Slashdot Mirror
Google's Gatekeepers
theodp writes "With control of 63% of the world's Internet searches, as well as ownership of YouTube, the NY Times reports that Google is the most powerful and protean of the Internet gatekeepers, exerting enormous influence over who can find an audience on the Web around the world. Deciding what controversial material does and doesn't appear on the local search engines Google maintains in many countries — as well as on Google.com, YouTube, Blogger, Picasa, and Orkut — falls on the shoulders of Nicole Wong and her colleagues, who have arguably been given more influence over online expression than anyone else on the planet. Some find Google's gatekeeper role worrisome: 'If your whole game is to increase market share,' says Lawrence Lessig, 'it's hard to do good, and to gather data in ways that don't raise privacy concerns or that might help repressive governments to block controversial content.'"
www.annabelleigh.net got blacklisted awhile back for allegedly hosting illegal material.
It doesn't. It never has. I take that back: If anyone posts illegal material it is removed swiftly. It's still mostly blacklisted.
Yahoo still indexes it.
Call this sour grapes and maybe it is but Google doesn't make much effort to fix errors that have only a small impact on the average person.
Why is this news? Not that I agree with their political message, but World Net Daily (wnd.com) has been on the receiving end of Google's actions for a while now, supposedly due to political motives; so yes, this should worry anyone interested in free and open access to information.
..Google does it still pretty well.
There are much worse scenarios imaginable, which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
By saying this I don't want to bless all the problematic things that are happening, and it's certainly always helpful to "watch back", but we could be already living in an information nightmare already, which we aren't thanks, in part, to Google: If some other big company would have as big a share as Google, I wonder how they'd behave (don't mod me as troll please, it's just to show that we're still doing quite well.)
Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
It's fitting that the NY Times used the word protean to describe Google, since the word also has alternative meanings as a bacteria and is linked to a greek fable of a shape-changing god of the ocean. The problem of the internet is that people, unlike machines, don't handle decentralization well. Anarchy has always been a temporary reprise from authoritarian constructs. In and of itself that's not a problem, but there's too much political pressure to censor, alter, and manipulate access to online information, and let's face it: Very, very few of us have the resources to conduct an exhaustive independent search on the internet.
Honestly, I'm surprised the United States hasn't declared Google (and other major internet pieces) a national security asset and moved to place it under government protection. They've done it before -- citizens who worked on the Manhattan project, for example. It could also easily be looked at as a target for terrorism -- blasting google out of the water would have significant press coverage; And isn't the big reason for terrorism to be visible? It's hard to come up with a bigger target online right now than them.
cue fear-mongerers and anti-government commentary in 5...4...3...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
So what is the big deal? Google censors some things, don't like it? Go to one of the thousands of other search engines. The thing about search engines is there is almost no learning curve and its incredibly easy to switch, want to use Yahoo? Just type in Yahoo rather than Google. Replace Yahoo for whatever search engine you want. If people really think that Google's censorship policies are bad for the internet the internet will switch to another search engine or create their own. The internet evolves fast, 10 years ago we didn't use Google we used other search engines, 10 years from now we probably won't use Google, we will use something else. Can't wait 10 years? Just go to a different search engine. Seriously, censorship is bad but this is the internet, not the government-regulated airspace, there is no FCC, it is global.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Only 63%? Who's the other 37%?
I would've thought more in the >90% range.
I use Google for searches, but I could easily switch to Yahoo, AltaVista or even MSN.
Until Google start doing things to stop people using other search engines, there's no problem. If people object to the dominance of Google, they must either campaign for users to move to other engines, or create a better engine and gain marketshare.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,640,000 for China's moon program. (0.14 seconds)
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
I recently finished a year working at Google as a contractor. While it's a great company to work for, the employees are tilted to the extreme left. I think this is a direct result of their rapid expansion and hiring huge numbers straight out of college. The political leanings of the employees is going to affect how they do things, it can't be helped, even if they make an effort not to be politically biased. My politics are rather moderate, but in comparison to Google employees, I was a far right lunatic.
