly "about", in which everything works more or less exactly the way it doesn't in reality.

Religious fundamentalism is fantasy politics, in which real and intractable arguments about morality and justice get to be solved by looking them up in the user guide. Porno is fantasy gender politics, in which real and intractable difficulties in the matter of relations between the sexes get resolved...well, you know how.

This doesn't make porno evil as such; at least, not for the conventional reasons. But it does make it ethically deviant, insofar as ethical reasoning depends on a willingness to try to see the world as it is. Porno claims to present the naked truth: all the naughty secrets that the puritan sex cops want to keep secret and veiled. But porno is, like advertising, a kind of systematic untruth, perpetuated for cynical reasons, and whatever that is it ain't good.

Re:I agree.

[Fnkmaster]

An excellent analogy and excellent point. However, I would like to take slight issue with your characterization of pornography. It's certainly unarguably true that it does replace the real and intractable differences between the sexes with supple, willing women, who, well, act exactly the way guys would like them to act.

But this is only ethically deviant if the people watching pornography conceive of it as a depiction of reality, or even how they would want reality to ACTUALLY be. The difference from religious fundamentalism is clear. People who are followers of religious fundamentalist movements or causes don't put their religious fundamentalism back in the drawer after a wank, and don't forget about religious fundamentalism when they are interacting with other real human beings. Religious fundamentalism isn't a momentary escape from reality that releases sexual tensions and frustration. Religious fundamentalism is a way of life and set of viewpoints that as you point out, replaces logical reasoning and rational argument with argument by authority. The porn goes back in the drawer.

Do some people take away bad ideas about women from pornography? Probably. This is why we generally say that kids shouldn't have porn, because they may not understand that it's a fantasy and not a reality. I guess we don't want them to be too depressed when they get a real chick's clothes off and start humpin' that it's just not like what they saw in Exotic Amateurs 3 (note: I think hiding this stuff from teenagers at least is useless and crazy - just make sure they understand that it isn't reality).

Re:I agree.

[vidnet]

Personally, I would legalise all kinds of drugs, however the advertising should remain limited.

Yeah, yeah. I know you can quit anytime you want, but most people don't have that ability. Short circuiting the access to drugs will certainly not reduce the usage, it will only invite more people.

Re:I agree.

[namespan]

It is pretty hard fact that cigarettes and booze are evil as far as health is concerned. However, porn is evil only as much as ideology / morality flags it as evil.

First off, most of the posts here on Slashdot seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter whether any of the above are evil under your idealogy. What does matter about Google is that despite the extra revenue it might provide, they've chosen to incorporate their moral beliefs into a business they've created. They have some beliefs that are higher than the mighty dollar. The submittor almost seems to question this, and insinuates a public businesses doesn't have this luxury, and the sum of its morality is return to shareholders. Frankly, that meme more evil than porn, alcohol, and cigarrettes combined. Once your values are completely based on financial return, the commission of some kind of crime (legal and/or moral) is pretty much inevitable, because there's just so many good ways to make money by screwing others over.

I personally think that porn can distort reality and hurt people and it's a substitute for things that could legitimately fill human needs/desires. I side with Bill Cosby's statement that it's more than a little word -- when you feel hungry, do you go and look at pictures of steak? Videos of people eating pizza? Carefully teasing you with glimpses of halibut, people making satisfied noises while in the throes of a sublime burritto? But my judgement of porn or substance abuse is not really the point of this whole discussion. If you built a business, and believed that porn was an evil, I'd hope that you'd incorporate that belief into the operation of the organization you create -- same goes with guns, marijuana, tobacco, bibles, scientology, Nietsche, Quake, Nethack, whatever. The guys running google have moral beliefs, and they're willing to stand for them despite financial incentives to the contrary. How can that be anything but good?

Alcohol and Cigarettes and harmful

[danny256]

porn is not. We all look at porn, no matter how much you guys deny it. I found my first porn on yahoo when I was 11 years old and I havn't stopped. I don't think I'm too screwed up, or any more so than if I'd never found the porn. How many kids get through there childhood without one of their friends showing them a dirty magazine or something? not too many, its a just a part of life. Porn isn't evil, just like masturbation isn't evil, I think these are outdated views that need to be revised.

Re:Alcohol and Cigarettes and harmful

[div_2n]

Alcohol in and of itself is not bad for you. The abuse of it, however, is bad for you.

If the fact that too much alcohol is can damage your health means that it is harmful then you might as well add food, oxygen, water, exercise, sexual orgasms, sunlight and sleep.

Too much of any good thing can and usually is a bad thing.

Re:Alcohol and Cigarettes and harmful

[trentfoley]

When I was a little kid in the late 60's, my dad gave me a big stack of Playboy magazines. It turned out that my mom had made him get rid of the them. He got in serious trouble when my mom found out that I had the collection. I wish I still had them -- they'd be worth a lot of money (they were all clean).

Am I screwed up? Yes, but not because of porn.

Re:Alcohol and Cigarettes and harmful

[nusuth]

If I got your implied assumption "Playboy is porn" right, surely you are not screwed up. Infact, you are too pure.

Re:Alcohol and Cigarettes and harmful

[div_2n]

Drinking alcohol in moderation does no such thing in the long term. I have a few thousand years of human consumption to back up my assertations.

Re:Alcohol and Cigarettes and harmful

[div_2n]

So is oxygen.

Re:Alcohol and Cigarettes and harmful

[jafac]

ok, in of itself, porn isn't the worst thing of all - but you must agree that there is danger for the "weak" in having free, open, unrestricted access to porn of every kind, including bestiality and kiddy porn.

People can and do ruin their lives. Adults are supposed to have self-control, but what about kids?

I'm all for porn, and I'm smart enough to know that there's no way to restrict access without violating privacy, which is paramount to most porn conneseurs. It's one of those nasty catch-22's.

I'm not advocating control or censorship - in any way. But I do think that the attitude that it's just harmless fun for everyone is wrong.

Porn != Evil;

[Uber KruX]

What's porn ever done to you personally? If you don't like it, don't look for it. You have every right not to see it, and also not see it. If it was "forced" upon you by some company and their advertising scheme, go ahead and flip out, call a lawyer, whatever.

And if anyone tries to use the "Porn is morally degrading our society... blah blah blah" argument, the same can be said of all general media. I don't think Pokemon and Friends are improving society in any way.

Re:Porn != Evil;

[ONOIML8]

"What's porn ever done to you personally? If you don't like it, don't look for it."

The same could easily be said of tobacco. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Re:Porn != Evil;

[ONOIML8]

Oh I wont. And you be sure to let me know if it ever seems that way.

Of course since you posted as a gutless AC, I don't know who you are.

Re:Porn != Evil;

[sg_oneill]

"What has murder ever done to you personally? If you don't like it, dont't get murdered"

The same could be said for nonsensical argumentation. If you don't like it. Don't do it.

What's the moral problem here?

[tuxlove]

Pornography, i.e. sex, is just part of a normal human biological function. One that the human race depends upon for procreation. Artificial moral rules have made sexual expression in many forms a taboo thing, sadly. We're far too prudish sometimes. Okay, most of the time.

Tobacco and alcohol are drugs. They are physically harmful and can damage your body, or even kill. Simply looking at porn can do no such thing. Any argument equating drugs and pornography is simply rhetorical and nothing more.

if you want to filter..

[gl4ss]

..do your own front end to google and filter for all your hearts content. http://www.google.com/apis/

it's fun and geeky to play around too..
the free key allows up to 1000 searches/person per day using googleapi..

i experimented with it to filter out some linkfarm-sht-sites while looking for *cough*roms. happily the same authors linkfarm sites shared quite a bit of content(and linked to eachother of course)..

Well....

[mindstrm]

Not everyone sees porn as "Evil".. that's largely a puritanical American ideal.

Re:Well....

[Dog and Pony]

Only reason it has such impact there (and in other places)is that noone really wants to risk being not politically correct first.

Also, see the recent events in France where the politicians, when proposing laws against prostitution, were faced with the ultimatum from the hookers: "If you do that, we will tell everyone what you have done, with personal details and even how small your penis is."

I have no reason to believe that this kind of double morality would not be common everywhere else where it is pc to say that porn is bad.

Re:Well....

[5KVGhost]

That's odd, I don't see Americans rioting and killing each other over a beauty pageant, or stoning women for violating dress codes, or even getting all that worked up about the existence of porn in general.

Also, as long as I'm typing, the Puritans were English, and after getting themselves into trouble attempting to reform what they saw as a moribund and corrupt Church of England they came to America to escape persecution. The name "Puritan" was coined as a derisive term by their opponents in England. Puritans enjoyed drinking (lots of drinking) and feasting, and apparently had very pragmatic views on sex. They were not narrow minded witch-burning caricatures:

http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=100 44 72&t=Nation+%2F+World&c=26,1004472

Activism

[Skyshadow]

Not only do they refuse to advertise for guns, but they won't advertise companies that even sell parts for guns.

1. People who created, run and privately own Google think guns are bad.
2. Google won't advertise guns.
3. Outdoor shops who do a little gun-related bid'ness are enticed to get rid of it.
4. There is one less place to buy parts for things used to kill other people.
5. Google still makes profit, society gets a little more like creators, maintainers and private owners of Google want it to be.

Kudos to them, then, for standing behind their beliefs.

Re:Activism

[slipgun]

Kudos to them, then, for standing behind their beliefs.

Would you be saying that if, for example, it was Islam they didn't like rather than guns?

Re:Activism

[Skyshadow]

Would you be saying that if, for example, it was Islam they didn't like rather than guns?

It'd be in their perogative (again, it's their world, we just play in it), but I don't think it'd have any useful effect -- what, is the Dome of the Rock going to suddenly go secular because they can't advertise on Google?

Look, I take great pleasure in going to the shooting range and exercising my second-amendment rights. I also don't kid myself about what I'm doing, what the purpose of the tools really is and why I enjoy it so much. Guns are like cigarettes and booze in that way -- they're a real viceral thrill, and they're not a really good thing in the long haul.

Re:Activism

[Skyshadow]

like baseball bats, telephone cords, vehicles, ball peen hammers, axes?

I might agree with a campaign against handguns, but I have enough common sense to know that shotguns and rifles are a necessity to many people who don't have the luxury of living in an urban setting. The next time someone walks into a high school and kills seventeen people with a telephone cord, you call me. Otherwise, your post just sounds like you're assuming that everyone else is an idiot (whereas, in reality, only about 60% of other people are actual idiots).

Re:Activism

[Alex Reynolds]

Kudos to them, then, for standing behind their beliefs

I suppose then they also stand behind censorship and autocratic governments?

Megakudos!

Re:Activism

[hitzroth]

Note: I encourage the moderators to mod the parent comment up.

Hell, you could go find the fixins for gunpowder and make a gun out of parts from the hardware store. This is likely even less safe for the user than a "real" gun. And no less deadly to the target.

Fear of power is not a good reason to distroy the potential for power. And, love of power is not a good reason for the support of the potential for power.

Re:Activism

[mizhi]

1. People who created, run and privately own Google think guns are bad.
2. Google won't advertise guns.
3. Outdoor shops who do a little gun-related bid'ness are enticed to get rid of it.
4. There is one less place to buy parts for things used to kill other people.


Yep, gotta get that blackmarket in small firearms flourishing.

Re:Activism

[Skyshadow]

> Cars kill people. Guns kill people. Steel poles
> used to bludgeon someone kill people. I am not
> slagging Google here, they are a private company
> that can run the way they see fit.

That's an argument which you might get away with over at the Fox News discussion board, but hopefully most /.'ers can think up at least two key flaws in your reasoning:

1. When was the last time someone used a steel pole to kill 20 people at a McD's because his girlfriend broke up with him?
2. If steel poles are so incredibly lethal, why do gang-bangers, soldiers and other folks who kill people and break things for a living seem so dedicated to guns? What, is it just some weird tradition thing?

Re:Activism

[Wyatt Earp]

"Guns are like cigarettes and booze in that way -- they're a real viceral thrill, and they're not a really good thing in the long haul."

Well, the Resistance in France, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union really thought guns were helpful against the Nazis. The Viet Cong used them to good effect against the French, Japanese, Americans and Republic of Vietnam. In 1989 guns were quite helpful dealing with Nicolae Ceausescu.

Guns helped the SAS and Norwegian Resistance in stopping the Nazi heavy-water production.

http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm
"Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals-or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker."

Re:Activism

[ONOIML8]

1. People who created, run and privately own Google think guns are bad.

Cool, everyone has an opinion.

2. Google won't advertise guns.

Ok, fine.

3. Outdoor shops who do a little gun-related bid'ness are enticed to get rid of it.

Really? Just because Google wont carry their ads? How is that?

Time-Warner won't carry ads for porn sites but I belive those business are doing quite well and do not feel enticed to eliminate porn from thier business. They just find other ways to advertise that do not involve that company. Time-Warner's doesn't get their revenue but the do get to stick to their policy.

4. There is one less place to buy parts for things used to kill other people.

Several problems with that theory. First is the assumption that if a company doesn't advertise on Google they can't do business. Advertising on Google is not such an important thing that it will determine if a gun parts business remains profitable.

Another problem with your theory is the fact that most guns are not used to kill people.

Assuming your theory were correct it would also mean that there were fewer parts available for guns to defend people.

Cars kill more people everyday than do guns. Google still advertises companies who sell car parts.

Please rethink your theory.

5. Google still makes profit, society gets a little more like creators, maintainers and private owners of Google want it to be.

Google still makes profit, that's a good thing. Standing up for what they believe in is a good thing. They set an example and that is a good thing.

But I think you overestimate their impact on society. Google is important, and they do have an impact. But if Google went away, or people use another service, it doesn't harm society. Despite what they may tell you they just aren't that important.

Re:Activism

[jallen02]

I am simply asking one question: where do you stop? Do we need to judge the lethality of everyday items, and what they are used for. You could EASILY kill 20 people in moments with a car, if you really wanted to. Firearms in general can kill people easier. It only takes a creative mind to find a way to kill a lot of people with practically anything. If they really hate the world they will. Firearms just let people act out their violence in a particular fashion. That is why I feel it is silly. If someone is going to go on a bloody rampage, they will. Maybe killing fewer or more people without a firearm.

The steel pole was just one example on the other end of the spectrum on an every day item that could be lethal.

Why the discussion board naming. It's like you are challenging others to respond to me. They will without the encouragement, I am sure.

Jeremy

Re:Activism

[Catbeller]

Guns were useful agaisnt the Nazis, but think about it. Could the SS and the gas ovens been stopped by brave French equipped with hunting rifles?

Nope. It took diplomats. Generals. Bombs, planes, tanks, ships, codebreakers, balloons, radar, submarines, atomic bombs.

