Slashdot Mirror


Google Exec Says Isis Must Be Locked Out of the Open Web (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes with this story about Director of Google Ideas Jared Cohen and his talk with the Royal Institute of International Affairs about stopping terrorists online. Cohen contends that the best way to fight them online is to keep them confined to the dark web. The Guardian reports: "Google's head of ideas, tasked with building tools to fight oppression, has said that to stop Isis being able to publicize itself on the internet requires forcing Isis from the open web. During a talk with the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House, Jared Cohen said that it will not be possible to stop terrorists such as Isis from using Tor and the dark web. The key to stopping the terrorist group from propagating online is therefore to hound them from the traditional web – that which can be indexed by search engines. Cohen said: 'What is new is that they're operating without being pushed back in the same internet we all enjoy. So success looks like Isis being contained to the dark web.'"

208 comments

  1. Seems really stupid by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is), because you gain a lot more from operational slips as to what they are up to, than you lose from recruiting value the group in question gains from running a website.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Seems really stupid by alphatel · · Score: 2

      It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is), because you gain a lot more from operational slips as to what they are up to, than you lose from recruiting value the group in question gains from running a website.

      People can slip up in the dark web too. "Hiding" them from the open web just means that you can't find their media so easily in a search. You have to get smart to locate their public conversations and since so many younger readers are inherently dumb, this would exclude the majority of their recruits.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:Seems really stupid by torqer · · Score: 1

      Damn sorry, misclicked. Posting to remove incorrect moderation. Damn touchpads.

    3. Re:Seems really stupid by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      True, but they can screw up just as quickly on the dark web...

      Meanwhile, Google can do a whole hell of a lot about that *right now* - Google can de-index their sites, then urge Bing, Yahoo, etc to do the same thing. For at least 98% of the Internet using population, that act alone pretty much wipes them off of any public consciousness. Toss in Facebook, Twitter, and etc actively looking for the same, and it bumps to at least 99%.

      There's even a bonus - since its only private companies doing this, there's no First Amendment issues arising from it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No first amendment issues, but plenty of personal liberty issues.

      Sure, with this particular group most of the internet/world is willing to say they are evil and silencing them is good. But is that the test we want controlling who gets to voice their views on the internet? Would the suffrage movement or the civil rights movement have been silenced at the time? Bet yer ass. It's not googles place to determine what staff SHOULD be found on the internet, just what CAN be found. Policing content is not their job. They're a search engine, not a morals enforcement group.

    5. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't want an "open web" they want a "Google Web"

      Google sees themselves as being the gatekeeper to knowledge

      Block googles ads and you won't be allowed in
      Dont advertise with Google and you won't be found
      Competition pays enough and you will get buried
      Politicians will be able to hamper free speech.
      The will be the Great Google Wall of the US.

    6. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can be done, but because a lot of companies profit from the buzz when Daesh slaps up another beheading video, it is more of a matter of "won't" than "can't".

      Treat all Daesh messages, videos, and such as copyrighted items, with zero license to copy/share/distribute/publish, with takedown notices and mechanisms in place... you know... the same mechanisms used to ensure exiting copyrighted content stays off of sites. Then, they will be muzzled, and would-be recruits will have to go to the edges of the Net to hunt for their propaganda... it won't be popping up in their daily Twitter feed, with ad companies making profit from it.

      It is pretty sad that the mechanisms in place keeping people from posting a part of a song from Metallica's "St. Anger" album are far stronger than mechanisms to deal with terrorists and their propaganda.

    7. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do have a moral obligation to stop people actively trying to recruit others to inflict harm and destruction. 10-20 years ago, if a service were around and showing Russian propaganda videos in the 1980s, they would be shut down, and members arrested.

      Google is already the EU's punching bag because they are a US company, and quite often hauled in front of EU judges, so being known as Daesh's mouthpiece isn't going to earn Google much praise, especially when another attack happens on European soil.

      Stuff can either done voluntarily, or governments will follow China's lead and institute their own protective measures.

    8. Re:Seems really stupid by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Would the suffrage movement or the civil rights movement have been silenced at the time?

      Some might respond that ISIS is world's different than Martin Luthor King, Jr., but it's the same general concept. If companies or governments decide what people/groups get to say what online, they'll start with groups like ISIS - which I'm sure we can all agree has violent speech. Then, they'd gradually shift until they get to people who don't post violent stuff but just repugnant stuff. Before long, you'll get banned for posting something that could possible make someone uncomfortable (or that might impact the company's bottom line).

      This doesn't mean we need to allow everyone online and can't kick people off, but there has to be a legal process for doing so with checks and balances in place - not just a company policy that can shift any second or a "because the government says so edict" whose target might vary depending on who's in charge of the secret committee.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a first amendment issue unless they're suggesting government enforcement.