That was quite enjoyable.
I particularly like that they are willing to push the envelope of freedom of speech whenever they can.
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
Google doesnt care about illegal material.
The only reason I've heard for sites getting blacklisted is for doing dodgy SEO and trying to game the system.
Well, at least not if you don't put your content on one of their services.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Have a hard time sympathizing though, to be honest.
What the fuck? And you're surprised this crap is blacklisted?
"Who are these people posting here?
They are a portion of the male and female population ranging in age from their teens to quite old who share a bond of having a particular affinity for teen and/or pre-teen girls. In most cases this encompasses a clearly sexual attraction. Many choose not to act upon their sexual attraction, while others advocate a girl's freedom to sexual choice. Most of those posters accept the label 'girl lover', which is often abbreviated to 'GL' or 'GLer'. Society would call them "Pedophiles." We always have a few posters who do not identify as girl lovers, and who range from supportive to hateful."
Until Microsoft starts doing things to stop people using other operating systems, there's no problem.
I seem to recall some issues around this... was there a trial..?
Nice rewording of my post, but it's a shame that you reinforced my message while you thought you were knocking my point down.
I have established a website, on it is photos of our town, flora and fauna with some neighborhood houses and a page dedicated to a Commercial Wood Smoker that has blanketed the neighborhood in mesquite smoke. Google photos has taken every photo except the ones that show the commercial smoker. They decided which photos to take editing out the ones that they didn't want. Why? I don't know who to contact about this, but it doesn't seem right to take the photos of birds,flowers and bees, leaving behind what is killing them and destroying the environment as well. http://www.gulfportinflorida.com/
Are you referring to US vs. Microsoft in 1998-1999? That was with regard to Internet Explorer, not the Windows OS. Microsoft lost, and they are paying their due penalty.
Google, on the other hand, has a much larger monopoly not just on search advertising but on information availability. Your bitter dislike of Microsoft is blinding you apparently; you'd rather fight over small fries like what browser you want use rather than fight over where you can find information and who controls it.
Try reading the newspapers, or even searching Google for 'google censorship in China'. The top of the search shows the BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm.
So, in fact, China censors 'illegal material' which is a violation of UN treaties to censor in international communications. The idea of 'do no harm' is not good enough for such a large and powerful company: the idea of 'do no harm in China' by not bothering their government is in direct contrast to 'do no harm in China' by restricting the speech of those who disagree with the government.
Until Google start doing things to stop people using other search engines...
Please, tell me, what has Google done to prevent you from using Yahoo!, Ask, Alta Vista, Live, or Baidu?
That's assuming the Chinese are allowed to disagree with their government.
Your ad here.
Google has prevented me from using Yahoo!, Ask, etc. in the same vein that Microsoft prevented me from using other web browsers.
Does Google somehow physically stop me from using other search engines? No. Did Microsoft physically stop me from downloading and using other browsers? No.
Does Google very closely bundle their search engine with Google Docs, YouTube, Android, etc.? Yes. Did Microsoft very closely bundle IE with Windows? Yes.
Is Google being punished for doing the same exact same thing Microsoft was found guilty of in US vs. Microsoft in 1999? No.
There's no reason this should have been marked as a 'troll'. Google is the default search engine for every popular web browser except the one controlled by Microsoft, and their search bar is installed with tons of software, including the most installed plugins on the internet. It seems very much like when Internet Explorer was being installed with every software package on the planet.
The problem is not that people can't switch search engines. It's that they're unaware of their options. They're being fed Google. A lot of them don't know the search bar from the URL bar, and type addresses in the search engine to find the site. And even if they knew what a search engine was, and that other search engines existed, they wouldn't understand why it's worth the hassle of switching to another bar that has the same looks and specifications as the one they already have. So we have a situation in website makers have to follow Google's rules because Google is number 1, but most of the people using Google aren't in a position to choose any other as number 1.
