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.
NOW where am I going to go for my sexual content?
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
I wonder if this isn't motivated at least in substantial part by copyright concerns. A huge portion of adult content posted is in violation of copyright, and if Google was seeing that they were getting DMCA notices for adult content on Blogger at rates that far exceed the overall average, and the cost/effort of responding to those notices was outstripping the ad revenue from the adult blogs, then maybe they just decided it's not worth it.
Purely speculation on my part, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Uh, owning the platform does not mean that censoring something on it is not censorship.
That was a long time ago. Google has ignored that line the minute they became a publicly traded company. Every decision they make is how to benefit their stockholders.
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.
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.
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?
You mean when BP bought ads on Google based on Deepwater Horizon-related search terms? The same ads that anybody could have purchased, and that were clearly marked as ads? Nobody was being "redirected," unless you think that the law firms that buy ads on "mesothelioma" looking for clients for asbestos lawsuits are somehow "redirecting" searchers from the mesothelioma web page?
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?
No, because it didn't happen. BP bought some adwords, the same as anyone else can, and they were displayed in the same way as anyone else's. There was no redirection. It didn't knock news articles off the front page because adwords don't work like that. They don't alter search results, just display a clearly marked advert along side those results.
Google doesn't want porn on its blogging service. Fair enough, they don't owe you anything, run your porn site on your own dime.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
I felt a great disturbance in the Farce, as if millions of pervs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened... and we didn't get to watch...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
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 full quote is, apparently, not Voltaire's but rather his biogropher's (Evelyn Beatrice Hall).
Not running a porn site, not evil.
Back pedaling on their stance on censorship, evil.
At this point, I more or less assume that Google is a multinational corporation which will do whatever the fuck it wants, and that any claims of "do no evil" have long since been wiped out by the sheer amount of evil they actually do.
Google cares about one thing, and that's their revenue stream.
Pretty much everything else they do is just standard greedy, evil corporation ... no matter what story they like to tell.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
US company
I thought they were Irish...
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Consider:
You own a business that the Government does not like.
The Government then starts a program, maybe one called Operation Choke Point that pressures banks to withhold services from YOU, thereby making it near impossible for you to do business.
That is pretty much the Government forcing you out of business, or censoring you, in effect, by using a third party.
And in case you wondering, it goes like this with the banks..."That's a nice bank you have there. It'd be a shame if we had to do a top to bottom audit. Who knows what we'd find, how much it would cost you, or how long it would take. But we could avoid that if you did us a favor..."
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
We have grown used to using Google to search everything on the Web. If we suddenly are no longer able to google one particular kind of content, someone will offer their own search engine, supported by specialized advertising, for it. Economics will dictate that specialized search engines will not try to compete with Google in general search, so in a fairly short time I can see "googling" be replaced by use of a number of search engines for different kinds of activity. An unintended consequence may be that the half-mystical "deep Web" that Google cannot access will become just another specialized search arena, equal to all the others.
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.
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.