      Google can do whatever the hell they want to do, rank pages however the hell they want, and deindex whatever they want, and I don't care. There was some "women programming" crap that popped up when I started my browser up, so DuckDuckGo is now my homepage and search engine on all devices.

    10. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "DIRECTOR OF GOOGLE IDEAS?"

    11. Re:Seems really stupid by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      While the US Congress could refuse, perhaps, copyright protection, they could not order takedowns of uncopyrighted stuff, nor could they get away with any other copyright twisting to take it down.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    12. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's the same general concept

      It's the same general concept if you are a fucking idiot on slashdot. MLK Jr. wasn't leading a death cult.

    13. Re:Seems really stupid by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think it's actually a brilliant idea. Once Google have locked out ISIS, the program can be expanded to also lock out Al Qaeda, drug dealers, pedophiles, people who object to the CIA's kidnapping and torture programs, copyright infringers, Anonymous (every single one of them), anti-TPP protesters, pornographers, whistleblowers, movie downloaders, and finally, people who complain about how censored the web has become.

    14. Re: Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your example about Russan propaganda videos is silly. If you were a library with Russian propaganda videos in the appropriate section, you wouldn't be arrested. In fact, you would be expected to have a myriad of knowledge filed and marked appropriately.

      Google jumping through hoops to be an engine with selective content just opens the door for an actual search engine to be the library of the internet. Of course, they will have their stooges in the government shut down those guys.

      Absolutely a liberty and freedom of thought issue.

    15. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm uncomfortable that you're using the "slippery slope" argument, which can be used to prove anything....

    16. Re:Seems really stupid by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the Forrest for the trees. They both were pitching a message that wasn't entirely well received by a lot of people at the time. If a company or a group of companies can ban together and stop the messages that people in power do not like to hear, well,we would still be in the 1960s with separate water fountains, separate entrances, and lynchings because they looked at me the wrong way.

    17. Re:Seems really stupid by mars-nl · · Score: 0, Troll

      They do have a moral obligation to stop people actively trying to recruit others to inflict harm and destruction.

      They don't. We as voters/tax payers have a moral obligation to make sure our children are educated and not to be stupid enough to fall for this (well, any) propaganda.

    18. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but Google own's the servers that link to any content on the Internet. If they choose to block the content, they can easily argue first amendment rights don't matter as it's their search engine and their servers and they can link to whatever they choose to link to as it is their property.

      Whether Google should exercise their rights as a company to remove content they don't wish to link to is debatable. Many would argue that if Google is going to provide search services that they should link to all legal content and let its users determine what they wish to access.

    19. Re:Seems really stupid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is), because you gain a lot more from operational slips as to what they are up to, than you lose from recruiting value the group in question gains from running a website.

      The people in power don't need "operational slips" to find out what ISIS is up to.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:Seems really stupid by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's actually spelled
      Google Ideas ©®*
      * (Patent Pending)

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    21. Re:Seems really stupid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Some might respond that ISIS is world's different than Martin Luthor King, Jr., but it's the same general concept. If companies or governments decide what people/groups get to say what online, they'll start with groups like ISIS - which I'm sure we can all agree has violent speech.

      Violent speech? You think the problem with ISIS is violent speech?

      Then, they'd gradually shift until they get to people...

      Stop right there. Slippery slope arguments are so much horseshit. Purposeful violence against civilians is a breaking of the basic social contract and deserves a forfeiture of rights. Or do you believe that imprisoning a murderer is a violation of his civil rights?

      If you think that ISIS and "Martin Luthor King, Jr" (sic) are "the same general concept, then you don't really know anything about either. There's no excuse, either, since Monday was Dr King's holiday and you could have found any number of thorough articles about him and his beliefs.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:Seems really stupid by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, Google's hiring process has clearly failed. If your "idea" is just basic censorship, how do you rise to be a company director?

    23. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not possible to educate these peoples. Call them like you want, I don't care about political correctness any more.

    24. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] we would still be in the 1960s with separate water fountains, separate entrances, and lynchings [...]

      We have all these things. They are called "safe-space" today. Women, ethnic minority and peoples of colors all have their respective safe-space on campus, which include water fountain and separate entrance (obviously, it's a separate location). We also got lynchings of white men because of gang rape rumor supported by a general misandrist sentiment promoted by the state.

      Nothing really change, in fact nothing really matter. I don't even care about the future any more, I just want to get high and watch the western civilisations burn.