Google took over in a time when people actually had to type in a website address to find a search engine, just as Netscape thrived in a time when people actually had to download a web browser. Now everything comes preinstalled, and if this situation existed when Yahoo or AltaVista was king, Google never would have had a chance even when it was remarkably better than the rest.
Every slashdotters know this famous slogan.
I must say I agree that Google is doing very well so far. There are restrictions that Google is applying to some countries' users because of local gov regulations. I once asked someone in Google, she told me a *standard answer*: Google will try to provide the most info to the people in that country as possible. Agree or not, I think it is doing okay.
But the key is, it *is* doing well. Not *will* do well. Corporates change their minds. We do not rely on their history to judge their future. (Convince me Google helped Yang when he was been kicked off if you can.)
Like constitution which states freedom is our natural right. We need some form of protection in case of Google's mind changed or drifted.
I think he is confusing why China abandoned their moon program. There isn't any reason to try and go there since it blew up, so it isn't that confusing that they would stop trying.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Before internet, the gatekeepers to information were powers like NY Time.
Thanks for the comment. As a long-time poster at GC and at /. (under another name) I'm glad to see this here.
Legally, if Google wants to censor the internet, that's fine. But ethically, this is a problem because Google bills itself as an ethical company, and simply de-listing sites like annabelleigh.com and gc.glgarden.com (as are currently de-listed), and http://www.inquisition21.com/ (as it did for about a year) is rather problematic for a company whose motto is "Don't be evil."
While it is Google's right to be evil as long as it is lawfully evil, it is important that the broader public should be aware that Google is censoring what they see of the world. Regardless of whether you support or oppose us in our struggle for basic civil rights, you should be quite upset that Google is restricting your ability to discover the facts for yourselves, by presenting you with only one side (the bigoted side, as it happens) of the argument. What should also concern you is that you don't know what ELSE Google might be censoring. I don't know either.
I have taken lately to using several search engines, whereas previously I had pretty much just used Google. Google used to have a good product, but now they've gone the way of Micro$oft.
Wasn't Microsoft penalized not just for the linking of IE to Windows, but specifically because they had been told not to do so?
No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
90% of the people in this country will tell you that www.annabelleigh.net crosses the line. I'm guessing over 50% will have a strong reaction against it and would prefer that Google make sure it doesn't come up in their search results. So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor.
Google "search engines". It's even one of the top hits suggested as you type. Can you twist my words to come up with an analogous situation in Windows where it gives you a one-click option to install or even test-drive an alternative OS?
I do use Windows on a regular basis and even prefer it for some applications, but you do have to admit that they have a bit of a lock-in. Most people have a reasonable awareness of what search engine they are using, but don't recognize what an OS is. Even if they do, switching typically means either purchasing a new computer or begging a geek friend for help (possibly even relenting to the geek friend's begging to "help').
While you may have a point about religion often being used as an excuse to commit crimes , censoring it won't solve the problem.
Blaming it on slashdot won't get you any good karma either.
And what do you mean with "progressive" slashdot. Sure , we all like technology and new things , but apart from that , our political views are very different.
Slipping shoelaces ?
So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor.
Isn't that the standard definition of repression? Mistreat one group for the benefit, sometimes completely intangible benefit, of another?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
...consider that they are only a practical choice given the conditions. While other choices may exist, undue force (equivalent to but not from a gun) goes their way.
So what is the big deal? Google censors some things, don't like it? Go to one of the thousands of other search engines.
Seriously, censorship is bad but this is the internet, not the government-regulated airspace, there is no FCC, it is --
That does not excuse a lack of accountability to the US government. Giving a private entity a shield from it is asking for trouble. No, anything related to markets does not count as accountability. Regulation is accountability.
I must say I agree that Google is doing very well so far. There are restrictions that Google is applying to some countries' users because of local gov regulations. I once asked someone in Google, she told me a *standard answer*: Google will try to provide the most info to the people in that country as possible.
