Slashdot Mirror
Google Knocks Explicit Adult Content On Blogger From Public View
Ellie K writes As of 23 March 2015, Google will remove blogs on its Blogger platform that don't conform to its new anti-adult policies. This is an abrupt reversal of policy. Until today, Google allowed "images or videos that contain nudity or sexual activity," and stated that "Censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression." The linked article quotes the message which has been sent to Blogger users thus: (...) In the coming weeks, we'll no longer allow blogs that contain sexually explicit or graphic nude images or video. We'll still allow nudity presented in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts, or presented where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content.
The new policy will go into effect on the 23rd of March 2015. After this policy goes into effect, Google will restrict access to any blog identified as being in violation of our revised policy. No content will be deleted, but only blog authors and those with whom they have expressly shared the blog will be able to see the content we've made private.
Good thing that the definition of "evil" is sooooo malleable.
That is all.
it may be their servers, but it's still censorship.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Uh, owning the platform does not mean that censoring something on it is not censorship.
Google's usual spin to try to sound equitable and egalitarian. They're anything but. Remember the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Remember when Google took payments from BP to redirect search queries to results that pointed to pro BP (PR agency) websites and religated real journalism and articles about public concern to the back pages of search results that rarely, if ever get seen? Isn't that efectively censorship that's against the public interest?
Google's original statement is still correct: "Censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression."
The only difference is now they are censoring it despite their original statement.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
There are fewer pieces of more obvious Newspeak than so-called "adult" content. When did "this is adult content" become synonymous with "for juveniles only" ?
David Anderson
But not in the constitutional freedom of speech sense. Not sure why this is even news.
love is just extroverted narcissism
People keep using that word but do not really seem to know what it means.
If I own a store I can decided what is for sale in that store.
If I own a newspaper I can decide what I publish in the paper.
If I own newspaper I can decide what kind of ads are put in the paper.
Ebay does not allow the sale of guns or live animals is that evil?
Craigslist does not allow "adult services" adds anymore.
That is all called editorial control.
The government saying that you can not publish something is censorship.
Google is not preventing them from publishing anything. They are just enforcing their guidelines for their free service. If you do not like it find an hosting service, download a free blogging platform like wordpress and you are good to go.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It seem incongrous to impose speech limitations in the US, which actually has the right to free speech as part of their constitution.
The US constitution limits powers of Congress, it does not regulate private entities. Your right to free speech does not depend on Google willing to host that speech on Blogger.
"The full quote is Voltaire's, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.""
To quote Google. "But I do not have to pay for you to say it."
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The government saying that you can not publish something is censorship.
You must be working from a different dictionary than me. Censorship is when something is deleted or hidden from view. There is no requirement on who is the one doing it.
If I decide not to say "fuck" in this post and replace it with "fudge", that's self censoring.
If a newspaper removes the word "fuck" from a letter to the editor, the newspaper is censoring.
If Google hides all adult content from view, Google is censoring.
If the Government tells a newspaper they can't run an article critical of it, the Government is censoring.
Only one of these things is illegal.
Just because Google is censoring adult themed websites doesn't make it wrong or illegal. You can't decide that a word means less than it does just because you don't like the connotations.
While I agree with the sentiment that this isn't to be considered unlawful or anything, the word censorship does apply. The word censorship means simply that content is reviewed and objectionable portions suppressed/deleted, not that a state institution is doing it or that there is no alternative way of producing that content.
If a private radio station bleeps out something, it's still called censorship. Sometimes it's for FCC guidelines so it's at least related to government in such cases, but different radio stations exercise different disciplines. For example a song that references weed gets bleeped on one local station, but not another in my area.
The meaning of a word is not something that should be politicized...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Google doesn't want to run a porn site. That makes them evil?
However, in the cases of the stores selling stuff, or newspapers publishing stuff, every item is chosen for and cleared by the entity selling/publishing them. That's different from a service that solicits self-publication by the masses.
The key difference is that newspapers, stores, etc. start with nothing and choose what to add. This type of censorship starts with everything and chooses what to exclude.
The eBay/Craigslist examples are the companies not wanting to enable illegal activity (many of the ads/sales would fall into illegal activity depending on where/how the transactions occurred - this is them not wanting to be an accessory to illegal activity).
Google is not preventing them from publishing anything. They are just enforcing their guidelines for their free service.