    25. Re:Seems really stupid by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Information flows both ways in the open web. We get to try to "recruit" ISIS terrorists to leave the dark side and return to the light side. The biggest lesson we learned from decades of Cuba trade embargoes and political pressure is that evil thrives in the dark. Opening the door and letting the light shine in is an effective method of promoting civilized behavior. Ending the political isolation we imposed upon China has succeeded in turning them into people just like us.

    26. Re:Seems really stupid by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      First they came for the criminals, and i said nothing because i'm not a criminal. Then they came for [long list goes here], and then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up for me. Attempts to destroy our freedoms always start with the worst of society and slowly move up to everyone else. This is why it's important to protect everyone (hence the phrase "human rights", instead of "good person rights").

    27. Re:Seems really stupid by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Purposeful violence against civilians is a breaking of the basic social contract and deserves a forfeiture of rights.

      Yes, a forfeiture of rights...after a trial. And based on individual charges, not guilt by association.

      If you think that ISIS and "Martin Luthor King, Jr" (sic) are "the same general concept, then you don't really know anything about either.

      The freedom of speech of DAESH/ISIS supporters and the freedom of speech of Martin Luther King are the same general concept: the state has no right to use force to silence people, and a communications company should be required to carry all communications regardless of content. (Otherwise it's not a communications company, it's an advocacy group of some sort.)

      ISIS is a bad bunch of people. I don't support them. But censorship is strategically counter-productive in the short term, and corrosive to liberty in the long term. Trying to silence a group is an admission that their message is attractive and important. It only lends them credibility, the old "forbidden fruit" syndrome.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    28. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hes a spokesman for the deep state.

    29. Re: Seems really stupid by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      You are still an idiot to run the same parallel, all the countries that I know of already laws that forbid spreading hate speech/propaganda or making threats against others, both to hurt someone physical or economical and I don't see most of thoose countries picking up other groups or extending the definition because of that

    30. Re:Seems really stupid by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is), because you gain a lot more from operational slips as to what they are up to, than you lose from recruiting value the group in question gains from running a website.

      Not if you can monitor them on the 'dark' web anyway. Let spies be spies and infiltrate as they're supposed to do.

      Part of any war is propaganda and stopping the propaganda of the enemy is desirable.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    31. Re:Seems really stupid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yes, a forfeiture of rights...after a trial.

      In every country a person can be arrested and held before a trial. They still have a set of rights, but it's a smaller set.

      Trying to silence a group is an admission that their message is attractive and important.

      That's one theory. Again, every country has laws against inciting violence. There is no place on Earth - there has never been - where there is an absolute right to freedom of speech.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:Seems really stupid by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is)

      It's not the "open" web if it is closed to certain classes of people. That some of these classes, for instance the semi-fictional ISIS entity, are extravagantly repugnant is irrelevant to the issue of openness vs closedness.

    33. Re:Seems really stupid by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      For at least 98% of the Internet using population, that act alone pretty much wipes them off of any public consciousness.

      98% of the internet using population are not the target market for $YOUR_FAVORITE_EVIL_GROUP's recruitment efforts. Hyperlinking still works very well for people who are actively looking for something.

      De-indexing will have little impact on reaching serious recruits, as opposed to idle dilettantes. The main effect will be silencing or at least stultifying public debate. This is not a win.

    34. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost all date rape claims are fake. Let's just be honest, we all know it, let's just say it out in the open. Don't be a pussy and succumb to officially promulgated peer pressure. We also all are starting to realize, that won't get you any pussy, just the scorn of all decent men.

      (It's not at all ironic that I post this as AC. Privacy is an illusion, but I want to believe.)

    35. Re:Seems really stupid by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's a bit late to close that barn door. Google already demotes/censors based on various criteria, including:

      1. Spammers
      2. "Adult" content, based on some definition derived from perceived local values
      3. Court orders (mostly music and movie industries attacking P2P)
      4. Sites that are just one giant Flash animation
      5. Sites carrying malware
      6. Sites without mobile versions
      etc.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    36. Re:Seems really stupid by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Slippery slope arguments are so much horseshit. Purposeful violence against civilians is a breaking of the basic social contract and deserves a forfeiture of rights.

      Do you consider the willing acceptance of (well understood risk of) civilian "collateral damage" in ostensibly legit military operations as "purposeful violence against civilians"? If so, should US Gubmint messages be censored? If not, why not? (serious question)

      PS: Happy MLK day. That man is an American hero and deserves a nice statue to go next to his big fountain downtown. The leaders of the possibly-fictional ISIS entity do not. That doesn't mean we should censor their words.

    37. Re: Seems really stupid by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Hate speech, tho hateful, is speech. Either you support freedom of speech or you don't.

    38. Re:Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private property stooge. Freedom means a lot more than your small minded interpretation of an old parchment in a museum.