Guns were an expression of resistance, but they would not have won WWII against a German or Japanese empire. It took the intelligent cooperation of tens of millions of soldiers with all the resources of dozens of nations to stomp out a few determinted, self-righteous, God-appointed we're-doing-it-for-self-defense looney bin countries that convinced themselves they were only doing the right thing by attacking everyone else preemptively.

No gun in the hands of a citizen, or a million citizens, can "defend freedom". They can fire a few rounds off before the tanks and armored soldiers roll over their families and houses, or before they see a cruise missle go down their chimney, or a tailored virus is released into their water supplies. The era of the brave lone warriors never existed. It doesn't exist now. It's a fantasy.

If the U.S. government goes rogue under some pretext (such as the terrorist one), and they start doing things like, oh, detaining people in the dark of night, or executing citizens without trial, and everyone goes "Yay! We are safe!", no pile of Uzis under our beds will buy us freedom.

Oh, um. If everyone carries a gun, or has one in the house, the first order of business for any robber or attacker is to kill the victim on sight. The attacker almost always wins if they have the gun out and hit you by surprise. I've heard in many cases that muggers, for instance, in highly armed neighborhoods will shoot the victim first off, because it's almost a certainty the victim is carrying blade or gun.

Do *I* want guns banned? I don't think they can be banned. It'd be worse than Prohibition, and at least booze drinkers weren't drinking a killing machine when the police broke in.

But I don't think the guns are going to save us from the bad man, or a government gone insane. Only careful monitoring of our guvmint can save us from the latter -- and we're not monitoring -- and as for the bad men, they will always be with us.

Re:Activism

[Synn]

No gun in the hands of a citizen, or a million citizens, can "defend freedom".

Huh? Why don't you go back in time and tell that to the people behind the American revolution.

Or do you think this has changed because of modern warfare? Crude single shot guns called Liberators were air dropped into France during it's occupation in WW2, and they helped the resistance there considerably.

Don't think a hunting rifle is effective against a tank? You'd be suprised how well it works when the guys inside the tank get out to take a piss or go to sleep.

Re:Activism

[Dave2 Wickham]

Cars kill more people everyday than do guns. Google still advertises companies who sell car parts.

Yes, but cars are transport. Guns aren't. Guns are primarily used to kill things AFAIK. Of course, since I live in England you can't just buy a gun anyway.

Re:Activism

[ONOIML8]

You are correct, the primary purpose for cars is transportation....a good thing. Since cars are used most often for good we tend to tolerate them even when they are used to kill.

The same is true of guns. Guns are often used for good. I won't go in to all the uses of guns for good, please think about that for yourself. The problem with guns is their bad press. The PERCEPTION of guns is that they are bad, so they aren't tolerated as much.

Note that we're talking about sport weapons here. The comment was that Google won't advertise for sport shops that sell guns or gun parts. I'm not talking about military weapons. So the purpose of these guns is target shooting or hunting. So we're talking about sport shops that are selling guns for good purposes, not guns intended to kill people.

It amazes me that people automatically assume that guns are used to kill. You'll find that most guns sold by sport shops are used for target practice. A lesser number is used for acutal hunting and, of those, an even smaller number are used successfully to bag game.

The number of guns sold by sporting goods shops that are used to kill people or commit crime? Interesting, I'll bet it is a very small number. Especially when compared to the number of guns used for their intended purpose.

The number of guns advertised by sporting goods shops as weapons to kill people or commit crimes? ZERO.

When looked at from that angle does it still make sense to have Google protect us from sporting goods shops? If you answer yes then shouldn't they also protect us from car dealers?

Re:Activism

[Piquan]

Guns were useful agaisnt the Nazis, but think about it. Could the SS and the gas ovens been stopped by brave French equipped with hunting rifles?

Maybe they could have been stopped by Germans (not everybody was SS, ya know) if Hitler hadn't started off by outlawing guns in civilian hands.

Re:Activism

[Shelled]

Something I never understood about this line of reasoning, if guns are ineffective against a modernized army, how is complete civilian disarmament better? Wouldn't the logic conclusion be closer to that of the Swiss, military training and home storage of military weaponry? I'd prefer that to the option, for example, given the Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge.

Re:Activism

[Malcontent]

I think your arguments are silly. Sure maybe in the revelutionary war guns might have helped and even in subsequent wars guns kill off a few of the enemy but in no way are they successful in the modern world in defending your liberty.

Think about it. If all you said was true, if an armed populace could really repel a force then the afghans should have been able stop the US army. The palestenians could have thrown off the israeli occupation, the iraquis could have stopped the relentless bombing campaign against them. If molov cocktails could disable tanks then the israeli army would have no tanks left. Hell the palestenians can't even stop caterpillars with guns.

Molotov cocktails (which are not guns) and ak47s can't ever stop a determined air force or an invading army. The populace has to choose different weapons these days. The palestenians have seen the futility of handheld weapons against israeli tanks and have chosen high explosives. One day they will go to chemical and biological weapons because in reality those are the best weapons for fighting off an opressive occupying army. They are cheap, easy to manufacture and inflict tremendous damage. They are the molov cocktails of the future (perhaps the present).

Re:Activism

[stephanruby]

The primary use of guns is defense. The secondary use of guns is to kill and to fantasize about killing.

Re:Activism

[silentbozo]

As a people, the French were disarmed by the Germans. They wouldn't have been able to fight back, even if they had wanted to. To combat that, and to assist allied forces, the US developed one-shot pistols, made of cheap stamped metal, with a simple instruction sheet, that we dropped all over the countryside. The intent? To give the resistance a way to fighting back - not by using the one-shot pistol to assault the German forces, but by using that one shot to kill a German soldier and take his superior weapon.

I don't know if it worked or not, but it certainly wouldn't have been great for German morale for soldiers to get whacked by seemingly defenseless citizens, at random. Would that have won the war? Probably not, but it probably helped.

As it is, we beat up the Taliban, but Al Queda and Osama are still out there. Don't discount the power of 1000 barbarians with clubs and spears vs. a squad armed with machine guns. Where do you think the Afgahns got their weapons from? Mostly by taking them from the Russians!

I've heard in many cases that muggers, for instance, in highly armed neighborhoods will shoot the victim first off, because it's almost a certainty the victim is carrying blade or gun.

That seems like a logical thing for a criminal to do, but is that true? After all, if the whole neighborhood is armed, wouldn't it also be logical for them to then screen out all the punks who might decide to use their area as a hunting ground? The mugger only has to slip up once, and BLAM, the mugger is permanently removed. And what about the alternative? These days, muggers might just shoot you on sight just because it's fun. At least if you're armed, and you survive the initial confrontation (awareness is more valuable than armament - remember that), you can return fire.

I'd rather be able to defend myself, than to live as a defenseless sheep, at the mercy of an underfunded/understaffed police department, indifferent citizenry, and an overloaded justice system. Too bad it's almost impossible to get concealed carry permits in California, except for the rich, famous, and the politicians.

No gun in the hands of a citizen, or a million citizens, can "defend freedom".

Given that our army is a volunteer one, with a very large reserve/national guard contingent, that's a very large portion of the citizenry that is continually "defending freedom" on a daily basis. I'd bet that many of these part time, and full time citizen-soldiers, also privately own firearms. That's a lot of expertise in the hands of the citizenry, for good and for bad (witness the more extremist militia movements back in the 90's.)

The point that I'm getting to is that every government is made up of people, people who have been given by the populace (either willingly, or unwillingly) the power to govern. Enough people have to be willing to back the government, and enough people have to be willing to bend, in order for that government to be effective. However, it works both ways. If enough people decide not to bend (ie, our Rebel forefathers of the 18th century), and decide to back an alternative government, tyrannies that cannot be circumvented by legal means can be circumvented by extra-legal means.

I remember having a similar argument with my High School government teacher regarding the usefulness of the 2nd Amendment against a tyrannical government. She was of the opinion that with modern military might, the 2nd Amendment is useless - would you fight rocket launchers and tanks with a mere rifle? I pointed out that our superior military might didn't win us the battle in Vietnam, nor did it the Russians in Afghanistan (yes, we gave the Afghans Stinger missiles, but the Afghanis were doing plenty of damage on their own.) More importantly though, with our army being made up of citizens like you and I, a tyranny would have to secure absolute control over every piece of military hardware in order to prevent dissident units from making off with weapons, ammo, and equipment.

The rights of the government derive from the consent of the governed - including the right of self-defense and self-determination. If you believe that these rights are null and void, then we're already in trouble.

Re:Activism

[ONOIML8]

You're telling me that the primary use of guns is defense? I would agree if we were talking about guns in general, but we're not.

The issue here is about Google not carrying advertising from sport shops because they sell guns or gun parts. And you're saying that the guns sold by those businesses are primiarly used for defense?

I guess you and I shop in some very different stores!

At least in the U.S. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be legal for those stores to sell guns and advertise them as defensive weapons. I don't know.

I am aware of places like Cabellas that sell guns and other weapons to sportsmen for hunting or target shooting. At work we purchase weapons and such from places like Galls for public safety use.

Outside of military arms suppliers, who advertises weapons for sale to the public for defense?

Re:Activism

[Catbeller]

The point is this: armed civilians are, *nowadays*, irrelevant to modern military and police forces.

As Heinlein said, if a gun makes you feel ten feet tall and covered with hair, don't go armed. Guns and rifles don't win wars, armies do.

Americans have a history of wanting to feel ten feet tall and covered with hair. It's endearing, but not relevant to a real conflict. A rifle WAS the weapon to drive out the Redcoats and Hessians. Imagine, however, the Iraqis trying to stop our Scheduled Invasion(C) with brave militias crouching behind cars. Not going to happen. They may or may not have the right to bear arms. Irrelevant. They will die, when and if we choose to kill them.

And with the new Homeland Security (did they INTENTIONALLY recall Nazi memes with that hideous name?), the most rabid amongst us will be monitoring our movements and activities. Curious fact tho: Ashcroft is dead set against ANY intrusion on gun ownership, even in the face of a rainbow warning. Are we serious about a police state, or are we just fooling around? How can we have a decent police state if the guv doesn't even have a window on who owns the guns? I mean, if I were a terrorist, I'd be dancing through gun shows! Geez, if we're going to become Safe from Terror, we should at least keep track of where the guns are.

Re:Activism

[thenerd]

But then, guns don't defend people, people defend people.

Re:Activism

[Shelled]

If your government went totalitarian, it would be an occupation, not a normal war. The US military is already on US soil. No beach landings, tank battles or airstrikes, rendering a lot of technology irrelevant. Cruise missles and stealth bombers might be impressive on the evening news but against individuals they're useless and prohibitively expensive. Carpet bomb Atlanta? In the Iraqi case the US military faces a clearly defined opponent so the comparison isn't valid. A very large and well-armed Vietnam is a better analogy.

Part of the reason the Khmer Rouge and movements like them succeeded is that the population was completely helpless. Rounding up civilians for the killing fields was easy because the victims were unarmed. Government officials and politicians wouldn't be so inclined to take part if they knew the next walk to the car could be their last. Police forces wouldn't be so eager if they and their families were perpetually at risk. Imagine an occupying force facing a nation of Washington snipers. Take away the guns and the only risk to those joining a despotic government is to their conscience, and that hasn't proven an effective deterrent at any time.

Re:Activism

[21mhz]

...determined, self-righteous, God-appointed we're-doing-it-for-self-defense looney bin countries that convinced themselves they were only doing the right thing by attacking everyone else preemptively.

Excuse my offtopic-ness, but I can't help thinking that you may be hinting at some countries of today...

Re:Activism

[Malcontent]

"Obviously it takes tactics and modivation."

Are you suggesting that the palestenians are not motivated or that they are incapable of shceming up tactics? Only if you were in palestine you could destroy the israeli tanks with molotv cocktails? Are you really saying that?

"The PA operates against Civilians instead of military targets. "

that's because the weapons they have inflict no real damage on the military targets.

"At times Hamas and Hezbollah have scored major hits against IDF forces, the recent destruction of two Merkava Mk IIIs was a major victory, but it wasn't followed up."

Was that done with sidearms? rifles?

"If you look at the new Intafatah, you might see that the PA is on the verge of winning, I mean they currently have an autonomy."

Now you are really stretching it here. There are almost a million palestenians living under curfew, the IDF marches into and out of palestine at will, a thousand palestenians are killed every year by the IDF, more settlements are built every year and existing ones are expanded, it's almost legal for settlers to kill any palestenian that wanders near a settlement. The PA has no real authority, the palestenians are no closer to freedom then they were 10 years ago.

"Iraq can't stop the bombing campaign because thier military sucks, they are run by a mad dictator and thier military sucks."

Neither can their populace armed or not. It takes more then rifles to bring down stealth bombers.

"Afghanistan 1979-1988.
Vietnam 1954 and 1973 (Draw)
Somalia 1992-94
Beruit 1982-83
South Lebannon 1982-2000
Israel 1948-49
Yugoslavia 1941-45"

Sorry none of the above. All those conflicts involved the support of external forces, anti aircraft weapons, tanks, rockets and organized armies. Hardly the romantized ideal of a citizen militia repelling an armed invation.

Re:Activism

[ronaldcromwell]

Cars kill more people everyday than do guns. Google still advertises companies who sell car parts.

what kind of idiocy is this?

cars are designed with the intent to drive. guns are designed with the intent to kill. there is no 'safe' use for a gun. ALL they do is kill.

please rethink YOUR logic, as it's obviously flawed.

Re:Activism

[canadian_right]

Defense against what? People or animals? It seems to me that Americans are unique in thinking that a gun is a reasonable defense to be used against PEOPLE.

In Canada the primary use of guns is hunting and protection from animals, followed by target shooting. I've never heard anyone mention a gun as a defense against criminals. A gun at home should be locked up, the ammo locked seperately. If you can get your gun out fast enough for defense then it isn't stored safely.

Re:Activism

[10Ghz]

Vietnam 1954 and 1973 (Draw)

Excuse me, but how what that a draw? South-Vietnam was invaded and annexed. If you call that a draw, I would hate so see what losing is like!

Re:Activism

[stephanruby]

Defense against what? People or animals? It seems to me that Americans are unique in thinking that a gun is a reasonable defense to be used against PEOPLE.

Defense against people. Defense against getting raped/robbed/killed. Those things happen. Some people are a little bit paranoid perhaps, but some are not.

I've never heard anyone mention a gun as a defense against criminals.

That's not surprising. Your canadian neighbor doesn't have a gun. Your canadian police only wants guns for its own protection. And your Canadian news outlet only tells you about guns that have killed people. Unfortunatly, guns that have successfully been used for defense without having been fired don't get recorded and guns that have successfully been used for defense without having killed someone don't even make it to the news.