However, that is censorship. Practically the dictionary definition of it, even: A censor is "an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds" or "any person who supervises the manners or morality of others." Censorship is the act of acting as a censor. This situation is absolutely Google suppressing blogs on a "morality" basis.
The issue is that they didn't have this policy in the beginning. There would be no Blogger if it wasn't for the users. There are a lot of users that helped to get the site popular, Google is changing the terms on everyone now that the community is established. It's a pretty shitty thing to do. "Thanks for bringing us traffic, now fuck off!"
X
Actually, it's more like a few conservative flash mobs went and complained.
Remember when Apple was forced to remove all porn apps from the App Store? I'm sure it wasn't because they wanted to, but there's a group of dedicated social conservatives who do nothing but complain about anything even remotely explicit.
Think back to the superbowl "wardrobe malfunction" - it probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere if not for the group being vocal in their complaints. When the FCC decided to filter out mass complaints of their nature, well, they went after the next target - Apple.
And you can easily bet they're the ones flagging tons of videos off YouTube, and probably they discovered Blogger.
Hell, I won't be surprised if they discover Android next and start getting all the more explicity apps there removed. (Yes, you can sideload, but that cuts down your visibility tremendously, and sideloading these kind of apps is already sort of questionable, given they're very ripe vectors for getting malware on Android).
These sort of groups will stop at nothing to ensure society is clean and full of "pure Christian values".
Actually (<-- no good posts start with that word, sorry), I am quite on board with GPs interpretation of censorship. The original, more narrow, meaning of the word relates specifically to government. It has later been transposed and used in other contexts.
The whole point with keeping the notion ear-marked for governmental censorship is that it is the kind of censorship that is generally really bad. Editorial freedom and such should in my eyes not be mentioned in the same breath as goverment controlled censorship -- unless the editorial restraints actually originate from the state, in which case we are back at rightfully calling it "censorship".
Selling guns and live animals is not illegal in the US.
Google said, "We are offering a free service for people to publish blogs that meet these requirements."
It is no difference than if I opened a free market for people to sell organic food and someone wanted to sell cans of Pepsi in their booth.
That is not the rules.
I would say that you are confusing the word suppressing with the word not supporting.
Find a different blog service or get a cheap host and Wordpress...
Google does not say you can not have the blog. You can have the blog but just not on Google's servers.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You bet it's censorship. So what? Most people want some forms of censorship, if only for the simple matter of organizing your content. In this case, those with explicit materials will not be deleted, they will be made private, and those who wish to view it, will need to be invited to the sites. I personally would like to see more changes like this because not everyone on the internet can discern between what they click on... (like kids, which are increasingly getting wifi smartphones, and such which have little to no protections...)
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Reality isn't always safe for kids either. Why should the net be? This constant dumbing down and treating everyone as errant children is destroying society.
No, it's not censorship. Censorship is the government controlling your actions by coercion, the threat of using force against you.
This may be a business taking a position that they know better than you what is good for their bottom line; in that case, it most likely represents a balance defined by the clients of the business, with the business betting that more clients will be pleased by this than displeased. Alternatively, it may simply be an artifact of someone powerful relative to the business's control who is imposing their morality upon all of the business's customers. In either case, the affected users can take their business elsewhere to a platform that does not impose moral restrictions upon them.
When the US government censors, it is almost impossible to stand against it effectively. Particularly as it often is finally determined by non-elected actors, such as the FCC and SCOTUS, both of whom have demonstrated outright contempt for the US constitution.
When a business imposes "mommying", for whatever reason, all you have to do is stop using their product and (a) you have done them a small, but real, bit of actual damage, and (b) you can return to operating as you please via no more effort than selecting a more open platform.
The bottom line is that there is a world of difference between a private entity insisting on bounds within a limited space, real or virtual, that they legitimately control, the maximum end result being that you don't get to use a space you didn't have any rights to in the first place if you insist on your position; and a government enforcing bounds everywhere using violence, where insisting on your position can lead to anything from a monetary fine to your rape and/or death within the prison system.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I doubt this one's the Feds. Google has consistently been a prudish company. Blogger is now under the same rules as YouTube. Google seems determined to make the internet as tame as American TV. No good will come of that (well, I'm sure Google knows where the money is, so some good will come to the stockholders).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
But we take reasonable precautions in reality. When kids have to cross a busy street to get to school, there is often a crossing guard. That's a reasonable precaution. Also the speed limits are lowered during those times of day. We don't rip up the road or prohibit all traffic, though. Nobody wants to find sexually explicit material accidentally when looking for informational content.