    39. Re:Seems really stupid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      the possibly-fictional ISIS

      If they're fictional, then how are their rights being violated?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re: Seems really stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which laws govern freedom of speech in Antarctica? What about on a privately owned DIY boat, flying no flags, in international waters?

    41. Re: Seems really stupid by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      what?, can you take it again and explain it against what I said?

  2. Censorship, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "B-b-but, it's against oppression!"

    Well, if you say so.

    Alternatively, that's what you'd say.

    1. Re:Censorship, again by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if we build in censorship as a fundamental part of the web to stop ISIS, that doesn't sound so bad. What's the worst that could happen? I'll bet the politicians are even willing to swear that they'll never abuse it.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:Censorship, again by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      If private companies are the only ones doing the censoring, then politicians don't get a mechanism to abuse. ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Censorship, again by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:Censorship, again by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      So what legal mechanism would politicians get out of this? Government would still be hampered from doing anything substantial along the same lines.

      Here's the neat part: If Google (or whoever) got stupid about it, competition would quickly rise up. It's not like Google could stop folks from spreading the word about competing search websites, no matter how hard they tried.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:Censorship, again by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      You seem to have misunderstood what they are calling for. It's not for search engines to refuse to index them. It's for them to be banned from the sort of websites that search engines index. For example, if someone posted a pro-ISIS message on Slashdot, they're asking for that message to be deleted, because Slashdot is the sort of website that gets indexed by search engines.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    6. Re: Censorship, again by Phil06 · · Score: 1

      Why does the Internet still work in Raqqa? Isn't it obvious to cut all cables going into ISIS territory and knock out every cell tower? It wouldn't be too hard to bomb them out of the Information Age.

      --
      "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
    7. Re:Censorship, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, in the real world there's this thing called prior investment.

    8. Re:Censorship, again by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Here is how it works in the real world. Politicians make a law saying all telephone metadata must be saved for X amount of time. Then they make a law saying they can take it and sort through it and do anything they want to it for as long as they want. But interestingly, the government is the only ones allowed to do this because of you know, privacy concerns. So when challenged on constitutional grounds, it is claimed that it's business records that belong to businesses and not individuals so no civil or constitutional rights are violated and their constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce allows them access to it so the constitution actually allows spying on the internet and phone conversations of all citizens.

      Where is the legal mechanism? Just wait until it is invented if it isn't already and hiding in plain sight. It will get trotted out like you are a 3 year old who cannot connect the dots if they were in a straight line, It would just be a matter of time.

      How major internet companies conspiring to repress other people's uses of the internet wouldn't violated anti trust laws is another question that should be asked.

    9. Re:Censorship, again by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Governments love having private companies do questionable things on their behalf, as this means they are not held responsible. Few people publicly complain about the cellphone companies willingly spying on us as agents of the government.

    10. Re:Censorship, again by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      But if we build in censorship as a fundamental part of the web to stop ISIS, that doesn't sound so bad. What's the worst that could happen? I'll bet the politicians are even willing to swear that they'll never abuse it.

      Taking the extreme and obvious counter, do you support no censorship of child pornography?

      In war, stopping recruitment for the enemy military by eliminating their communications is desirable. That in this case the enemy's communications happen to be on the Internet does not change the fact that eliminating enemy communication remains desirable.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    11. Re:Censorship, again by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Taking the extreme and obvious counter, do you support no censorship of child pornography?

      Do you support jailing minors who take pictures of themselves (ie, jailing producers of child pornography)?
      Do you support jailing minors who send pictures of themselves (ie, jailing distributors of child pornography)?
      Do you support jailing minors who own pictures of themselves (ie, jailing owners of child pornography)? How about their parents, if they own eg baby pictures?
      Do you have any evidence that an adult looking at naughty pictures of minors is likely to result in said adult abusing minors, as opposed to serving as a (mostly) victimless outlet for their urges? As a comparison, if you eliminate a normal person's access to porn, are they more or less likely to have sex?
      Do you support the government using child pornography as an excuse to violate people's rights to privacy? We must spy on all your attachments, because the children.
      Do you support the government deciding which ones and zeros people aren't allowed to produce, own, or share?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    12. Re:Censorship, again by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I can see how censoring sexual pictures of children can be good, and CP is against the law. I don't want anybody censored for advocating breaking the law, but I can see an argument for censoring sites that are doing illegal things on the web. However, there's a lot of nonsense in some of the laws, which I'd like to see changed.

      Doing a unilateral US action will not cut ISIS communications, unless we can bomb all of their communications gear, which seems unlikely.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Censorship, again by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Taking the extreme and obvious counter, do you support no censorship of child pornography?