That's a non-answer since their stock structure prevents any meaningful dissent. Perhaps it would mean something if one could use that to pull them out forcibly. Otherwise it is up to regulation to do so.
But the key is, it *is* doing well. Not *will* do well. Corporates change their minds. We do not rely on their history to judge their future. (Convince me Google helped Yang when he was been kicked off if you can.)
Well, I guess you love Google's version of the Jonestown kool-aid.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Honestly, I'm surprised the United States hasn't declared Google (and other major internet pieces) a national security asset and moved to place it under government protection.
Perhaps it should go the other way and make them accountable to the citizens of the US. That means they can't have multiclass shares to stifle dissent and prevent accountability.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
'it's hard to do good, and to gather data in ways that don't raise privacy concerns or that might help repressive governments to block controversial content.'"
Actually it's pretty easy. Just be a search engine and generate revenues though benign info spidering. They've got it. The second they let politics in, it's over. That would be like traffic lights turning green for BMW's. It just won't work out in the end.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
That would be like traffic lights turning green for BMW's.
...or bowing to a country instead of actively encouraging it to change.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
"90% of the people in this country will tell you that www.annabelleigh.net crosses the line. I'm guessing over 50% will have a strong reaction against it and would prefer that Google make sure it doesn't come up in their search results."
It doesn't cross a legal line, so presumably you are referrring to a "moral" line. When you begin to moralise the internet, who can say where or when the resultant censorship will end?
"So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor."
Google is not doing a "big favor" for anyone. Censoring controversial material doesn't help readers; it simply makes them ignorant.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
"What the fuck? And you're surprised this crap is blacklisted?"
Maybe you could explain why you wish for a legal discussion forum for paedophiles to be censored. It is not a "how-to-molest-children" forum, it is not a place for exchanging illegal material, it is simply a place where people who are attracted to girls can discuss their feelings.
If someone is isolated from their community, has nowhere to turn for support and has nothing to lose, they are less likely to care about consequences (for themselves or others) than if they have a community. Your support of the censorship of places where paedophiles can form a community and receive emotional support is therefore rather thoughtless.
Most paedophiles do not commit offences against children, but oppression and hatred will only increase the probability of a person becoming dangerous.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
Why is it up to Google to do the work of the United Nations?
Google is a company just like any other, they have to operate within the law wherever they operate.
Not censoring a youtube video almost had Google employees arrested in Thailand until the bowed to pressure and deleted the lamest movie on YT with like 20 views. Governments have Google by the balls not the other way around.
I suggest you reassess your opinion of how much influence Google holds over governments because you'll find it's almost nothing, if any at all.
How would 90% of the people know whether this site crosses any lines, if their searches - which they believe are exhaustive - simply skip over relevant matter?
Why doesn't google censor white supremacy - or even black supremacy - sites? 90% of Americans would probably think that those sites cross a line, too, but fortunately most would oppose de-listing these sites, because they want people to see these people as the slime they are.
There's no need to censor unattractive ideologies. The best response to white supremacy speech or Neo-Nazi speech is to tell the truth about these ideologies and let everyone see it and its consequences. I think there are a lot of people who want to censor sites like annabelleigh.net because they know that if the public ever learned the truth, they would realize that they have been lied to by government and the media and a good deal of "charitable" organizations - all out to make a buck. The child abuse industry makes its money off the misery of children by selling unnecessary psychological counseling, by getting government funding for more police and social workers to either return child refugees to harmful home environments or to kidnap children from loving homes, gets government or "charitable" funding to relocate children - who often don't want to be relocated - to group homes or "boot camps" or into any number of torture regimes, and of course gets government funding for more prisons and prison guards. There are a LOT of people with financial interests in making sure that the truth is not known, and in repressing child lovers who are actually interested in what children want, rather than in imposing their will on children.