A gun at home should be locked up, the ammo locked seperately. If you can get your gun out fast enough for defense then it isn't stored safely.

Why do you say that? Are you saying that all crimes happen at home? And are you including homes who don't have kids within their walls?

Re:Activism

[10Ghz]

Oh I see... "We tucked our tail between our legs and ran before the entire thing came crashing down, so we didn't REALLY lose".

Since google isn't publicly held...

[hillct]

The owners can set whatever policies they see fit. It is, of course in their interest to set policies that do not alienate their userbase, and do not drive away advertisers. Given google's past success, it's reasonable to assume these sorts of considerations play into all their business decisions.

Specifically, on the issue of accepting ads for adult content, this is reasonable in the specific case of a search engine and especially in the case of google's AdWords mechanism, because the users who will see the ads for adult content, will only be those who are specifically searching for adult content. Google has been quite successful with their targeted advertising program, which makes it all the more valuable to it's niche advertisers such as adult content providers. So long as the ads are effectively targeted to users who are currently viewing search results containing sited having such content, ads for similar content shouldn't be an issue.

--CTH

Re:Since google isn't publicly held...

[miu]

The article mentions the problem of profit demand from shareholders leading to yahoo giving in on the obAds.

I'm sure Google will let shareholders know that positive user experience is part of the value of Google. Nothing would kill that value faster than a blinking, flashing, trashpage.

Google != Porn

[Znonymous Coward]

Who in the heck uses Google to find porn?

Newsgroups and P2P are the geeks porn engines >:)

Re:Google != Porn

[slipgun]

Who in the heck uses Google to find porn?

Likewise, who uses google to find places selling booze or baccy?

Re:Google != Porn

[NineNine]

I can tell you that thousands of people at least find my site daily! And let me tell ya', if you can get your porn site in good with Google, well, let's just say that money won't ever be a problem again.

Re:Google != Porn

[Znonymous Coward]

Interesting how many times MILF (or varations) shows up on that list.

I actually scored with a few MILFs. It was geat!

Values

[Z0mb1eman]

I am still amazed by the north american values that sex and nudity are BAD, and should be kept away from children at any cost, whereas violence is not...

Interesting article nonetheless, and fairly balanced. Seems Brin is using something that's in short supply nowadays - common sense. And there is (surprise surprise) a reference to Slashdot as well. To all those who generally just read the article summary and start posting, do read the article this time - it's fairly long, but it's worth it.

Re:Values

[hackstraw]

I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now. Why is sex suppressed and violence tolerated?

My recent theory is this. Both sex and violence are, for the most part, outlets for agressive tendancies in males, and there are other forms of agression, such as sports and competition. This agression is part of the male existance and must be outleted in some kind of way. Our society allows this aggression to be outletted via sports, competition, and "raw violence" like that shown on TV. However, aggression towards sexual avenues are suppressed because it is believed (primarily by women) that it will cause the male to leave them and the kids.

If you do not think that sex is aggression, listen how the work "fuck" is used. Look up the root for vagina. Don't you remember talking with the guys about a girl as if you were hunting? You know what I mean.

Re:Values

[Guppy06]

"I am still amazed by the north american values that sex and nudity are BAD,"

If certain members of French Parlement have their way, prostitution will be illegal. Which means there will be more legal prostitutes in the US than in France. IIRC, similar legislation is floating around in other European legislatures, legislation that is constitutionally barred from US Congress.

Maybe I'm just jaded..

[RaboKrabekian]

Maybe i'm jsu jaded, but I always thought that evil would always triumph because good is dumb.

Ever seen a porn ad on Google?

[miu]

The fact that the default SafeSearch setting prevents these ads from showing up seems reasonable.

Other Search Engines

[dirkdidit]

Last time I checked(it's been a few months), Excite would not have advertisements on their site having to do with alcohol and tobacco but gladly had porn adverts on search results(those search results had something to do with porn). So how is what Google doing any different than Excite? Or TV for that matter. You rarely see alcohol ads and never tobacco ads anymore. But go on late night TV and you'll see ads for all sorts of Adult Phone Services and for different Adult Videos. Personally, I think Google is just following the mainstream.

What Google and investors in it should think about

[Todd Knarr]

Google isn't successful because it's Google. It's successful because lots and lots of people like what it's doing now, the way it's doing it now. If you change too much of that in the search for profits you'll change the reason people prefer to use it, and they'll go somewhere else that does do what they prefer. And there goes the very source of your success and revenue: the users you attract.

If you want to invest in a successful company but think it needs to be changed significantly, ask yourself why you aren't investing in a successful company that already works the way you think it should. If that's because all the companies that work the way you think they should aren't successful, maybe it's what you think that should change, not what the successful company is.

Advertising not a problem

[Ed Avis]

I don't really care what advertising they choose to accept, because ads on Google are clearly identified as such. If they choose to lose income by not accepting advertising for certain products, that's their business. I'm much more concerned about the search results started being tainted by either paid placements or Scientology-style censorship.

Re:With all due respect

[pbur]

The only thing I disagree with you there is having to be raised "with religion" to be a good person. I don't buy it. As long as your parents taught you decent morals, you don *have* to have to religion to be a good person.

I think you need to prove that Porn is really bad

[ealar dlanvuli]

If your going to say porn should be censored because it makes you feel funny, then I'm going to say you need to be censored because you make me feel funny.

Oh wait, it doesn't work that way? Oh perhaps we shouldn't censor pornography then.

After all pornography is just pictures of people having sex. It's not like they are killing themselves or getting wasted.

Hard to defend a logical morality?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two groups of people in this world when it comes to morals.

One group "gets" their morality from "God". They say all morals are determined by a supreme omnipotent being, and without him, there is no morality. In other words, you cannot be a moral person without God.

A second group of people (the group that the Google guys likely belong to) believe that morals are simply unwritten rules that govern interactions between people. If there was only one person on the planet, there would be no need for morality. Their morality is usually determined by reason and logic. For instance, it's wrong to kill people (most of the time) because a society with rampant murder has less ability to advance than a society with no murder.

Many morals overlap with laws, but that does not mean that all morals should be made into laws. Murder is both usually immoral and illegal, but cutting in a line is immoral and not illegal.

The reason not all morals should be laws is simple. Those people who belong to group #1 have morals that have no basis in logic or reason, and their sole support is a being for which they have no evidence exists, and have no support that the "moral" indeed came from this being. In other words, the 1st Amendment protects us from this... Thanks Founding Fathers!

If you belong to group #2, it's hard to come up with a reason that porn is immoral. For porn to be immoral there must be something immoral with sex... I suppose one could argue that rampant sex could spread disease and hurt a society in the long run... but I don't really see how that applies to porn.

The Reagan administration told the NSF to do a study on how porn hurts kids. After 4 years of research, the panel told the administration that it is not porn that hurts children, it is our societies illogical, irrational, and puritanical views on sex that hurts kids. Just as there is little alcoholism in countries where wine is served to children and it becomes a normal part of life, there would be no harm to children if sex was not so taboo. Oh, by the way, Reagan threw the study out and commissioned a PRIEST to redo it. Not surprisingly, the Priest said porn hurts kids... and his "study" took less than a month.

In summary, it is quite easy to defend group #2's "scientific morality"... while it is certainly not as absolute as group #1's, as it needs to change as new evidence appears, it is far more likely to be the right thing to do.

Re:Hard to defend a logical morality?

[iangoldby]

In summary, it is quite easy to defend group #2's "scientific morality"

Not that easy...

For instance, it's wrong to kill people (most of the time) because a society with rampant murder has less ability to advance than a society with no murder.

But that only begs the question. It is a moral judgement itself that it is good for a society to advance. (Otherwise, why would you want to advance? And what do you mean by 'advance' anyway?)

Those people who belong to group #1 [who get their morality from God] have morals that have no basis in logic or reason

I don't recognise this. I believe all morality comes from God, but I also believe that God's morality works - it does have a basis in logic and reason. The Ten Commandments include things like do not steal, do not murder, do not lie, do not cheat on your wife/husband. Do you think these things have no basis in logic or reason?

Ok, that's enough feeding the troll 8-)

Re:Hard to defend a logical morality?

[Galvatron]

Okay, can you point to sociological studies which prove that societies with high rates of killing have less ability to advance? No? Then your morality isn't so logical after all. In fact, I seem to recall the Nazis producing some unbelievable technological advances, not to mention lifting their economy from a deep depression, and I hope that you don't consider them moral.

On the other hand, the porn industry is notoriously exploitative. The system is designed, much like in prostitution, to get the girls hooked on drugs, so that they have no choice but to continue working. Without people working to keep them down, perhaps some would be able to make a productive contribution to society, so by your "logical" morality, it would not be unreasonable to consider porn immoral.

Re:Hard to defend a logical morality?

[iangoldby]

I think to a certain extent we agree. I deliberately left out "Have no other gods" because if you don't believe God is the creator of the entire universe and of you, and if you don't believe that he is personally interested in you and you are personally accountable to him, then that one can't seem logical or reasonable. But if he is all those things, then to place another god before him would be to deny reality.

"[Wood] is man's fuel for burning... But he also fashions a god and worships it. Half of the wood he burns in the fire... and says 'Ah!, I am warm; I see the fire.' From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says 'Save me; you are my god.'" (Isaiah 44:15-17). Now that's illogical and unreasonable. Pick your own 'god'...

My point is this commandment is silly if God isn't God, but quite sensible and logical if he is. Unless one of us can prove the matter one way or the other, your attempt to label this a priori as 'silly' could be a little premature.

(BTW, I'd go along with both (1) and (2). I don't know why you say (1) demands morality comes from a source external to God. There's no conflict between a morality that is practical and works, and a morality that is entirely derived from the God who made up the rules of the universe.)

Re:Hard to defend a logical morality?

[Galvatron]

He details how without a government to monopolize force, societies never advanced much past hunter gather existance.

Okay, but a government monopolizing force is not the same thing as no immoral killings. In fact, the particular example I used was the Nazis, who did have a governmental monopoly on killing, but were still deeply immoral.

I know of no porn stars that do it because they are forced to.

Well, we can start with Linda Lovelace, generally considered the first real porn star. Yes, these cases are probably the minority, but I've never heard of someone being forced to, say, program computers. If the problems with prostitution were solely due to its illegality, then similar problems would not exist in pornography.

I know of few people who take that stance to support their view porn is immoral.

I take it you don't know many women? The exploitative nature of the industry, and many women would argue, the demeaning nature of the pornography itself, is a major reason why many women are against porn. Personally, I don't have any real problem with porn, I'm a big believer in personal responsability (if the women are being exploited, they ought to go to the police), but I'm just trying to point out that logic is not a basis for morality, because your underlying assumptions are always vunerable to attacks. At a certain point, you just have to say "this is what I believe, dammit." But don't BS yourself that your morality is somehow more worthy than someone else's.

Re:Hard to defend a logical morality?

[TheLink]

You said: 'Your 10 commandments also contains such silly rules as "Do not have other Gods before me". This violates freedom of religion. Something I for one think is a good thing.'
[Endquote]

Freedom of religion? You shouldn't say something is silly if you haven't tried understanding it.

Those commandments and other laws were part of Israel's contract/covenant with God. Go check it out if you don't believe me.

Do you think contracts with the clause "To be our master distributor you shall carry no other competing product" violate freedom of supplier? Don't sign then.

I don't know what you think we believe. But what we actually believe is not superstition. And from your responses it's obviously different from what you think we believe.

You tried to be insulting too. But, ironically you are right - ALL Christians believe they NEED HELP. In fact we believe every person needs help. We can't meet the grade[1] on our own.

Now the important question is:
Do you want help?

For God loves you and is willing to help you.

[1]
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?pa ssage=M ATT+5:21-28&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on &showxref=on

Re:Hard to defend a logical morality?

[SailorBob]

If you belong to group #2, it's hard to come up with a reason that porn is immoral. For porn to be immoral there must be something immoral with sex... I suppose one could argue that rampant sex could spread disease and hurt a society in the long run... but I don't really see how that applies to porn.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and try and give you a view that you've probably not heard.

First off, there's no logic to your statement that for porn to be immoral sex must somehow be immoral. Many secular left wing women's groups oppose porn on grounds that have nothing to do with religion.

For instance, members of the secular left wing (and many feel anti-religious) Meretz party voted last year to ban porn broadcasts from Israeli cable and satelite channels. Their arguement was that porn objectifies, humiliates and promotes violence against women. Now, I don't know if that can be objectively substantiated, but their objection to porn obviously had nothing to do with sex being immoral or with religious dictates.

Another example of the lack of connection between pron being considered immoral and sex being immoral is in Judaism. Religious Jews in general consider porn to be immoral, yet Judaism very strongly promotes recreational sex between husband and wife on a regular basis. A person's sexual energy should be focused on their life-partner and not on some other person.

Anyway, the point is that there are many secular and religious arguements against porn which have nothing to do with sex being immoral.

Re:Hard to defend a logical morality?

[jafac]

that's wrong.

People don't believe that without God, you cannot be a moral person.
They believe that without God, there's *no reason* for an individual person to be moral. And that's absolutely correct.

These people are still missing the point though - because that logic implies that God and Morals exist for a reason, to keep our behavior in check so we can survive as a species. That's just plain silly. Their cart is pulling their horse. Their problem is, they believe Morality is more important that God which ironically gives them the same justification for moral behavior as any atheist.

Re:With all due respect

[dissy]

That is the nice thing about freedom.
Goodgles CEO can decide what they want to do and not do, and you get to decide if you aggree or not and use them or someone else.

The KKK websites are most likely run in a way that would favour linking to sites about similar topics and refuse to link to pages not about the topics they want and deem 'right'.

That is their choice.

Just like its my choice to not go to their website ever.

Take away googles freedom to make this choice, and you have also taken away your freedom to choose _not_ to view sites such as the KKK's or anyone elses.

That isnt something I want.

Re:With all due respect

[Lars T.]

You make it sound like being brought up religiously and being racially prejudiced doesn't often go hand in hand.

Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective

[boa13]

My wife is a pornography addict, (...) I plan on writing a letter to Sergey Brin at Google and encouraging him to stop linking to demeaning, relationship-ruining pornography.

Are you real?

Re:With all due respect

[Some Dumbass...]

I don't mean to flame folks here, but what if another company decided that their entire philosophy revolved around what their own CEO thought about things?

Isn't that what a CEO's job is?

What if this CEO was raised poorly, and without religion, and generally was a mean, racially prejucided man?

What makes you think they aren't? The fact that they're successful?

Also, why in the world do you think that those things are related? Plenty of religious people are prejudiced, for example (against other religions, if nothing else!)

Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife is a pornography addict, always buying a new DVD when we travel and she sees a new shop of adult toys. We don't really make love anymore, it's just sex.
Can I have her email address?

Moral dilemmas

[teutonic_leech]

Isn't it time for us to come down our moral high horse and take refreshed look at what/who we are demonizing in our 'modern' culture? Things are so topsy-turfy especially in the U.S. media landscape one can't help but be bewildered sometimes. Violence is mostly okay - how many times there are guns being fired at people during PG-13 rated TV shows? Some blood may flow, but if some bimbo reveals one of her private parts, then we file it under 'dirty' and it'll get cut. What's the big deal about exposing the human body in its original form? Obviously sex is a daily routine on our planet which has allowed us to grow our population to over 6 billion (despite countless wars and numerous forms of genocite). Little kids grow up among many negative influences including but not limited to: beatings, lying cheating, verbal abuse, agression, road rage, Duke Nukem, Super Mario Bros. etc.. Why in the world is sex and nudity labelled as 'dirty'? It's time to relinquish those antiquated religious artifacts and enter the 21st century.

Re:Moral dilemmas

[goon america]

Isn't it time for us to come down our moral high horse and take refreshed look at what/who we are demonizing in our 'modern' culture?

Ho, ho, ho! Name any time in history when people really questioned what they were doing. Most people don't actually realize or think about why they really think something. It's nice to abstract away and say "X belief should be changed" but good luck actually getting it to happen.

[P.S. you listed Super Mario Bros. as a negative influence! They're just plumbers trying to earn an honest living (collecting gold coins), save princesses and uhh eating special mushrooms...]

The PROOF that google is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is evil!

**** THE PROOF THAT google IS EVIL ****

G O O G L E
7 15 15 7 12 5 - as numbers
7 6 6 7 3 5 - digits added
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_____/
7 6 6 7 8 - digits added

Thus, "google" is 76678.

Turn the number backwards, and add 111 - the only triplet that can ever be prime. The number is now 87778.

Subtract 1181, the year UFO was first observed in China and Japan. The result will be 86597.

Turn the number backwards, and add 1970 - the year IBM announced S/370. The number is now 81538.

Add 12 to it - this is the symbol of the greater sin, written backwards - you will get 81550.

Turn the number backwards, subtract 1977 - the year Elvis left the planet. The number is now 3541.

This number, read as octal, gives 1889 - the year Adolf Hitler was born.

This is truly evil. QED.

Re:The PROOF that google is evil

[AndrewRUK]

There's a better proof of google's evilness.

Counting from the start of the alphabet, we can assign the letters of the name 'Google' the numbers:
G o o g l e
7 15 15 7 12 5
which, when added together, total 61.
Now, we can also assign numbers to the letters from their ascii codes, thus:
G o o g l e
71 111 111 103 108 101
which sum to 605.
Combining these two numerical representations of 'Google', we get 605 + 61 = 666!!!
Google is the devil!!!!

Re:The PROOF that google is evil

[j7953]

> read as octal, gives 1889

Definitely not.

I think you misunderstood the parent of your post. It didn't say "converting 3541 into an octal number," it said "reading 3541 as octal" (i.e., as if it were an octal number), which in fact gives 1889.

More simply: 3541 octal == 1889 decimal.

Re:With all due respect

[OAB]

With all due respect - READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE

This is about ads, not the index.

Your post sounds good at first, but upon deeper exploration you'll see that it's:

a.) Childish
b.) Poorly thought-out
c.) Discriminatory
d.) A disservice to Internet users

Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective

[tempest303]

My g/f and I look at pr0n all the time, and it's improved our sex life.

Maybe the reason you're having so many problems is that you're just bad in the sack? ;)

Cigs/Booze vs Pr0n

[E-Rock-23]

It's not hard to figure out his reasoning here. Cigs and Booze are choices that people make at the ages of 18 and 21 respectively. Both can hurt you immensely (cancer anyone?).

Now, porn on the other hand, isn't a choice made at a certain age. Sex is a part of life. And while it can hurt you (STDs, Early Age Pregnancy, Child Support, etc.), it's not likely going to kill you. Sex is part of human instinct. Every species on the planet is born with the intuition to further itself through breeding. The only reason sex is considered "evil" in the mainstream is because of Religious Zealots who want you to think it's a sin.

It looks like it's just a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. If Google were to go public, I'd buy, porn or no porn. It'd just be a sound investment. I'm a big user of Google, as many other people are, I'm sure (well, those who change their default search from MSN to Google, anyway).

Re:Cigs/Booze vs Pr0n

[ONOIML8]

"Cigs and Booze are choices that people make..."

That's right, they are choices. They, in themselves are not evil. The evil part might come in when people favor the self-destructive option of that choice.

But that would be their decision, wouldn't it.

To make that decision they should have information available to them on both sides of the issue. With Google censoring that information those people could not make a properly informed, intelligent decision (if they only used google).

Perhaps the greatest evil involved here then is censorship.

Should there be a GNU-Google?

[abe ferlman]

I have depended quite a bit on google for a while. They have succeeded so far in not being evil for the most part.

But a good search engine is such a fundamental part of the infrastructure of the internet- is it really wise to continue to depend on a company that makes no promises that tomorrow they won't start charging $100/month subscription to their service and patent-attack any competitors who get too successful?

Clearly my example, although possible, is far fetched. But I feel good using Gnu-Linux because RMS, Linus and others have promised, via the GPL, not to take it away. Can/should google or one of its competitors make a similar promise?

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[stevey]

I was thinking of this recently actually, and came up with a prototype system for searching.

Essentially most people have their favourite areas of the web, which they visit frequently and probably cover their hobbies and interests.

What would be ideal then, would be to share peoples these links in some way. One obvious way of doing this is a Peer-to-peer bookmark searching system.

People essentially share their bookmarks.html file/favourites folders with other users - and then searches are conducted by asking for 'links with $foo in their title/url'.

Seems simple enough; but it would obviously only work if enough people shared their bookmarks; which might not be easy if people bookmark 'private' sites, or could be traced.

(Anybody wanting to discuss this; or interested in the idea feel free to drop me a mail or something)

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[gl4ss]

i don't know how you could make such promise for bucketloads of hardware and bandwith that are needed ..

for the algorithms maybe though...

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[jtdubs]

The GPL is no more a promise than that you are saying about google. The thing about licenses is that you are allowed to change them whenever you want. Yes, you can be guaranteed to always be able to use your current version of software under the GPL, but the FSF could suddenly decide to do all new development under a different license and you'd be left with obsolete free software.

Justin Dubs

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[dissy]

You can buy a rackmount machine with the google software on it from google.

They market these to companys for search engines just for their site, but obviously you could configure it however you please.

http://www.google.com/appliance/index.html
(Or click Search Solutions link on their main page)

Granted this isnt just the software, but it proves there is no need to rely on googles configuration or hardware if you dont want to.

Something to look into atleast :)

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[NineNine]

A. There's no way that GNU anything would ever pay for the servers and bandwidth that Google eats up.

B. Subscription for what, searching? Why would they charge for that?

C. They already charge for ads. They're making a profit and doing just fine.

D. If you're talking about placement, they already don't guarantee anything as far as regular results, so that's not an issue.

Not everything makes sense to be GNU-whatever. The only reason that there's Gnu-Linux is because there are a lot of college kids with too much time on their hands and no bills to pay.

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[iangoldby]

But I feel good using Gnu-Linux because RMS, Linus and others have promised, via the GPL, not to take it away. Can/should google or one of its competitors make a similar promise?

Comparing Google with non-free software is like comparing apples with oranges. Unlike users of certain non-free software, no one is locked into using Google. As the article says, it would not be a problem for anyone to switch to a different search engine if Google lost its position of leader of the pack.

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[dh003i]

If the FSF were to start from scratch, yes it could develop new packages under any license.

But it can't modify currently GPL'ed software and put it under a diff. license.

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[abe ferlman]

GNU wouldn't pay for the hardware, that's true. But no one is working on a software-libre search engine because google is adequate. I'm only talking about the software, obviously it's possible to subsidize searching in other ways. I'm just thinking, what if Google closed their doors tomorrow? I'd be less intelligent because without google, I'm considerably farther away from finding the answer to any question I have. Yes, I'm serious.


B. Subscription for what, searching? Why would they charge for that?

C. They already charge for ads. They're making a profit and doing just fine.


If C. stops being true, or if management has a change of heart or personnel and gets greedy, then yes, a subscription for searching.

I'm not talkinb about placement.

Not everything makes sense to be GNU-whatever. The only reason that there's Gnu-Linux is because there are a lot of college kids with too much time on their hands and no bills to pay.

I would attend Red Hat University if you weren't so obviously wrong.

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[dh003i]

Yes, which means that though the FSF could (though they won't) do something outrageous like that, as soon as they did, someone else could fork. The FS/OSS fork would succeed, while the proprietary one would fail.

Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?

[Piquan]

Actually, they couldn't. There's a lot of code in some of the FSF's software that, when it was contributed, the FSF signed papers to the contributor agreeing that it would always remain free.

It's Google's decision

[orthogonal]

I don't care what Google will or will not advertise; it's Google's site, it's Google's decision.

(Myself, I wouldn't advertise sugary children's cereals, although I enjoy Sugar-Bombs, booze, smokes, and tasteful images of goats getting it on.)

I would care if Google were censoring or slanting search results.

(Yes, I'm aware they've removed certain links after being compelled by law suit; as i understand, Google's results also make it clear when that's happened.)

Re:It's Google's decision

[Erasmus Darwin]

They've done that at times. For example, the humor site somethingawful.com (delibrately not linked to avoid bandwidth problems) was missing from google's pages for a few months. When contacted on the issue, all they would do was cryptically cite their policy of removing abusive sites (presumably stuff like link farms that artificially inflate ratins), and they would say that they couldn't discuss the particular reason this site was removed. Within the past week, the site popped back up with no explaination, and no further action on the part of the webmaster.

Re:With all due respect

[Angram]

Sorry, but that's not very well thought out. There is nothing childish about sticking to your morals. Anyone who compromises their morals and ethics for profic is someone I don't trust. If the CEO is a racist, I'd like to know it. I decide where I spend my money, and given the choice of pockets, I'd give it to the guy whose morals I agree with. Oh, and what the hell are you basing your 'Brin can/will become a racist' point on? What's the difference, anyway? If he becomes a racist, then change. You can't go around not trusting people because of what they can or might do. Cynicism is fine, but not when you make it so extreme.

You say you can't trust someone for being honest? That's preposterous. Would you do business with a lying money whore?

I have long said that there is nothing worse than a lie, and I stand by it. If you're a racist, I'd rather know it than have you keep it secret. If you want me dead, let me know, then at least I can defend myself.

"Poorly though-out" is the definition of your comments. I choose to do business with people who are honest and stick to their guns. I may not agree with Howard Stern, et al., but at least they say what they think, and don't change to make more money.

The biggest issue I have with your post is actually one that most people overlook. You list "without religion" in your list of 'evil' traits. It's no secret that religion has nothing to do with morality. Atheists are no more 'evil' than priests, rabbis, or any other religious folk. Your statement is a prejudiced one, and one that I don't agree with. But again, I'm happier having heard it, because it lets me get a clearer picture of you and your mind. I can easily tell, by that statement alone, that you aren't my kind of person. I'm honest, I'm atheist, and I'm moralistic (The Pierce Code). Deal with it. Religion isn't all it's cracked up to be, and your point isn't either.

Google is profitable

[Animats]

Repeat after me: "Google is profitable". That means they're doing it right. None of the now-dead dot-coms on Deathwatch were profitable. Google makes money doing what it does. They can continue to do so indefinitely. That's what's supposed to happen.

There was a tendency, fueled by Wall Street and those idiots on "Squawk Box", to claim that growth without profits was an end in itself. After the dot-com debacle, and the collapses of Enron and WorldCom, that's over. Investors now want to see profits.

Remember, it's tired old Wired that published the article. They were cheerleaders of the dot-com boom and all its stupidities. And they're the people whose IPO failed. Twice. Wired isn't even a magazine with real content any more; it's more like a Sharper Image catalog, full of huge "articles" advertising consumer products.

Straw man

[ElMiguel]

What happens if Brin one day is the victim of a hate crime by a white person? Will he start blocking Google from indexing predominantly white Web sites such as J. Crew, Kuro5hin, or the New York Islanders home page?

I, for one, will no longer visit Google because I simply can't trust them anymore. I urge others to as well.

You're calling for a Google boycott with the only base of your own wild extrapolation. Google is only refusing some advertising, not turning into some kind of censorware. To this day Google has not given the slightest indication that they will do something so grave as deliberately omitting sites from their index because of their ideology. Your reaction is ridiculous and exaggerated.

First porn on Yahoo!?!?

[StringBlade]

...Now I feel old. My first porn required the use of a 2400bps modem, a local BBS, and a pilfered (or fraudulent) login and password.

Must publically held mean no morals?

[jerryasher]

There is this (Milton Friedman I believe) argument that public companies must only do the most profitable thing for their investors.

More and more as companies grow from small to large, they must sacrifice the moral visions of their founders and early years to always take on the next most profitable venture.

Paraphrased, "It is better for investors to give their money to the charity of their choice than for a company to do that for them."

Screw long term environmental projects and the better return and new (and better?) opportunities for the company. Go for the short term payoff. Screw long term employee productivity and how that can add to the bottom line. Go for hard working, miserable, short term employees. Go for CEO to avg wage ratios of over 400.

When Sergey Brin says no to meta-tags in 1999, that is controversial but visionary. When Sergey Brin says no to cigarette ads, that is controversial and offensive to the free market.

And we wonder how the CEO/CFO/board became so disconnected and downright corrupt?

It's Milton Friedman and this chain of logic, that begins by saying that public companies should have no morals other than make the most money in the quickest time.

Scr*w you Milt and your Nob Hill apartment.

Thank you Sergey Brin, and even, thank you Bill Gates (tenuous reach?): for creating companies that have definite personalities, and definite moral stances (though you and I may not agree with all of them.)

Re:Must publically held mean no morals?

[jerryasher]

The NPV equation won't have much to do with it, besides the fact that earnings in the future are discounted in an exponential fashion relative to earlier earnings. So throw in a discounted cost of capital of 15% to your NPV equation, and tell me where the bias is: is it to short term cash flows or long term cash flows?

Toss in the average stay of a CEO of two years and CEO incentive stock options tied to the share price.

So when you tell the CEO and board that for the next eight quarters our new employee retention will depress our earnings but after that we expect earnings to grow at two percent more per annum, what is that CEO and board incented to do?