      Do you support jailing minors who take pictures of themselves (ie, jailing producers of child pornography)?
      Do you support jailing minors who send pictures of themselves (ie, jailing distributors of child pornography)?
      Do you support jailing minors who own pictures of themselves (ie, jailing owners of child pornography)? How about their parents, if they own eg baby pictures?
      Do you have any evidence that an adult looking at naughty pictures of minors is likely to result in said adult abusing minors, as opposed to serving as a (mostly) victimless outlet for their urges? As a comparison, if you eliminate a normal person's access to porn, are they more or less likely to have sex?
      Do you support the government using child pornography as an excuse to violate people's rights to privacy? We must spy on all your attachments, because the children.
      Do you support the government deciding which ones and zeros people aren't allowed to produce, own, or share?

      So evidently the answer to my question is yes, you support no censorship of child pornography.

      To answer your questions, more or less:

      I think that social acceptance of something results in an increase of that something, with whatever comes with it including abuse and so no, there should not be social acceptance of child pornography.
      Children will make mistakes and so no, they can not be held responsible for being children.
      I believe that society should teach children not to make such mistakes the same as we try and education children about any other danger to them.
      Adults should be able to control their animal urges as that is what makes us better than animals.
      I believe also that society must contrive to constrain adults who are not able to control their animal urges and are thus not able to live in society.
      As the government should be representing the people of the society, it is their responsibility to exercise such control over those who do not control themselves.
      Society must enable such control, within reasonable limits - for which there are already laws as well as checks and balances to keep those in power from abusing those laws.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    14. Re:Censorship, again by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I can see how censoring sexual pictures of children can be good, and CP is against the law. I don't want anybody censored for advocating breaking the law, but I can see an argument for censoring sites that are doing illegal things on the web. However, there's a lot of nonsense in some of the laws, which I'd like to see changed.

      Doing a unilateral US action will not cut ISIS communications, unless we can bomb all of their communications gear, which seems unlikely.

      I think that the US is quite capable of disrupting all publicly visible ISIS communication via hacking/cracking/DOS/DDOS should they choose to do so.

      I have to think that at this point they do not because it serves the purpose of 'BE AFRAID GIVE US MORE POWER'.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    15. Re:Censorship, again by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      It is clear from your answers then, that you'd be OK with minors being able to send child pornography to your inbox, with no consequences to themselves? That minors could be paid by adults to produce child pornography, and only the adults (should they get caught) ought to be punished? After all, can't hold children responsible for making mistakes, right? The trouble, of course, with making something legal for some but not others, is that it makes for a nightmare for enforcement.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    16. Re:Censorship, again by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      It is clear from your answers then, that you'd be OK with minors being able to send child pornography to your inbox, with no consequences to themselves? That minors could be paid by adults to produce child pornography, and only the adults (should they get caught) ought to be punished? After all, can't hold children responsible for making mistakes, right? The trouble, of course, with making something legal for some but not others, is that it makes for a nightmare for enforcement.

      No, I wouldn't be okay with it. What you describe should be, and probably is, handled like drug dealers using runners where the adults involved are tried as adults and the children as children, with probable results including the children being taken from their families and being placed in other situations.

      With regard to 'some' and 'others' as you postulate, there is a vast difference between an adult who understands the way of the world and a child, who does not and who is often very easily manipulated by the adult in question. The solution is to remove the child from the adult / environment and get them somewhere else where they can grow up in a more positive situation.

      This isn't any more of a nightmare than any other aspect of law enforcement, and much less than most. Even if it were, that alone would not dictate the right way to proceed here. One does not make murder illegal because it's a nightmare for law enforcement to find the murderer.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  3. The Newspeak is heavy with this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Plus Plus Ungood for putting ban controls on the 'open' web. If it's 'open' anyone can play. As soon as you ban something from 'open', it is by definition 'closed'.

    1. Re:The Newspeak is heavy with this one by alphatel · · Score: 1

      Plus Plus Ungood for putting ban controls on the 'open' web. If it's 'open' anyone can play. As soon as you ban something from 'open', it is by definition 'closed'.

      You already agreed to this when you denied drugs and pedoes from the web. Terrorists is just another one to hate on.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:The Newspeak is heavy with this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Citizen,

      Language violation detected:

      Found: "Plus Plus"
      Expected: "Double plus"

      Please remain stationary and continue looking directly at your monitor. Authorities have been dispatched to correct the problem.

      That is all.

    3. Re:The Newspeak is heavy with this one by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      They couldn't effectively ban them from setting up their own websites, what he's saying and is his major point is that the major internet companies, google, facebook, twitter, et all could effectively remove them from the internet by blocking their use of their resources.