The "guardians" don't have to censor bad ideas - better to let them disintegrate in the sunlight. They only need to censor good ideas that threaten their own grip on power. That's what is happening here.
"If they are not discussing the relevant topic at hand (i.e., young children), then this is behavior they could engage in from any location, obviating the 'need' for a community dedicated to pedophiles."
Have you not considered the possibility that a marginalised group may not wish to associate with the majority who want them to be imprisoned/censored merely because of what they think?
"On the other hand, if they are discussing the topic at hand, this sort of site should be closed."
You still haven't explained how the website is "harmful" and you haven't rebutted the positive effects which a sense of community has for a marginalised group and those who members of the marginalised group may interact with. Your moral beliefs do not negate the importance of the welfare of children and the ethical treatment of paedophiles.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
There are far worse sites online as far as breaking the law is concerned and it is not google's duty nor place to censor it from search results.
It's not censored it just doesn't show up in Google searches. That doesn't mean you still can not access the content, just that you can not find it on Google. That just means Google sucks at finding kiddy fuck stories.
I will however tell you anyway why your outlook on this is wrong, because this question comes up a lot on slashdot and I think you need help if you can't see what's wrong with this.
When you're part of a community or group which encourages a behaviour such as child sex via fantasy then all you're doing is encouraging that behaviour to become more common within someone's daily lives.
The members get twisted into their own delusions into believing that this kind of behaviour is normal, at which point it escalates from not just reading child sex novels but perhaps to something more such as child pornography.
At some point their desires transition into the real world, where other people are effected.
The same thing goes for terrorists, alien adoptees to internet pirates. The deeper in you go the more warped your look on life becomes until you can't judge anymore that what you're doing is morally wrong.
You consider things to be morally just. Look at that child molester in Australia, I forget the name. He never admitted doing anything wrong, because by his standards he didn't. He fantasised about having sex with children for so long that his brain just swung the moral compass right around to the point where he was deluding himself and just went ahead with having sex with children.
I can only assume by your response to another commenter that you, yourself are undergoing this transition of moral compass swinging. You obviously see no problem in thinking about having sex with children.
Now get it over with by telling me how wrong I am then you can go back and cry on your kiddy sex message board. I'm sure they'll tell you all about how the world "doesn't understand" and make you feel better about yourself.
But Google's policies on censorship are unfortunately unclear. They're operating, not within US, Chinese, or international law, but within whatever law they negotiate with whomever they happen to speak with. And it's not that Google holds sway over governments: they hold sway over their own company to choose to do business there or not, and to follow such policies or not. If we're going to trust Google as a source of the world's Internet knowledge, we need to hold them to a very high standard of non-censorship, or that information will become even more filtered and corrupted than it already is.
The importance of search engines as gatekeepers is mostly exaggerated.
So denying a country 99% of useful information because Google can't give them that 1% of information they probably didn't want or could get anyway isn't evil to you?
Lets not forget that it's you that finds censorship wrong, not the people of the country in question.
"When you're part of a community or group which encourages a behaviour such as child sex via fantasy then all you're doing is encouraging that behaviour to become more common within someone's daily lives."
The community doesn't encourage people to engage in child sex, whether through fantasy or in real life. Paedophiles will, however, fantasise about sex with children regardless of external factors, so the communities in which we participate are irrelevant in that respect. Although such communities don't encourage illegal behaviour - meaning that your argument has failed - the idea of paedophilia (an attraction, not a behaviour) becoming a central feature of the life of someone with a paedophilic orientation is very relevant. The reason why paedophilia may become a central feature of a paedophile's life is because of the insane public obsession over paedophiles; society treats a paedophile as having an identity comprised purely of sexual urges. More disturbing is the assumption that all paedophiles will offend and are unable to control their "monstrous" urges. The latter may have a dangerous effect on some paedophiles, though I personally treat the assumption as the bullshit which it is.