An affront to democratic ideals? It's my money. If I want to invest in a google that doesn't take cigarette ads because I believe in the founder and his board and the people that follow his dream, that should be my decision, not yours nor *your* elected representatives. Let's let government govern least. Once Caesar has his due, Caesar can do with it, but not until then. Until then, if Sergey believes that the best thing for his company is not to take cigarette ads, well, I'll give my money to Sergey.

Why would we give companies the rights of people, including freedom of speech, but then take away their right to choose how they earn their money?

If you don't like what Sergey does, find another investment. Just because you like only half of what he does, what gives you the right to tell him not to do the other things?

Re:Must publically held mean no morals?

[jerryasher]

So you say that: "managers must do things that will increase shareholder value" and I had said that: "must only do the most profitable thing for their investors." and "make the most money in the quickest time". The first thing I said has to be in complete agreement with what you said, right? So your argument is over the second clause. Well, ultimately stock price has to be the NPV of cash flows right?

Toss in two factors:
a) cost of capital of about 15% or more
b) market prediction meaurement problems
(when the boys in marketing and finance
can't see that the bottom is about to fall
out of the asbestos market and keep
estimating it with a straight line (-x**2
as opposed to 1.2x, or
when they estimate cyclical markets with
a straight line (DOW 36000) sin(t) as
opposed to 1.2t, or when they mis predict
(on purpose perhaps?) emerging markets
trains(t) = 1.3t forever vs.
trains(t) = 1/t and planes(t) = 1.3t)

So if you don't/can't/won't accurately forecast where the market is going and you are faced with factors that penalize you harshly for taking risk, then the institutional bias is to the short term.

I am not angry about bad business decisions. I am angry about an insitutional bias towards the short term and a refusal to acknowledge that. I am angry that we give corporations more rights than people but we don't penalize them the same nor do we expect as much from them.

Sheesh, Seinfeld and his buddies got thrown in jail for not caring. THAT'S the behavior that Friedman demands of corporations.

(Yes, I use Friedman as a whipping boy w/o really knowing of what he says apart from various interviews and hearing what others say of him. If I am wrong about that, I humbly beg of Milt to invite me for dinner up in Nob Hill and I will very graciously apologize.)

Re:Must publically held mean no morals?

[jerryasher]

I mean that tying the remuneration of management to short term share price over long term share price is a bad thing, esp. when the tenure of a CxO is relatively short.

It biases them towards short term profits and not what is good for the company over the longer term.

Yes, I understand that the market is efficient. Not, you silly sock puppet. Finance professors have been abandoning that canard the past few semesters. Care to buy some Enron, Worldcom, or Netscape?

I believe that "peoples' opinions should be weighted by the size of their wallets"? Non sequitor. Does not compute. Norman, coordinate.

Re:Must publically held mean no morals?

[jerryasher]

Just because the system can be gamed doesn't mean that the system is fundamentally wrong.

It may not be fundamentally wrong, but it is, I think you may agree, wrong in some degree. If it is wrong in some degree and of value, I think it is worthy to think of ways of changing the system. I think there are a lot of people that would not agree the system is wrong to any degree.

But also, if we agree the system isn't perfect, than we can remove the religious/absolutist position that a company should only follow the path of most profitability for the investor. And we can understand that there is no way to measure what that path would be anyway. All we can do when someone demands we follow such a path is to realize they are asking us to remove our judgment and use their's (Friedman's?) instead.

Fooey!

If the path of most profitability is a judgment, if I as an investor have a portfolio of choices to make, if there is a reasonably efficient market so that I can trade freely with lots of information, than I, as an investor, want the management of the company I invest in to make money the best way *they see fit*. Not the best way of Milton.

I am not condoning illegal, unethical, unregulated activities. I am saying that if a company has two choices A or B, and Milty suggests choice A but management prefers choice B, well, I want to see the company take choice B. I believe Milton's choice is a copout for management and investotrs. Making management actually make a choice makes them much more responsible for the company outcomes to investors, employees, and community. And I believe, it makes information about management, who they are, how they lead, etc., much more visible to the investor.

Re:

[mao che minh]

The only moral objections against pornography comes from certain religious belief systems or cultural taboos. Humans procreate in order to further the species, there is nothing wrong with enjoying that act, partaking in it as much as possible (responsibly), or by glorifying it.

My statement excludes Japanese porn, of course. I don't mind watching an attractive and nimble Asian lady take it from behind while partially wearing a Catholic school girl's uniform, I just hate the part when the octopus demon slithers on screen and takes a dump on her forehead. There is something very wrong with that.

Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective

[carpe_noctem]

Even though your post is an obvious troll, I will reply anyways because it is a Sunday morning and I've got nothing better to do. ;)

At any rate, pornography is the -middleman- here. It, like any inanimate object, is not inherently responsible for how people decide to use/misuse it. This is essentially the same as saying that the Internet is bad because P2P has wrecked the music business.

Like the music business, you need to learn how to adapt to these changes, rather than coming online to gripe about them in hopes that you'll find symathizers for your poor, wretched life. Ever watched porn with your spouse? I bet not. I bet you'd find the idea embarassing and repulsive. And I bet that's the exact sentiment and emotional circumstance that would drive your wife to look at porn.

Google, and corporate responsibility,

[Minupla]

Google, as a privately owned company has as much right to hold an opinion as I do. While I might not agree with every decision (and I don't) they've ever made, I applaud that they have the courage to do so. If more companies had the courage of their convictions, the corporate landscape would have a lot less festering swamps, in my opinion, and maybe we'd have had a couple less Enrons.

It's also worth pointing out that they understand that their decisions implicate a world stage. Google isn't a mom and pop store on mainstreet, small town USA. They have a large chunk of the world looking at them, and understand that with that power, comes responsibility. I don't see any evidence that they have used that power irresponsably yet.

Re:Google, and corporate responsibility,

[ONOIML8]

" I don't see any evidence that they have used that power irresponsably yet."

You don't see censorship as irresponsible?

Re:Google, and corporate responsibility,

[ctid]

You're posting like an idiot, matey. Google doesn't have any power over you or anyone else. If you think that google is the internet, you're an idiot and deserve to be exploited.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that because a newspaper prints certain stories and doesn't print others, it is "censoring" the news. But they're just not printing stuff; they can't prevent a reader from finding the "missing" stories elsewhere.

Google is a business and as such they are going to make arbitrary decisions that you don't like. Your best response to these decisions is to find another search engine which doesn't make decisions like this, if it bothers you so much.

Re:How to decide if something is immoral

[orthogonal]

How many of us would want to have sex in front of our parents? Even if we're married? Some things are just privite [sic; now note how I quote the OP out of context], my mom refused to go to any of the choreographed sword fights I was in, for that kind of reason

(Out of context quote.)

Dude, if you refer to sex as "choreographed sword fights", no wonder your Mom didn't want to see it.

You must have seen Star Wars once too often as a kid.

Evil is Just Fine for Google

[PissingInTheWind]

Searched the web for evil.
Results 1 - 10 of about 10,400,000.
Search took 0.10 seconds.

Re:Evil is Just Fine for Google

[Skiboo]

Searched the web for good.

Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000,000.
Search took 0.07 seconds.

It will be interesting to see if these numbers change if they go public....

I surrender.

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't be stopped. Moderators are truely idiots. You have posted almost non-stop for three days karma whoring, google trolling (whoever came up with that term should be commended) and baiting like crazy and continue to be modded up, no matter what. You've probably been capped by now. I don't know if you've bribed an editor or what, but man...

So, this is my last time (other ACs feel free) - hey everyone, SteweyGriffin is none other than ekrout, a known troll who often contradicts his own statements in the same thread, whores fans to have a large pool of moderators who see him at a +? score, trolls and will undoubtedly sweep the trollback for the weekend (links under his other posts can be found, including his post that proudly shows his reply and moderation amounts - look here you fools (wow - never noticed that the sid for trolltalk was 31337... that's funny). Stop modding him up. Or don't, I don't care anymore. Color me impressed, I surrender.

oblig. Simpsons reference

[tempest303]

"Man, I don't even know anymore..."

Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective

[dissy]

Seems this is the first serious reply to your post so far.. So hope it is taken with more seriousness than the previous ones.

While i aggree in part with your post, there are things that just seem wrong from the way you projected your opinions.

Porn can be bad if it is used as a teacher.
Porn itself is not bad.

For example, porn as a teacher is bad for, among other reasons:

* It teaches that women arnt beautiful unless they have D +breast and/or implants, and that they need to shave their public hair to be attractive.
Both of those are quailitys i personally hate, and feel a woman should do to her body what SHE wants, not what she feels everyone else wants.

* It teaches that sex is over once the man has an oragasm, and that female oragams isnt importaint at all.

* It teaches that foreplay is only used as preperation for intercourse, not as a source of pleasure or as a equal part of love making.

* It teaches that you must be limited in the sexual acts you can do, namley only the things done in porn, and nothing else is OK.

So if a person learns about sex from porn, and nothing else, of _course_ they will be a horible lover.

Being a good lover requires learning about your partner, what they like, what they dont like, and responding to their needs while at the same time they are doing the same to you.

My question to you is, did you try to teach your wife yourself how to be a good lover as well?

If not, then its no wonder she is how she is, and you have no room to complain about it. TEACH HER!

If so, then I would question your teaching methods, your communication with her, or possibly her love (Read: concern) about you.

I have met women who were horible lovers, but I did my best to teach them otherwise, and in most cases did so very well.

But dont blame porn for teaching poor love making anymore than you should blame the internet or TV for being a poor babysitter.
That isnt what they are for at all. But that doesnt mean they dont have good uses and still have a place in the world.

Re:NAMBLA

[GoldDog]

[thing-about-NAMBLA] You can search for it on Google and surely enough, it's right there on the top. So what does this say about Sergey Brin?

Not much. It says more about you and your reasoning.
This is about ads and making choices about who to sell them to.
I don't see google actually blocking searches for booze,guns and tobacco, they just choose not to sell adspace to those industries.

They also index sites concerning rape, murder, war, hate crimes and a lot of other generally considered evils. But they don't sell ads for them.

Your argument is a logical fallacy and detrimental to the discussion. You are the weakest link, goodbye =)

Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective

[NineNine]

But keep in mind that your wife is a tiny, tiny minority. People also get addicted to shopping, video games, you name it. You can't just start censoring everything that a few people get unhealthily addicted to. Just because your wife has a problem (or maybe you just don't do it for her?), doesn't mean that millions of sexually healthy people should also be deprived of porn. Most sex therapists say that porn in completely healthy and normal for most relationships.

Re:With all due respect

[nagora]

What if this CEO was raised poorly, and without religion, and generally was a mean, racially prejucided man?

Religion breeds evil, indeed many require it to exist so that people can be frightened into doing what they're told ("Be good (as defined by us) or the devil will get you when you die").

What happens if Brin one day is the victim of a hate crime by a white person? Will he start blocking Google from indexing predominantly white Web sites such as J. Crew, Kuro5hin, or the New York Islanders home page?

Then do your own. All you're saying is that you don't want Google to have an opinion unless it matches yours.

I, for one, will no longer visit Google because I simply can't trust them anymore.

Don't talk shite. The policy is there for you to see and if it changes it will be too. Trust comes from information about what they are doing, not from them just pretending to be some sort of super-amoral web bucket so that you never have to actually do some thinking.

TWW

Re:(-1, plain stupid)

[Warped-Reality]

Not really. Most guns manufactured are sold for the purpose of a) making holes in paper b) making holes in animals. Their ability to kill people is a side-effect of b.

There are far more incidents where people use guns to ward off attackers then there are of people who kill people with. (IIRC someone posted numbers above)

Re:Porn isn't really benign

[EllF]

You know, as a liberal, I find the idea that I'm supposedly so weak-willed that I can't look at Bad Things without being "changed" against my will really offensive, or that anyone should have the right to change what I have access to under the pretense of acting in my interests.

Guess what? I have a mind of my own, just as the women who decide to do pornography do. Some of them do it because of their financial or social circumstances, some do it by choice. Neither the producers nor the consumers of pornographic material are doing something inherently wrong in interacting with the porno industry. There may be instances of wrongdoing, but they do not mean that every piece of porno is somehow terrible.

Censorship is Evil

[ONOIML8]

"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil."

Evil, says /. poster ONOIML8, is censorship. Be it by government, religious cult group, or privately held company in the "information technology" business.

Yes, you may quote me on that.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[sheriff_p]

Why, what is fundamentally evil about censorship? Can you give one even vaguely logical reason, without diving into the myre of vacuous religious proofs?

No, I didn't think so. But thanks for trying to make stand.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[Snaller]

Yes, you may quote me on that.

Except we wont, since you're a fool - they are choosing with whom to do business - that's not censorship.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[ONOIML8]

Yes I can, but from the tone of your post it sounds like you won't be very receptive.

As a religious example: Suppose that I tell you that Satan is the one true god. You must serve his every wish. Then I censor your information stream so that anything to the contrary is not included. How then do you make an intelligent, informed decision? You can't, you will conclude that what I say must be true.

As a commercial example: You wish to purchase a car. I filter your incomming information so that only a select few brands are known to you. Of those brands only negative information is allowed for certain brands, only favorable information is allowed on others. Your choice for purchase then would be very much biased toward my ideas and my goals....which may very well be evil.

Thanks for playing devils advocate here. But I think that it's pretty obvious that censorship is a bad thing.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[ONOIML8]

They provide an information service to the public. They edit that information based upon thier personal beliefs.

You're right, I'm a fool. I guess that I don't really understand censorship.

Funny tho because when my library, who provides an information service to the public, edited or deleted content because of the personal beliefs of the board of directors it was called censorship. I didn't call it that, there were many people who did including those who make our laws and govern our country. There were many educated people who call it that.

Maybe you can explain it to me and to them.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[Jeremiah Blatz]

ONOIML8 sez:
"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil."

Evil, says /. poster ONOIML8, is censorship. Be it by government, religious cult group, or privately held company in the "information technology" business.

That's nice. Now, let's say that some government imposes censorship over 20% of some body of information. Now, say that you can reduce this to 3%. Is it evil for you to do so? Note that you still can't get to AltaVista from China because they weren't, in your view, evil.

Say that you operate in a country that condones some types of censorship. Do you comply with that censorship and allow people to get at the other stuff, or do you resist and just get shut down?

Your statement is hard to disagree with, but not actually that useful. Arguably, Google's censorship reduces the amount of restriction of information in the world.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[shylock0]

You've got an interesting point, and I see where you are coming from -- I believe in unrestricted free speech myself -- but I also firmly believe that there are no moral absolutes. Pretty much no one-word action -- censorship included -- can be considered completely evil.

