Slashdot Mirror
Dissecting Localized Google Censorship
carpe_noctem writes "Linuxsecurity.com has a link to a rather interesting story regarding Google's use of localized censorship. While not much information is given from the political side of why Google might be censoring information likely to annoy certain governments, it certainly isn't the first time Google has come under fire for censoring results on account of external pressures. Makes one wonder how many pages get filtered out around the world."
I care, esp. if it affects my attempts to retrieve information. Corporate censorship can be harmful too, and the way to combat it is by exposing it, and letting it affect customer patronage.
Well, see, I see a problem here. What if Google decided to make only Google.com the result for any search on Search Engines?
Or what if (since I am in the US), I did a Search for Democratic Presidential Candidates, and only got George W Bush as a result?
Corporate censorship is oftentimes more insidious in that Government, because the Government has very clear lines on what should be censored and for whom (Not that I agree with it, but generally, saying no porn for the kiddies is a good idea)
Corporations have no such compunctions, thier censorship is based on thier own bottom line. Nothing more, nothing less.
You say you want a revolution....
The real problem is that they don't inform the users about the censoring. I've taken a look around Google, and so far without luck in finding the information - mayby they censor what they censor..
If Google openly tells the users what they censor, then the users have a choice - and like in China get more and more aware of the conditions they are living under (ok that was a wee bit idealistic).
I just wonder, why _Google_ thinks what they censor should be kept a secret.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Google's role in society is no longer one of profit, it has become the navigator for millions of people to access free information. With great power comes great responsiblity.
This is fundamentally wrong. If it is a public tool, it should be paid for by tax dollars and be institutionalized by the government.
Google is a company, and that is black and white. Regardless of ideological ideas of what a public tool should or should not do, it is there business what they do. People are not obligated to use Google, and Google is not obligated in any way to humor certain peoples thoughts on what is moral and just.
Therefore, as human beings, those who run google have moral and ethical obligations to protect the free flow of information.
At the sacrifice of their business? At which point does this free flow of information end? If someone posts a video of you doing something embarassing, is it your right to censor or attempt to? There is no moral obligation for any company to anybody outside of that company.
It may be legal for them to censor, but it is wrong as it damages the exchange of ideas which promote thought and freedom.
Take issue with the governments that require censorship, not with a tool that tries to reach as many people as possible. It's better that Google is available in China, even if it is censored, than if they don't have access to google at all.
You are fighting the wrong people here. You are shooting the messenger.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I am not so upset that Google is caving in to some of these demands. They cannot afford to fight off rich powerful corporations like the Church of Scientology and Microsoft. Even if these lawsuites are spurrious, they simply can't afford to fight all of them. In that regard, we need legislation to allow the quick and efficient dismissal of bullshit lawsuites like this.
Google should be completely transparent if they remove information. They should create a section called "Censored Sites" and list what sites (in text-format) these nazi's have asked them to not link to, with the threat of a lawsuite to back up. This way, everyone knows what draconian nazi's are forcing Google's hand by threatening them with impeding lawsuites. It should be like a news section, and they should post the following:
(1) Who (what corp., country, business, etc) requested what to be removed.
(2) Their letter requesting such.
(3) What Google decided to do about it.
(4) Why they decided to do such.
(5) The address and e-mail of the offending corporation, so we can let them know what we think.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The issue is that they censored Stormfront because, if they didn't, the German government would sue their ass.
That's very different from a moral censorship. As the post you totally ignored while replying to pointed out, if it were a moral censorship, why would they block it only in Germany?
Philip Sandifer's academic website