"The members get twisted into their own delusions into believing that this kind of behaviour is normal, at which point it escalates from not just reading child sex novels but perhaps to something more such as child pornography."
You're conflating behaviour with fantasy; don't underestimate the ethical, social and legal barriers between the two. I would like to point out that the website in question is not a repository of sex stories, it's a discussion board. You clearly haven't even read the website which we're discussing.
Furthermore, I question your assumption that viewing child pornography is harmful (though I feel it should be avoided for legal reasons). Child pornography is created for the purpose of profit and trade, not for people who view freely available images. The suggestion that viewing freely available images encourages producers of child pornography is like suggesting that downloading free music helps the recording industry. The recording industry doesn't like their music to be freely downloaded (hence the outrageous lawsuits), so it is ridiculous to assume that the child pornography industry wishes for their images to be viewed without purchase. Simply viewing child pornography is not harmful, although I would second an argument that paying for abusive child pornography is harmful.
You should also consider the nature of child pornography.
"At some point their desires transition into the real world, where other people are effected."
Where is your evidence for this? You may be able to provide random cases of this happening, but there is no evidence of this happening to the majority of paedophiles, or even to a significant minority of paedophiles.
"You consider things to be morally just."
I believe in ethics (which is one of many barriers between fantasy and reality), however I have never subscribed to moralism. Moralism is a selfish concept which is concerned purely with pushing one's own beliefs and instincts onto others.
"Look at that child molester in Australia, I forget the name. He never admitted doing anything wrong, because by his standards he didn't. He fantasised about having sex with children for so long that his brain just swung the moral compass right around to the point where he was deluding himself and just went ahead with having sex with children."
How can you possibly know why he abused children?
A study published by the British Psychological Society found that "fantasy deficit may be involved in contact offending against children" (Sheldon & Howitt, 2008). The study compared paedophilic non-contact child sex offenders with paedophilic contact child sex offenders. It suggested that paedop
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
Typical for the current mental state of /. Apparently only a single mention of "spam" and in an irrelevant sense.
Wouldn't it be nice if Google would use their so-called gatekeeper status to discourage spammers? Many options and many points of attack, but I'll just mention the nuclear one that is most convenient for Google: If an webhosting persists in spammer-friendly policies, then Google can stop indexing *ALL* of the websites hosted by that webhost. (Actually, even that wouldn't be sufficient for a webhosting service that only served spammers and had no legitimate customers--but it would be a good starting point.)
What I can't understand is how Google thinks they can compete with free. The spammers so-called advertising is "free" from Google's perspective, but it only destroys the value of all Web-based advertising, including the advertising that is supposed to sustain Google over the longer term.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
(1) You mischaracterize the site. You obviously did not look at it. All your arguments are based on false premises.
(2) As multiple studies have affirmed, most child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is NOT committed by pedophiles, even on a per capita basis. Also, there is no good evidence for the "progression" scenario, and in fact there is more evidence that pornography - child or otherwise - actually reduces sexual assaults when it is legal and easily available. Again, all your arguments are based on false premises.
So, you fail.
It's about what we expect from antis, however. We get this sort of nonsense all the time.
Good guess. It's no secret.
Google doesn't "block" anything, they can't prevent you from accessing a site, they can simply fail to point you to a site. Exactly what would make these people happy? If Google responded with a new search algorithm that did away with PageRank and displayed all results on a page in random order every time? That would make the Internet better, yay. Anything less would surely be called "censorship" by someone. Is Google obligated to point you to every single possible site? If Google, then why not have everyone who has a web page at all be required to link to every other site on the Internet? I suppose on my personal page by only linking to a few dozen sites I am "censoring" the rest of the Internet too.
Just making certain, with things like this it's best to be crystal clear. I knew I'd get modded flamebait for that comment from some stupid arse who clearly didn't read your post.