That said, Google has a right to decide advertising as it sees fit. The decision to allow or disallow certain types of advertising is indeed censoring material, and Google has every right to do so.

They also have a right to block from their search engine whatever material they find objectionable. However, in that case, the censorship is indeed evil -- unless Google makes it explicity clear that the information is filtered.

In summation: filtering of advertising, not evil. Filtering of information: evil. Anybody who confuses advertising with information: needs to think about what planet they're living on.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[ONOIML8]

I agree. As long as they are up front and open about what they are censoring and why, I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have a problem with it as they are not the sole source of information.

It's still evil, still wrong, but for them maybe a necessary evil to support what they believe are issues of greater importance. I understand that we all have to do ugly things sometimes in order to support what we feel is the greater good. It still doesn't make those ugly things right.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[Chester K]

Evil, says /. poster ONOIML8, is censorship. Be it by government, religious cult group, or privately held company in the "information technology" business.

Yes, you may quote me on that.

In other news today, Slashdot poster ONOIML8, by trivalizing a private entities right to restrictions on their products and services, called Linux and the GPL "evil" for forbidding users from expressing themselves by distributing modified binaries without distributing correlating modified source code! When reached for comment, ONOIML8 said, "you may quote me on that."

Re:Censorship is Evil

[ONOIML8]

So you're saying that if I commit an act with a good intention, that act is not wrong?

If I rob you to feed my family, that is ok? If I rape your sister to satisify my urge in order that my urge doesn't grow to where I desire to rape your daughter, then it's ok? If I kill someone because they attempted to kill me, even if I could have simply wounded them, it's ok?

No, sometimes you might commit an evil act in the name of what you believe to be good but it does not make that act any less evil or ugly.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[ONOIML8]

LMAO!

Somebody please give him a +1 funny!!!!

Re:Censorship is Evil

[Snaller]

They provide an information service to the public.

For which they need to pay.

They edit that information based upon thier personal beliefs.

Not so much - they have removed certain items from their cache when threated with lawsuits (that the presumably didn't think they could win)


You're right, I'm a fool. I guess that I don't really understand censorship.

I was rude to call you a fool, I apologize.

However, I would not call it censorship if, say, a newspaper decides they don't want to run a certain kind of add. I may call them a lot of other things (prudish, stupid, pathetic, etc) but after all, it is their newspaper. Its when states and governments try to twist or suppress things i would call it censorship.

Funny tho because when my library, who provides an information service to the public, edited or deleted content because of the personal beliefs of the board of directors it was called censorship. I didn't call it that, there were many people who did including those who make our laws and govern our country. There were many educated people who call it that.

Well, I don't know about the specific situation, but on the face of it, I would also call it that. But then a library is generally supposed to be an unbaised repository of knowledge for the people (usually support by the state to varing degrees)

Maybe you can explain it to me and to them.

You *did* get that it was advertizing? That the people who run Google don't want to run certain kinds of adds on *their* website? It has nothing to do with the links to *other* websites.

Re:Censorship is Evil

[Idarubicin]

They provide an information service to the public. They edit that information based upon thier personal beliefs.

Well, no. Google does pull sites from its database that have deliberately manipulated rankings. They may also pull sites when compelled to do so by law. Under those circumstances, they have been known to submit information to chillingeffects.org. I haven't noticed them editing or censoring information based on their beliefs.

They have chosen not to accept advertising money from certain groups. If you search Google, I'm quite sure that you will find all the uncensored information that you could possibly want about tobacco, alcohol, and firearms. (And pornography, for that matter.) Traditional media outlets regularly make decisions about the advertising that they will or will not accept, as do other web sites. (You don't think CNN monitors its banner providers' content?) Why shouldn't Google be allowed to do the same, according to their own particular moral lights?

And here I thought...

[Hubert_Shrump]

Good and Evil were just a construct of human consciousness. Silly me.

They're a product of search engine ad revenues. Well, now I get it.

Does Google have a book out? It seems level headed and fairly moral. I wouldn't mind reading its other philisophical treaties.

Strictly for the SEO's

[freejung]

You guys better pay attention to this one:

He regards optimizers the way a mother grizzly might regard a hunter jabbing at her cub with a stick.

He sounds like he means it!

Good point. Which one of us can make the claim...

[clubin]

... that porn is not addictive? (that's what we call a rhetorical question. it's nature of not requiring an answer, handily, shall save my humor from replies by non-addicted pr0n-viewers) I say it's right up there with nicotine and alcohol, for an alcoholic.

And what about the false representation of lifestyle? Just like cig. ads would like you to think it's all good when your life is a smoking life, pr0n doesn't show it's viewers the gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and herpes infections (or at least I've managed to stay away from the fetish work that does) one would be likely to get if they actually went around f&sck'ing like the monthly std-checked pr0n stars do.

Seems like Google's going down the slippery, KY-lubricated slope of morality.

Re:Porn isn't really benign

[NineNine]

What's this thing about pot being harmful? Have you found a scientific study that just came out today, or are have you perhaps bought in to the US Gov't bogus advertising?

People are rarely pushed into porn. It pays well, and some people get a kick out of it.

As far as changing somebody's view's in a bad way, religion beats porn hands down.

Re:With all due respect

[sheriff_p]

Yeah, and just imagine what would happen if a country decided that their entire philosophy revolved around what their own president thought, and they decided to fuck with the environment (can you spell Kyoto?), threaten nuclear war, and restrict research into medicinal technologies on 'religious' grounds (stem the research, you could say). Wouldn't that be terrible?

"Moral" problems are often the commenter's

[Xeger]

Porn does not cause direct harm to the watcher's body; you can't kill yourself from an overdose of porn; porn depicts a natural human behavior that has healthful side effects; porn can save troubled relationships and bring friends closer.

Now, compare this to the list of pros and cons for cigarettes. Or alcohol.

Clearly, porn is not evil. You may find it distasteful, but there is a huge difference between distasteful and evil.

Re:"Moral" problems are often the commenter's

[shylock0]

I completely agree, but I feel the need to play Devil's Advocate...

What about the argument that porn inherently degrading to women and helps to contribute to the cycle of violence in our society. There's a lot of evidence for and against that argument, and it is controversial (I, for one, tend to think that pornography is harmless) -- but we should acknowledge the argument nonetheless...

Re:"Moral" problems are often the commenter's

[Nicolas MONNET]

Is gay porn harmful to women?

Is a dominatrix whipping and torturing consenting adult males degrading to women?

I'm sure you can find plenty of "degrading to women" porn, but the point is: it's not necessarily so. And besides, to all the feminists who can't stand pr0n, there's a few places in the world that are quite free of porn, such as Saudi Arabia. They are free to go live there and enjoy the women-friendly atmosphere out there.

And where is the scientifically sound proof that porn "contributes to the cycle of violence", or at least more so than christianisme, islam or other stupidities? It's simpe: there is none.

Re:"Moral" problems are often the commenter's

[Xeger]

A discussion of porn and society wouldn't be complete without mention of Japan.

Japanese porn is plentiful, sold almost anywhere magazines are sold. It's also quite pervereted by Western standards. Themes of violence against women, nonconsenting sex with school girls, and domination are quite common. It's perfectly acceptable to read rape-themed manga (comic books) on the subway.

Yet, across the board, crime rates in Japan are much lower than in America.

Re:"Moral" problems are often the commenter's

[SuiteSisterMary]

Ok. A person who likes porn is not necessarily a rapist, but a rapist, by defination, probably likes porn.

Therefore, eliminating all porn from an area will also eliminate the already existing rapists; I'd be curious to see if, at the same time that the crime rates dropped in that area, they rose (no pun intended) in other areas; this would indicate sexual criminals simply migrating to where they can get their fix.

Similarly, people who play violent video games aren't automatically violent; people who are violent probably like violent video games. This does not mean that violent video games cause violence; it means that pre-existing violence is attracted to violent video games.

Similarly, porn doesn't create sexual criminals; sexual criminals are drawn to porn-rich areas. Removing the porn does not cause said individuals to suddenly turn into non-criminals; they simply have nothing causing them to congregate in that specific area.

Re:"Moral" problems are often the commenter's

[Nicolas MONNET]

Ok. A person who likes porn is not necessarily a rapist, but a rapist, by defination, probably likes porn.

You mean, just like those pedophile catholic priests?

Re:"Moral" problems are often the commenter's

[Todd Knarr]

People who like coffee aren't neccesarily murderers, but most murderers like coffee. Therefore, eliminating all coffee from an area will also eliminate murder.

Fallacy apparent?

Things dont kill people..

[nurb432]

I guess that means you are against Autos too, they are involved in accidents kill far more people then guns each year.

Oh, and bricks too.. they also are used to kill people.

And just to clarify incase you are too dense, an object doesn't kill anyone. Never has and never will..

I've never seen a gun jump out of a box, load itself, then kill someone, or a brick fly off a pile and mash someone in the head several times.. it was the HUMAN that was the offending party in the activity.. NOT the gun/car/brick/etc. and the activity is already illegal as a side note.. ..

And personally I'm sick and tired of people who continue to push such a ludicrous concept that an imamate object of any kind is bad, just to restrict the rights of responsible people. It's the irresponsible people that need to be regulated and punished, not the rock.

Now of course, you have a right to be an idiot.. That's your right, and ill never stop you from being one, but ill be dammed if I will allow your misconceptions and agendas to effect me and my responsible life..

Slowdot.org?

[s88]

Why can I now read the stories posted on /. weeks earlier in paper form? Isn't the point of digital news, that is should be faster than print? I read this story early last week in my magazine subscription, delivered by snail mail.

Well...atleast I will be able to read it again next week when it is duped.

Sigh,
Scott

Re:With all due respect

[MalleusEBHC]

Who the hell modded the parent up? The grand-parent is at worst an average comment and at best insightful or interesting depending on how you see it. The parent obviously is a troll who didn't read the article. The majority of the article is about the index, not the ads as the parent would like you to believe. It's times like this we need a -1 Hypocrite rating.

Re:Porn isn't really benign

[EllF]

Perhaps the time you spend looking for others' delusion, I spend contemplating how I choose to interpret that which I take in?

Google and Decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quite understand why people are upset over how google acted in the cases of scientology and China. I must admit I like that the link goes to a page which arguably not only provides the site, but wakes up people to how slimey those people are. That's an elegant solution. As for China, they altered their hardware, not googles. Google didn't do anything. It is not google's job to fight China on internet freedom. That is not their purpose. China has to resolve that issue itself - not wanting links visible is just a symptom of the larger problem.

People, companies are not set up to fight ideological wars, no matter how justified. They are supposed to produce good products and market them fairly. They should adhere to standards about what type of characters they deal with and how their workers are treated to avoid being guilty of crimes themselves, but it is not their job to reform foreign governments or support political revolutions. They control their conduct, not others conduct. If China wants to block google that is China's business. If people don't want China to do that then raise the issue directly and fight, but don't try to use google as a way to sneak things in under the radar. They aren't a weapon in this battle, they are just a company doing their job, and it is not in their interest to invite conflict over ideological issues. So far the result has been quite impressive technically, and while I believe they should have made Europe do the filtering on their servers it's understandable that they don't want to antagonize their customers. Don't make google out to be something it's not. If you want to fight oppression than form or join a group for that purpose - that's not what business is for. They should not support the practice, but it is not their job to be activists.

That seems logical.

[Montreal Geek]

At least to me.

Last time I checked, porn didn't cause serious health problems (not counting unhealthy dependence, but then slashdot would be just as dangerous to many!) :)

It's also unlikely that anyone would use porn to kill someone (or go hunting).

While one may or may not agree with the ethical scale that google uses, I cannot do anything but admire someone who has values and lives by then instead of throwing them out the window for the Green God at the first opportunity.

And, for the record, I smoke, I drink occasionaly, I hunt, and I don't patronize porn sites.

-- MG

is porn evil or not?

[kedi]

Most of the posts I have read so far seem to believe that porn is not evil, basically because it does not harm or kill.

I think that view is based on taking into consideration only the "viewer" side of porn.

I tend to think that porn is evil/wrong/harmful basically if looked at from the point of view of people who are forced (sometimes with brute physical force, but often with force and power of money) in "performing" it.

How many of us would like a couple of dildos/dicks stuffed into all of our holes, and cum showering our faces? On top of that these so-called actors are supposed show that they like and enjoy it.

The degradation meted out not only on children but also adults in pornography (which is different from eroticism) is worse than being killed, because it kills one again and again for the rest of ones life.

That some people enjoy seeing all that and are not killed watching pornography is perhaps a less relevant point.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:With all due respect

[ceejayoz]

What if this CEO was raised poorly, and without religion

Was that inserted to get a rise out of Slashdot? Or do you really want a search engine run by a religious nut?

You're going on about how the CEO could be racially prejudiced, but you're hoping he's raised religious (translation: Protestant Christian)?

Frankly, I'd rather Sergay Brin choose what's "evil" than the Church.

Google's choice

[dh003i]

I disagree with their decision, but it's their decision to make -- not mine.

Google is a private company. They can make whatever assinite decisions they want to make. If they wanted to, they should be able to only hire white people over 6 feet ball with goatees. Their decision.

Is it absurd? Yes. Is it something Google should be prevented from doing? No.

They don't like guns, alcohol, and tobacco. Fine. It's their right not to have those kinds of ads on their site, or allow ads from companies which also make guns or gun parts. They like porn, so they put up ads for that.

I disagree, however, with someone elses characterization that geeks like porn. Geeks like free porn. I don't think most geeks -- especially the paranoid kind -- like porn you have to pay for with credit card, or porn that says its "free" but wants your credit-card number just to "make sure you're 21". I agree with that. I'm not going to pay for porn. I can find it for free using google images or news-groups; if I look hard enough, I can even find a few free porn websites. I also don't like porno-advertising pop-ups or banners, so I block them with my hosts. It'll be a cold day in hell before I pay $20/month to get something online that I could look at in real life for free.

Re:Google's choice

[dh003i]

I said "should" not "does". As a private corporation, Google should be allowed to institute whatever assinite backwards hiring/firing/other policies they want, so long as those policies don't endanger their workers.

Don't know if it's just their morals...

[snol]

How many ads for cigarettes and booze do you typically see online? Not that many compared to the amount you see for porn. You can't transmit alcohol and smokes over data connections, and most people are too impatient to wait for their liquor to be FedExed. Probably google would lose a lot more revenue by ditching porn ads than they have for cigs/alcohol.

Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective

[hackstraw]

My havn't you gotten soft in a couple of days, because you were not very fond of "addicts" in this reply.

My sig says it all.

[sam_handelman]

I've been waiting for this topic for a long time!

Things which are weak
Silly String
Little Girls
Good

Things which are strong
Steel
The forces binding nuclei together
Evil

I don't see how I can make it clearer than that.