      ISIS entire recruiting effort is via facebook and twitter. Take away those two resources and you'd effectively handicap them. They realize this, when Twitter discussed shutting them down ISIS publicly threatened their executive staff with murder. That is how much ISIS fears having western internet access terminated. It's funny actually how dependent they are on Western companies they would happily destroy if they controlled them.

  4. Great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's just pretend they don't exist.

  5. Surprise by geeper · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google exec says using Google services will help prevent terrorism.

    --
    Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
  6. Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So now all a "Blackhat SEO" company has to do is spam ISIS content all over competitor websites to delist them from Google.

    Google has an obligation to shareholders to be an impartial/unpoliticized search engine. The second they start playing nanny state with their customer's searches is the second the advertising gravy train stops and they have to learn how to make a profit the old fashioned way. DuckDuckGo already has "scroogled". This asshatery sounds like a great way to further shitify a good product(result relevance has already been negatively impacted by attempts to combat clickfraud/blackhat SEO).

    1. Re:Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can already do this with child pron and drug stuff..

    2. Re:Genius by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      So now all a "Blackhat SEO" company has to do is spam ISIS content all over competitor websites to delist them from Google.

      Pretty sure that's a tall order. What are you going to do, load down the comments section of $competitor_site with pro-isis propaganda? Pretty sure that, it being the only place you can spam any part of it, it won't get too far - at least not with moderators and CMS censorship software already in place.

      As sibling said, you can do that already, right now, with offers to, say, sell drugs and/or kiddie pr0n... yet for some odd reason it doesn't seem to happen.

      Now one thing that can happen as a result would be for the baddies to implement steganography, then post the encoded images to imgbin or tumblr for pickup by the intended reader(s)...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Google has an obligation to shareholders to maximise the return on their investment.

      Believe me, they think about that pretty much every minute. And their conclusion is that they're not going to do it by valiantly defying western governments.

    4. Re:Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except linking to ISIS propaganda isn't illegal.

    5. Re:Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kiddie pr0n and selling drugs is very much illegal and highly actionable in court if you were to link people to such things. Speech about things that might make your listings "disappear" that are not "illegal" is a much safer grey area much like the usual Fox News strategy of saying "people are asking... people have said" about X.

      It becomes rumor and innuendo that you cannot fight in court. Such as "most of my friends in the know say that ISIS uses Microsoft Windows exclusively because they love how secure it is". Maybe Google wants to set up it's own secret court system for such but who knows?

    6. Re:Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're posting this on a site that's graced by APK? Also obvious you've never moderated/hosted a webboard.

      GLWT.

  7. China exec says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    China exec says Google must be locked out of the Great Firewall.

  8. This isn't going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is going to be applied to people who speak out against feminism, BLM, etc. They will make unpopular opinions disappear in the name of terrorism.

    1. Re:This isn't going to end well by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is going to be applied to people who speak out against feminism, BLM, etc. They will make unpopular opinions disappear in the name of terrorism.

      Dunno. Private companies do have one big check on their behavior - competition. If Google decided to turn the SJW dial to '11' one day and stomped out all references to anything not personally approved by Ms. Sarkeesian, folks would start gravitating over to Bing, using it instead. If Bing joined Google in this act, DuckDuckGo (or some as-yet-unknown competitor) would pick up the slack.

      Capitalism has a lot of problems, but rampant censorship ain't one of them.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:This isn't going to end well by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Private companies do have one big check on their behavior - competition

      This doesn't apply for some companies. My only source for wired, high-speed Internet is Time Warner Cable. Suppose they decided that Slashdot was an extremist group (based on reading the titles and spotting the string "ISIS" in a few articles) and banned access to the website. I wouldn't have the ability to vote with my wallet by going elsewhere. In fact, they could raise my rates due to "increased costs due to website filtering" and I'd actually be forced to pay more for worse service.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:This isn't going to end well by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      1) An ISP is way different from a search engine.

      2) Time-Warner decides to censor your internet? Time to evaluate whether or not you need "wired, high-speed Internet" more than you need your personal freedom. If the latter is a higher priority to you, there' s the local DSL (or cable if you use DSL), Satellite Internet (with at least two major providers that I know of), Fixed-tower Wireless Broadband (there's usually one or two in a given area), 3G/4G Wireless Internet (at least three major carriers), etc. The odds of *all* of them suddenly colluding and deciding that you don't need to see Slashdot (or whatever) is pretty slim at base, so the point still stands.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:This isn't going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But natural monopolies are one of those problems (or perhaps the phenomenon is just an artifact of a 3 dimensional baryonic world), and in practice it's very difficult to get rid of what people perceive as just useful infrastructure... Especially when the vast majority of them are no longer savvy users.