Anyway, after actually considering this I'm going to support your right to free speech. Tbh, making those sorts of statements in public should be enough to get a surveillance warrant (in much the same way as admitting any crime should be enough to allow the police to start watching you) so I guess paedophiles at forums like that are at least out in the open.
As to whether Google should index your site, well, Google is a private company and is free to do whatever they want. I support them in their no-platform policy for paedophiles and actually wish they would take a stance on more issues, e.g. violent fascism (which they already block in Germany due to the law there). Sure, you've got your right to free speech; nobody should be stopping you posting your protected speech on the web. That doesn't mean that anyone has to support you though, it's also right that companies like Google and other organisations should take a stand against you. In fact this shows Google is an ethical company, just their ethics are different than yours.
Even though there's no prohibition against what you're saying, Google is taking a stand against you and that's something everyone who isn't a paedophile rightfully supports. I mean, civil rights? The right to bone tiny little girls?
It's not bigoted to oppose that.
Nick
"Tbh, making those sorts of statements in public should be enough to get a surveillance warrant (in much the same way as admitting any crime should be enough to allow the police to start watching you) so I guess paedophiles at forums like that are at least out in the open."
Paedophilia (a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) is not a crime, nor is it a reliable indicator of crime, so a surveillance warrant is not justified. I wouldn't be surprised if some authorities monitor the website illegally, as some authorities harass non-offending paedophiles in real life without having reasonable suspicion, but you are wrong to assume that the authorities are legally (or ethically) justified in monitoring people purely on the basis of their sexuality.
"it's also right that companies like Google and other organisations should take a stand against you. In fact this shows Google is an ethical company, just their ethics are different than yours."
The belief that someone should be censored for expressing offensive opinions is a moral belief, not an ethical belief; censoring speech does not protect anyone, it simply prevents them feeling uneasy or offended.
Furthermore, many people posting at Annabelleigh do not advocate the legalisation of adults having sex with children; should they also be censored when they are not harming anyone or even advocating the legalisation of harmful behaviour?
"I mean, civil rights? The right to bone tiny little girls? It's not bigoted to oppose that."
It's not bigoted to oppose that, but it's ignorant to assume that the majority of paedophiles actually want to do that.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
Paedophilia (a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) ... It's not bigoted to oppose that, but it's ignorant to assume that the majority of paedophiles actually want to do that.
OK, so maybe boys too. That's what paedophilia is about, unless you want to change its definition to mean something other than sex with children. I think that's what most people understand a paedophile to be and trying to change the definition of that word, well, I reckon it'd be a teensy bit harder than rehabilitating the word hacker.
Honestly though, you use it in its commonly accepted form right at the start of your reply indicating that you understand it to mean that. How do you square the circle of being sexually attracted to children whilst saying a paedophile doesn't really want to do it? It rather sounds like saying the majority of gay men don't really want to have sex with other men.
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying but it really doesn't compute. That site is full of descriptions of little girls in overtly sexualised language. Just click on some of those thanksgiving posts and it's all stories about how the paedo in question spent the holiday oogling little girls. Also within a few clicks are classic arguments about how animals fuck their young so it's OK for humans too.
I appreciate that a lot of paedophiles don't actually make contact with children and instead stick to images and fantasy, (methinks that's where you're coming from) but I'm sure you appreciate that there's something fundamentally broken about that outlook. You're condemning yourself to a life of permanent sexual frustration as you're placing your ultimate fantasy out of reach. Is that really what you want? Don't you want a strong intelligent woman who can be at least your equal or maybe even your better?
I'm an uncle, three nephews and a niece. Whenever I'm around them and their friends I'm the cool twenty-something uncle with all the latest games and cool music from people and clubs they've never heard of. Obviously that means some of their little female friends flirt and try to act older than they are because that's how kids are, but to actually take advantage of that, that'd just be weird.
So yea, you and your subculture: weeeeeeeeeeeeird.
Nick
So yea, you and your subculture: weeeeeeeeeeeeird.
You, sir, owe me a new wall.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.