What about Scientology?

[tregoweth]

Accepting ads for Scientology seems like helping Evil.

All advertising is false representation.

[gopherdata]

Advertising always shows the positive sides of the product not the negative. How many car ads show graphic automobile accidents? How many show people changing tires in the rain?

Here's the difference

[Fredbo]

My girlfriend quit smoking and drinking the day she found out she was pregnant. If she didn't, I'd be getting spammed with "She's evil, make her stop" and stuff. Now, if I had nude pics of my pregnant girlfriend, I'd be spammed with "Where's the pics at??"

Friends don't let friends look at bad porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's ever gotten all "porned" up and gotten behind the wheel of a car and killed someone else.

Yep

[nurb432]

As long as you are a law abiding responsible adult ( the requirments i set forth in the eariler post ) i dont see why not.

If you are neither, then no, you should not even be allowed to drive...

No, its unilateral

[nurb432]

Read my previous post again if you like.. responsible adults, that abide by the law, should not be restricted access to anything beacuse of POTENTIAL wrong uses.. peroid.

Porn might indeed be harmful

[ColGraff]

You know, you might have a point here, especially regarding porn changing a person's view of women and sexuality. I didn't look at any hard-core porn before I came to college, but it was easily available here (LAN), and so I started to. And I do find that my attitudes did start to change a little - which is why I stopped watching it. I try to think of myself as a good man, you see, and I don't want to be like my roomate, who yells with rage when his porn sites are altered and whose first thought on meeting a woman tends to be "I wonder what she'd look like in her panties?" or "I bet her [expletive] is really nice". He watches a lot of porn, a huge amount, and I don't know whether this is what did that, or the drugs, or whether he's just a f--ked-up individual - but I try to hold myself to a higher standard. I'm not saying porn should be outlawed or regulated, or that it's anywhere near as harmful as booze or tobacco - but it is *not* entirely benign, and I'm glad someone mentioned that.

Prediction: Google won't matter in 5 years

[Saeger]

There's a chance that, in five years, Google will end up looking like a slightly cleaner version of what Yahoo! has become.

Five years is a lifetime on the net. In that amount of time I would certainly expect P2P to have matured to the point that distributed search would have almost completely displaced Google and the rest of the central SE's. In fact, I'd bet a bundle on it (i.e. good or evil, I'd still short Google if went public (after the initial pump of course)).

Like it or not, decentralized communication will continue to advance and empower the individual, despite corporate and government agendas to keep their centralized economic/power structures in place and the wool over our eyes...

--

Google as public utility

[taylor]

There was a curious point in the article, with respect to a lawsuit versus Google. The idea presented was simple: as Google (currently, right now) provides an effective monopoly on a fundamental service of the net, it could be considered a public utility. I can begin to see how this argument could be persuasive, depending on the outcome of the next five years.

Without better understanding of the long-term implications of search engines and the legaly responsibilities such bodies have to their users and corresponding linked pages, it remains unclear whether any one service will ever truly take over for an extended period of time these services. Still, the hardware, software, and more general technical knowhow and intuition required to make Google what it is today is hard to duplicate. Furthermore, the combination of extensive searching, effective sorting, and caching means that Google is rapidly becoming the generalized equivlant of the preprint server xxx.lanl.gov, something the physics community now takes for granted and indeed, treats like a public utility.

When we come to rely upon Google to back up slashdotted servers and find any particular thing on the web, and have no effective alternatives for all of these, then it behoves us to treat it as a utility. There are certain egalitarian principles behind public utilities that are supportive of the general idea of "doing good", e.g. the gas company is required to provide heating service in certain neighborhoods during the winter, even to non-paying clients.

I think we would do well to consider the ways in which the public good can be served through such a company, allowing the effective merger of both the companies money-making prerequistes and the necessity of that company's service. Maybe that could provide an alternative solution to the "either we make money and sell our morals, or vice versa" problem Google seems to be facing.

Re:How to decide if something is immoral

[wheany]

Well, according to your parent post, yes.

Nothing to gain by taking Google public

[Fastball]

Google is a shining example of why private companies are typically better in every respect than public companies. First, there's only so much stock the buying public hungers for. Second, private companies are far less dependent on growth to survive; they can focus on what they do whereas public companies constantly have to look for ways to generate revenue. Third, choices private companies make based on their own philosophies and culture are typically less scrutinized than those that public companies make, and this is good.

I don't want stock. I want a search engine. Anything that preserves that is a Good Thing. As soon as you have shareholders to answer to, you're ideas are owned.

Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective

[kevin lyda]

yer so k3wl, trolling on /. . can i be you? i'm getting a medical degree by mail so the lobotomy will be easy.

for morons modding him up, you can disable adult content in your prefs. god, when with the gov't start protecting adults and the internet FROM kids?!?!?!

Since when is booze a health concern?

[bogie]

Abusing anything is bad for you, but drinking for example a glass of wine a day is actually good for you. The vast majority of us(over 25) drink responsibly and WON'T have health problems from alcohol. So I don't know where your getting this stance from, but its wrong from a health point of view. Also its certainly wrong from a philosophical point of view to call an inanimate object like alcohol evil.

Defense of Brin's morality

[naasking]

Take Brin's decision to refuse all alcohol and tobacco advertising. The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on Brin's morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not. It's a policy that would become progressively harder to defend were Google to go public.

Cigarettes and alcohol harm and often kill people (more so the innocent bystanders than the abusers). Porn does neither. Do you want me to draw you a picture?

Re:Defense of Brin's morality

[dentar]

> Cigarettes and alcohol harm and often kill people (more so the innocent bystanders than the abusers). Porn does neither. Do you want me to draw you a picture?

On the contrary. Adult-to-adult human-only porn is the only porn that that can approach being benign, and that is only if all parties are actually willing.

When animals and children get involved, then it is no longer victimless.

How to interpret the Bible

[Teun]

And why not say that what is commonly referred to as porn is actually, in a Biblical sense, the (ultimate?) celebration of the body we were given?

Google != Porn

[Ayanami Rei]

But quite honestly, OSS people don't spend on... well... anything. Definitely not porn. They're what we call in the industry "leeches".

I think you mean we don't pay for anything we can otherwise get by without with or for free. Just because we aren't foaming at the mouth to drop $400 for the next release of Photoshop so we can color balance our digital photos doesn't mean we don't pay for other stuff.

Subscriptions to industry journals, CrossOver Office, video games, etc. You just need to give us a good reason.

There are some porn sites that OSS geeks would pay for because they have something unique to offer, which is often a community base atmosphere that is otherwise lacking in your typical site leech repro-run on the alt.binaries newsgroups.

But you're typical pay me $20 a month for my dinky collection of a few thousand images and movies that I didn't even produce myself deal doesn't fly.

The Evils or Pornography

[Jayson]

There have been two commission to study pornography: 1970 and 1986. The 1970 Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography concluded that there was insuffient evidence to prove a link between the exposured to sexually explicit material and criminal behavior. This is not even close to what you claim: that the commission found pornography harmless. However, the 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography came to the opposite conclusion, claiming that the available pornography at the time caused different levels of harm.

The reason these two commission disagreed was largly to do with what they were studying. Pornography changed drastically between 1970 and 1986. In 1970 full frontal nudity was a rarity while in 1986 close-ups of anatomy were common and visible penetration could be found in hard-core magazines at adult stores. The 1970 commission was also railed on for failing to research violent pornography. By 1996 this research hole was filled and the findings were that it led to agression against women (in laboratory test conditions) and the acceptance of the rape myth that women secretly want it.

Later in 1986, a Surgeon General's Workshop on Pornography and Public Health met and found that "pronography does stimulate attitudes and behavior that lead to gravely negative consequences for individuals and society."

Since 1986 numerous meta-studies has supported the Surgeon General findings too. A 1994 meta-study titled "A Systematic Review of the Effects of Aggressive and Nonagressive Pornography" included 81 original studies, a 1995 meta-study "A Meta-ananysis Summerizing the Effects of Pornography" included 33 original studies, another 1995 study "Exposure to Pornography and Acceptance of Rape Myths" included 24 orignial studies all support that violent and non-violent pornography increase the likelihood of rape, sexual callousness, violence, and violent attitudes towards women. Even stepping outside the US, a study in 1989 by the Canadian government comes to the same conclusion, saying that after viewing pornography men were twice as likely to rape women after viewing pornography.

In 1989 "Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations," by Zillerman and Bryant, found that over a period of time viewing pornography are "at a greater risk of becoming callous" towards women.

In "Pornography's Effects on Adults and Children" Dr. Victor Cline of the University of Utah delineates four phases of pornography addiction: addiction, escalation, desensitization, and acting out.

Since mainstream pornography has become more hard-core the preponderence of evidence is that it does adversely effect our behavior.

[This has been taken from excepts from an article that I am currently writing for Kuro5hin.org, but it will not be done for a few months, until I have some more time to spend at the library.]

Yeah but. Re:It makes sense

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually, Christians are instructed that their body is "the temple of the Holy Spirit," and that we're not to defile it.

Good point. Also, according to Deuteronomy, swearing at your parents must be punished by stoning to death. I call on all good christians to stand up and kill Eminem, and pretty much all teenagers. On second thoughts, nah don't.

Re:Yeah but. Re:It makes sense

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually come to think of it, on second thoughts it was Leviticus. In that case, get on with the killing like any God fearing person should.

Going Public

[some damn guy]

Private companies are the only ones allowed to have their own moralities today.
All others have the morality of the marketplace. The fact that the ownership of public companies is traded around so frequently shouldn't make this shocking. Large institutions such as mutal funds, pention funds and banks own the majority of all public companies. Any company is one out of a portfolio of maybe hundreds of others and is dropped at the first hint of trouble. They're chits, peices of paper and the purpose is to build a strong portfolio. The only question anyone would be asking is "What's Yahoo doing?" or "What is MSN doing?" Protecting themselves from liability is the closet thing to morality in most times. They are quite willing to accept the law as their moral code. Why you decided to make money for your clients and stay in buisiness is a lot easier to explain to the boss than the ethical problems of buying a profitable company that advertises legal products. Google's owners might be better off keeping it private. However, since the company isn't hugely profitable (except for an internet company), they might be giving up the only real change to grow it. You exchange a share of your personal morality along with everything else when you sell the company. They could sell stock with limited voting rights though. Would people buy it? Probably for far less. The assesment is usually that the best thing to do take the mavericks who started the company out of a lot of decisions that 'professional' management could do better.

If I was a girl...

[scovetta]

and Google was a guy, I'd sooo marry him.

Tell 'em what you think

[tylernt]

Slashdot them with feedback! I did.

Re:How to decide if something is immoral

[fireboy1919]

I don't think that definition works. Here are some operational conclusions:
-going to the bathroom is immoral
-having sex (with spouse) is immoral
-demonstrating computer stuff is immoral (wouldn't do it in front of parents/kids because they'd be bored)

These are things I would want my children to do, at least eventually (except maybe #3). Why don't we that if it's wrong to do it then it's immoral?

It's not like this is open to interpretation, despite the fact that our country gives us the right to pretend that it is.

Re:With all due respect

[mabinogi]

> "Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil."

This is, ultimately how it should be for everyone..

we can get a certain amount of our morality from our parents, from society, and from religion (if applicable), but at the end of the day, we need to make our own decisions in regards to our own perception of good and evil.

There is no one definition of evil, and it will vary from person to person and society to society.

If you feel that Google's interpretation of evil doesn't match yours, then you're certainly entitled to find a site that does match your morality more closely.
But to urge others to do the same, is trying to push your morality on to them, which is the same thing you just objected to. Let each person make their own decisions.

By the way, I, like the author of another reply,disagree with your assumption that lack of religion means a lack of morality...
In fact, I tend to be more wary of those with a morailty strongly affected by religion, as they are more likely to be blindly accepting someone else's (possibly outdated, or inappropriate to me) values.

Personally, I'll still be using Google, since their definition of evil is compatible with mine so far, and as long as they keep a policy of disclosing what they define as unacceptable, so that we can continue to make our own minds up.

of course tobacco and alcohol are evil, not p0rN

[jorlando]

I don't smoke and don't drink alcohol 'cause they are the way of devil inside you...

p0rN on the other way is good, since I run a huge p0rN site, collect p0rN movies and use my holy stick to beat the evil from bad girls :-)

Re:DMOZ!

[roman_mir]

Apparently noone stops you from developing a 100 search algorythms and GPLing them, or do they? Non-free software may blow, but not necessarily due to been non-free, it could be simply bad software. What I am saying is that Google is a brain child of the two geeks who decided to keep their software away from the praying eyes, I say it is their right and good for them, and good for us that they came up with the idea and went along with it. I certainly think Google rocks.

On another hand if they go IPO and become bloated and ugly I certainly have choice of going with some other search engine www.alltheweb.com comes to mind. BTW. if Google goes IPO and provides a subscription service that will let me skip all the ads forever, I'll pay that subscription fee.
(hint)

Nah, don't talk to your wife.

[commodoresloat]

That's ridiculous. You'll be much better off if you post to slashdot asking for advice.

Porn? Nah, you don't have a problem (chuckle)

[Mulletproof]

I would argue, in the minority undoubtably, that porn is more than a "moral" or "religious" issue. Despite being it's oft flamed status here on Slash, the old testement of the Bible has more than it's share of real world wisdom, one such kernal being don't covet your neighbors wife.

Have you actually thought WHY this was even mentioned in the Bible? Why the heck would an omnisentient God care about our sexual habits? "No sex for you today because I said so!" God ordered Moses as he strolled down the mountain. Nooooo. Think about it. Normally there is a why to most rules in the Bible and that why normally isn't so you can't enjoy yourself "just because".

Sex is one of the most basic instincts in imbedded within a human. In and of itself, sex is great, but then you involve people. People tend to screw things up. When you involve more than one partner you begin to introduce a whole new set of emotions. You can try to convince me otherwise, but most of us would find it a rude and unpleasant surprise to fine our girlfriend/wife sleeping with somebody behind your back. "But we're OK like that." Fine. I suspect you're in the minority. My point is you can't tamper with such a basic human emotion and not have consequences. Dogs can get away with it. People can't. Even if you're a Don Juan, you're going to be screwing with somebodies emotions in your quest to bed the most women.

How does that relate to porn? It messes with the same mental process. Go on. Tell your gf or wife about your 50gb p0rn collection. Convince me she'll be okay with it. Nine times out of ten I'll bet your in deep shit. So you're single. p0rn's okay, right? if you say so. Not getting any unrealistic expectations are you? Can you stop overnight? Go a month without it. You can do it, right? You haven't trained yourself like Pavlov's dog, now have you? Face it, the orgasm is a pretty powerful drug. You're programming yourself whether you can admit it or not.