    5. Re:This isn't going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up! blocking isis from the web is powerfreak talk for being able to block anyone with untasteful speech from the internet. anyone who disagrees hasn't studied much history

    6. Re:This isn't going to end well by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      History is filled with examples of competition not working. Try starting a company to compete with Microsoft, for example.

    7. Re:This isn't going to end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who speak out against feminism, BLM, etc.

      Bacon, Lettuce and ... meatballs?

    8. Re:This isn't going to end well by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      My point was that it's harder to switch my local ISP than my search engine. If companies start filtering the Internet, how long until the ISPs get in the game.

      As for my "options":

      DSL: Verizon will sell me a DSL line that's the same price as my current TWC access, but that's less than half the speed. (And I'm on a relatively slow 15Mbps right now.) They also will require me to get a home phone line which I don't want but would add to the cost.

      Satellite: I'll admit that I haven't looked into this much but I just looked up one provider and they were offering up to 12Mbps with a 30GB cap for $149.99. After the 30GB, they'll slow speeds down. Given that my estimated usage is about 70GB a month and that I use Internet video services like Netflix and transfer files often, this would result in me paying more for slower speeds and a lower cap.

      4G: This tends to have low caps and overage fees, not to mention costing more for base access. I checked Verizon Wireless and they have a plan that would satisfy my estimated monthly usage. It would cost me $600 a month.

      In other words, all of the other "competitors" cost significantly more and/or have highly restrictive caps.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:This isn't going to end well by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If Google starts censoring Men's Rights sites, most people aren't going to notice, because most people wouldn't go there. There's lots of things Google can censor while leaving the vast majority of its current users oblivious. They could censor all sorts of unpopular viewpoints without losing much at all.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The free and open exchange of ideas is only for those whose ideas we deem acceptable!

    Good old google. Fuck you in the ass google.

    1. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between 'ideas' and 'snuff films'

      You might want to have a think about what exactly that means. Free speech is all well and good until somebody gets their head hacked off for being a journalist.

  10. The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen, is a good guy with a pen.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  11. It'll be easy! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Funny

    All we have to do is check to see if the evil bit is set!

  12. Director of Google Ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wee wa woo wa wee wa woo we wa woooo wom we we wet wop

  13. Google Higher-Ups by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Maybe we can use these same techniques to force Top Googlers off the open web. It sure seems like, a lot of times, after they've opened their mouths it's apparent they would've been better served keeping them shut.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  14. First its the "terrorist" by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    then the criminals and finally the regular citizens who will lose their voice on the open web.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:First its the "terrorist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the "open web"?? Is it the Google indexing service? Advertising tracking??

      If so I would also like to become part of this dank web of darkness. Where do I sign up for this service

    2. Re:First its the "terrorist" by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Dark web = "anything not found in a search engine."
      Open web = "anything found in a search engine." (presumably)

      The definition of Dark is laughable to people who know that IRC etc exist, but the vast majority of people can't find things if they aren't in Google.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:First its the "terrorist" by Torodung · · Score: 1

      Alternately:

      Dark web = "shit that doesn't resolve in DNS"
      Open web = "shit that does resolve"

      I don't think I want this happening to DNS either.

  15. Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. by xtal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd much rather we continue to show people what these cavemen consider normal in graphic detail.

    They're lunatics, hiding them won't help. We need to out this insanity, and it helps that they're doing a great job of demonstrating what religious fanaticism is capable of.

    Censorship is evil. Period.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'd much rather we continue to show people what these cavemen consider normal in graphic detail.

      Unfortunately that quickly becomes `racist'. Even your suggestion is `racist' with your pejorative "caveman" characterization.

      Crime has a similar dynamic. Report enough of it and the news becomes `racist'. Prosecute enough criminals and your criminal justice system becomes `racist'.

      Censorship is evil. Period.

      While true, different forms of `evil' have different priorities in the pantheon of `evil'. Censoring things considered `racist' is completely acceptable.

    2. Re:Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      When are you going to learn that "mocking" just doesn't work.

      ISIS has been going like gang busters for how long now? Where is the outrage from the mainstream Muslim governments of the world, and how many of them have put enough "boots on the ground" to defeat them? So ISIS remains.

      Donald Trump has been mocked in every conceivable media outlet. He has been shown to be a complete ass clown. And now we have not one, but two ass clowns, since Sarah Palin has joined the ass clown parade. And yet, there he is.

      It's the year 2015 AD, and trolls have learned that you don't *actually* have to stop doing what you are doing just because someone is mocking you. In fact, the mocking actually helps, because then you can portray yourself as a victim of mocking. In fact, if you are a troll, all you have to do is keep saying and doing exactly what you've been doing, and eventually you become a permanent fixture. The new normal, if you will.