I'm sure their are those who will argue that it doesn't happen to them. I can't be right. But then, not every smoker dies at 50 on the spot nor does every person get drunk after 3.5 glasses of alcohol. No, porn isn't as outright deadily as cigrettes or alcohol, but far more insiduous.

Re:Porn? Nah, you don't have a problem (chuckle)

[cranos]

How is Porn more insidious than a substance that coats your lungs with tar and slowly chokes you to death.

"In and of itself, sex is great, but then you involve people. People tend to screw things up."

This is such a great quote by the way, sex by yourself is fine but with others its dangerous?

Simply explained

[Zone-MR]

Google was created as a reasearch project by one of the most reputable universities in the world.

Though tobacco users won't admit it, great academic minds will rarely agree with the concept of smoking.

However, find me a student who sees something wrong with porn...

Re:GUN TALK

[The Famous Druid]

It amazes me that those who constantly go on about the rights of "law-abiding gun owners" are also willing to state that their guns can only be taken away by force.

Surely, if you're law-abiding, and the law says you must give up your guns, you'll give them up.

If you're not law-abiding, then you're a criminal, and your lot seem to be in favour of shooting criminals, isn't that what all your 'self defense' talk is aiming at?

NO no no no no !

[The Famous Druid]

That would just make more of them !

Google icon

[Banjonardo]

We need a google icon. This is like the third google-related story in a week.

Huh?

[MenTaLguY]

Some minor corrections...

1. There is no "Book of David" in the Bible
2. Bathsheba was not related to (King) David at all
3. "religious" prostitutes, while common in neighboring cultures, were forbidden in Israel
4. There was no temple in Israel at that time; they used a tent (the Tabernacle)

The real story isn't exactly "family values", but that's the point. It's about how David screwed up big time.

The actual story's in II Samuel 11-12:

1. David stays home from battle one weekend.
2. He sees Bathsheba bathing from the roof of his palace, and after a bit of voyeurism gets one of his servants to bring her to the palace.
3. Guess.
4. Oh. Did I mention she's married? Her husband Uriah's off fighting in David's army.
5. Oh, crap. She's pregnant.
6. David calls Uriah back and tells him he's done a great job fighting, and he should come back home and spend some quality time with his wife. Make it look like it could be Uriah's kid.
7. Uriah refuses, since it's unfair to the rest of the guys in the army.
8. David sends Uriah back to the front lines, and David tells General Joab (David's cousin) to make sure that Uriah doesn't come back.
9. Joab dies. David marries Bathsheba.
10. God is not happy.
11. God sends Nathan the Prophet to tell David off.
12. Nathan tells David a story about this guy who stole a sheep. The story sounds sounds strangely familiar.
13. David: "What a dick! The guy should be put to death... and... er... wait a minute..."
14. Nathan: "Yeah, and you killed some guy and stole his WIFE. What do you think God's going to do to YOU now?"

God does forgive David when David sincerely repents, but He still makes David deal with the (pretty nasty) consequences of this whole episode for the rest of his life (and explicitly forbids David from building a temple).

The point being that even someone in a position of authority isn't magically allowed to do what he wants with people.

er, correction

[MenTaLguY]

s/Joab dies/Uriah dies/ ... but you probably got the idea

Not always evil

[The Famous Druid]

Ok, you've given a couple of examples of bad censorship.

Now suppose I have a formula for making Ebola Virus from corn-flakes and coca-cola. I express my intention to publish this on slashdot, and Cowboy neal hurriedly blocks my access, thus censoring me.

Personally, I think that sort of censorship is A GOOD THING.

Re:Not always evil

[ONOIML8]

Why would that be a good thing? If someone wanted to do evil that badly they would surely find a way, even tho your formula had been censored.

Taking your example, let's now look at why censorship of your formula would be bad:

1) Knowing how you created the virus could have been useful in learning more about the natural virus. That information might have been useful in defense. We now don't have that opportunity.

2) There may be properties of corn-flakes and/or coca-cola that we were not aware of. You have discovered them in the creation of your evil formula. We now will be delayed in learning those unique properties, if we learn them at all. Some good could have come from that knowledge but now we'll never know.

3) In the creation of your virus there may have been useful byproducts or other products created by variations of your formula. These (by)products may be useful for good. Now we will never know.

4) Because you now know how to do this thing cheaply and easily, ebola is much more common and available than previously thought. The medical community is not properly prepared because they believe ebola to be rare and confined. Due to their lack of preperation, many more people will die. Products could have been pulled from shelves, recepies for corn-flakes or coke changed, etc. But now we don't know about the change in the level of threat.

Did you know that you can find instructions on how to build chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons? It's easy to find. Censorship makes it a wee bit harder to get that information, but the knowledge still exists.

Now, let's look at what possible good comes of censorship.

Hmmmm.....can't think of any. Can you help me out here using your example?

Re:Not always evil

[The Famous Druid]

You missed the point entirely, (I suspect deliberately)

You have failed to address the issue of the great harm that would be caused by my publishing the inforation. If my original posting had actually contained the magic recipe, the likes of Ossama bin Laden would already be huddled over kitchen tables brewing up the mixture, and by tomorrow, every major American city would be knee-deep in Ebola victims.

Ebola is very, very nasty.

In Africa, the standard way of dealing with an outbreak is to surround the area with soldiers, with orders to shoot to kill anyone attempting to leave, and wait until it has 'burnt itself out' (i.e. everyone in the infected village is dead).

Do any of your fanciful 'benefits' that flow from the recipe being published come close to justifying the enormous cost in human suffering and death?

MOD PARENT UP

[ecampbel]

Great post. At the very least, it's a nice balance to the statistics posted by the parent.

Evil

[yoshi_mon]

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 10,500,000. Search took 0.09 seconds.

Yahoo: 1 - 20 of 10,600,000

Altavista: AltaVista found 5,202,695 results

Lycos: WEB RESULTS: Showing Results 1 thru 10 of 18,228,107

Webcrawler: Meta-Search results for "evil" (1 - 20 of 97) [20 listings per page]

Moral Authority

[MarvinMouse]

*sigh*

I know I am going to get killed for saying this... but here we go...

Who decides what is effectively the moral authority. In my personal opinion the only reason the bible exists and other "moral authorities" exist is because people don't want to take it upon themselves to make the hard decisions as to what is right and what is wrong. If a person can blame his decisions on a book, person, church, etc. that's even better, because he never has to take it upon himself to accept when what he did is actually wrong.

Well, here's the reality check people... Let's remove everything that you need to have "faith" in to believe, and reduce it to what the real world is. There is no more afterlife, there is no more God, nothing, let's say all of that is wrong (not saying I believe that.) What do we have... well, we have the world as you experience it right now. Your decisions are judged almost solely by you, if you feel bad after doing something, that is because you feel it is wrong, not because some book tells you so. If you don't feel bad, then you don't feel it's wrong... Wow, simple, eh?

Now, how's this for a reality check. You do something, then you evaluate the "morality" of it, based on what you feel is right or wrong. Now, if you feel guilty, than to you it is morally wrong (even though to someone else it may not be.)

Okay, so now we have a theory of morals that works with an individual, lets work with a group.

Now, let's say for example that a person feels killing is not morally wrong, yet overall the group disagrees. What happens, well the group will in someway punish the person who is harming the good of the group. Thus, the person will feel wrong about what he did because he knows he'll be punished. (this is for those people who need rewards and punishments to do things.)

So, what do we create. We create a "Moral Structure" in which the person need not be immediately punished to fear doing something that overall the group considers wrong... What is this... this sounds like religion... hey.. That's odd..

Something to ponder. (and by no means is this a complete thesis of my ideas... I'll probably write about it in my journal sometime.)

Re:Moral Authority

[MarvinMouse]

Yeah, that's the annoyance...

Morality is a subjective thing, that cannot be defined in any real terms. Since what is moral to some people might be taboo to others.

What I am saying though is for people to grow up and stop blaming their moral quandries on other people, and accept the fact that they are making the "moral" decisions, no one else.

Also, I think that people who disagree morally with other people's moral viewpoints should simply leave eachother alone. Hell, if it requires it, don't even associate with eachother. Everyone has the right to decide for themselves what is moral.

Re:Moral Authority

[weston]

I know I am going to get killed for saying this... but here we go...

Who decides what is effectively the moral authority.

You do. There really isn't any other way. Except....

So, what do we create. We create a "Moral Structure" in which the person need not be immediately punished to fear doing something that overall the group considers wrong... What is this... this sounds like religion... hey.. That's odd..

Or like... the law. On a practical level, if you live in a society with other people, you have some obligation to respect its generally accepted tenets and institutions, or face the consequences that said/society and intitutions would impose.

Note that I'd use "respect" here not in the "revere" or "worship" sense -- though you well may, if that were your choice -- but in the sense that you have a healthy respect for gravity or the claws on a mountain lion. It may not fit your ideal conception of how things should be, and you may be able to bend the rules and work within it (airplanes work with gravity and aerodynamics to provide the freedom of flight, and there are animal trainers/handlers), but you recognize that real consequences can exist for not respecting certain consequences.

The World's Brain. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Google is super-fascinating in that it is a front-end of sorts to the soup of knowledge accumulated by humanity, (or at least the small portion of humanity with access to computers and data-lines.) If one accepts that the internet is a naturally forming kind of global 'memory', then search engines like Google become the faces and the top-layer of 'consciousness' for such an entity. --In combination, creating a primal sort of mind., or at least a mirror of the collective mind of the human race.

A mirror. . .

And when you start throwing filters on the front-end, not accepting the dark parts which exist within the mind, denying them. . . Well.

Only until one accepts and fully learns to understand the nature of one's own shadows will one gain control over their darker aspects. Until then, a person will be driven in ways he or she does not understand, caught in the turmoil created by their shadow's desire. Such people hide behind faulty rationalizations and lies in order to keep their inner selves from hurting. -This kind of hurt being an indicator of just how grown up one is. When the ego no longer stings and cringes, then perhaps you are finally mature.

Alan Moore's billionaire genius character, Adrian Veidt from Watchmen, would stand in front of a wall of television monitors playing feeds from stations all over the world. He would stand there and surf across the wavefront of all that information and in this way could see the psyche of humankind.

As with all Alan Moore works, this is a brilliant, yet naive idea. Left out of his Watchmen universe were those people who understand that the Wall of Televisions principal works in both directions. --That if one applies pressure to certain aspects of the message being delivered by that Wall of Noise, then the receiving populace can be 'guided' in how they think. -Or as I tend to think, virtually controled outright.

The need for some parties to control the thoughts of others so that their own self-deceiving world-views are not threatened, is child-like in the extreme; keeping the shadows under lock and key. (And presumably, those which are the shadows to man, are lights to the beast, and vice versa. There are plenty of agencies and individuals which fear truth today! So what is being kept under lock and key becomes a question indeed!) But then plumbing the mind is often difficult. "Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight."

There are other search engines out there. All Theweb is pretty good alternative search service. Pages missing from Google can still be found with this engine. (They've removed a helluva lot more than just drug and hate messages from Google, and not just in Europe and Asia!)

-Fantastic Lad

Re:just don't go public..

[pavera]

The article stated that the company made an estimated 70 million last year, I'm sorry but that is a whole hell of a lot of money, and I'm quite certain at least the decision makers over at google are all easily millionaires, they have very little need for more money.

That's Israel's contract

[TheLink]

AFAIK those laws (including the ten commandments) are for the Israelites. Many of the laws help emphasize Israel's status as separate and set apart from the rest of the nations, in addition to other functions.

Christians have a different covenant. Which is why we can wear clothing with mixed fabric, some even sport tattoos, piercings etc. That said, a wise person can learn much from those laws. And it's recommended reading for Christians - to show us how far we fall short, and how much grace we are given. And what God's nature is like, what he likes, etc. And before you say we are serving a different God from the Israelites, see the many examples of God's grace despite the many failings of people like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon. Even though David's lineage had Moabite blood via Ruth, he could enter the assembly of God (Deut 23:3), he even became king. And he even managed to get away with taking the consecrated bread (1 Sam 21:4).

Before trying to make fun of something it is better to understand it first. Otherwise you might accidentally get mistaken for a bigot instead of a humourist.

Furthermore if you understand something well, you are better positioned to come up with very very funny jokes.

Impressive...

[Danse]

And if you can't see it, you've been sucked into it too.

Ahh, the ever popular, "If you don't agree with me, then you're obviously brainwashed/stupid/blind/etc", defense. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Some people are taught to do as they're told without question, others are not. Otherwise there would be no people in power. There would be no leaders. Obviously there are leaders and powerful people, so what you say cannot be true. Some people believe only what they can perceive or demonstrate. Some people don't take what they're told for granted. I think it's far more likely that you're the one that is blind to this if you believe that you can't think for yourself and that nobody else can either.

Re:Moral Authority (Ethical Calculus)

[MarvinMouse]

So, you are discussing that an ethical calculus may be possible.

I personally have thought over this many times, and I believe it is possible, but a new form of logical (not the currently formal logic) would be needed for ethical calculus to work. Deontic Logic took a shot at it, but IMHO failed miserably. (If one this should be then all things should be.)

What we need to initially do is establish a Moral "algebra" or a discrete system in which we can test and evaluate the logic we use to come to moral decisions. If overall it seems to work, then a moral calculus which deals with these probabilities and shades of grey can be created.

The reason we can start with a discrete system first is the same reason that you cannot tell the difference between a discrete and a continuous system in the real world. A discrete system could just be a continuous system taken in step intervals, and a continuous system could just be a discrete system with incredibly small intervals (that we cannot observe). So, if we can develop one that works discretely and then move it towards a more continuum based calculus, then I believe we can create an ethical calulus.

Unfortunately though, the sheer amount of data and randomness required... well.. It would take more than a lifetime of pure work to create a system that actually worked. (and ironically, the system would have to let you know no what is right and what is wrong, but more what the majority of the population will be believe is right and what would be most helpful to the majority of the population.)

Overall, where we are now is still in the stone age of moral thought. We are about 2 levels above cavemen because we developed religion (which forces people to be moral or go to hell), and laws (which forces those who don't belive religion to at least make life somewhat easier for the rest of us.) As well, people are beginning to realize that morals are personal decisions arbitrated by the social group. So maybe we are getting closer and closer to a breakthrough in morals...

Or if you look at the southern states, maybe we're going to get forced back a level to where relgion is the only authority.

piracy

[jafac]

okay, so porn itself is not evil.
How do we all feel about hacking pay porn sites? Or blocking banners.

Re:With all due respect

[Lars T.]

You sound like it hit too close to home.