      Sorry kid, but if you want to right the wrongs of this world, then you have to (at a bare minimum) get off of your ass and do the work yourself. I'm not saying censorship isn't evil. I'm saying that relying on somebody else to do the hard work, or thinking that mocking will make hateful minions of satan shut the hell up and go away, are both just as bad and equally useless.

    3. Re:Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      odd, it's 2016 where I am.

    4. Re:Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's possible to mock groups without being racist. If your mocking implies that all Muslims are ISIS members, then yes you are being offensive about it. However, when people mock the Westboro Baptist Church folks, they don't imply that all Christians are WBC members. It's possible to mock a small subsection of a group without insulting the whole.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter what you imply, only what more influential people infer. Say the most agreeable thing you like; if someone with a stupid amount of followers, connections in media, and victim-ability decides to paint it as a defense of child abuse, guess how many of the people in their reach are actually going to bother verifying what you said.

    6. Re:Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I'd much rather we continue to show people what these cavemen consider normal in graphic detail.

      Yes, and then troll them and harass them like they're on 4chan/b/ every time they post something. Make them look as stupid as possible to as many people as possible. That's why I was OK with Anonymous deciding to harass them on Twitter. Not sure how that's going though. In my opinion the best way to defeat these Sunni extremists that laughingly call themselves the 'islamic state' is to discredit them and make them a laughingstock online as much as possible, which might also have the added extra benefit of making them angry; angry people tend to make more impulsive mistakes.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best way to defeat ISIS is to continue doing what we're doing: slaughtering them like cattle every time they attempt to crawl out of their holes. They've been nice enough to gather in a location and attempt to occupy territory which means it's open season on their ass vs. when they were hiding among civilians. It's not even a war. It's a mass suicide.

      I promise you that we can spill their blood faster than they can breed, so eventually the problem takes care of itself. ISIS is defeating ISIS with their open contempt for yielding the strategic benefits of guerrilla warfare in favor of challenging ever country in the world to a game of conventional warfare.

      It is ridiculously unfair how easy they are making this war for the good guys, and the best part is: they are inspiring all the dumb-ass reactionary radicals in the West to travel to their location so they can shiver in the cold until they get wasted by an air to ground missile.

    8. Re:Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Islam a race now? That you were voted up to informative means that there are people with mod points who are dumber than you.

  16. No, force them onto the open web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So you can track them.

    Kicking Iran out of SWIFT was the worst decision - then they just traded oil for gold in an untraceable way.

  17. They did it before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did this before with affiliate marketers... its the exact same strategy they used to deny "stay at home" Moms an easy stream of income. Google is in a place to deny an industry's right to exist on the internet... why not terrorists too. Put that monopoly to work if you aren't going to do anything else about it.

  18. Alternate idea by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    What if we just spammed all known ISIS posts with dick pics, Goatse, tubgirl, etc.? Wouldn't that be simpler AND more effective?

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Alternate idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you consider that their main recruiting approach is to remind young muslims of how humiliating their life can be in the West, and how crude and debased our culture is, I sincerely doubt that this tactic will work. They are immune, now, to being belittled or shocked.

      We have to assume that most active participants in the regime (as opposed to people who merely live under it through accident of geography, misguided loyalty or family ties) are unreachable and unconvertible, and make it clear that the road back from participation in that regime remains possible but will be difficult.

      And then we have to focus on three things:

      1) making it so families resist letting their young men join, by being very clear about the atrocities committed
      2) stop asking muslims to apologise for every single attack ("I don't see moderate muslims XYZ")
      3) let them -- help them -- establish an ideology that will counter it, while giving them the full criminal responsibility of their individual actions

      Monitoring mosques, banning mosques, interfering -- it's not going to work. Treat aberrations like criminal acts and prosecute them accordingly.

      Muslims are humans and Islam is just a religion; one of a half-dozen-or-so major religions on which modern civilisation was built, each with their horrific literature, each with their beautiful inspiriations.

      Systematically humiliating people isn't effective, even when they are the worst examples of humanity. And meeting the immature, mentally deficient, nation-scale acting-out that is Daesh with childish 4chan nonsense is not exactly showing our best side.

    2. Re:Alternate idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well put. I think it also is clear that daesh isn't actually about religion. It's about some straight nut-jobs that happen to be Islamic. They may use Islamic themes as it's their native culture, but they have twisted them beyond recognition and ignored vast swathes of the teachings. It's a rage club for lunatics, not a religious faction.

    3. Re:Alternate idea by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      They are immune, now, to being belittled or shocked.

      Exactly this. When your group's videos frequently include chopping the heads off of people, I don't think photos of people's genitals (no matter how disgusting they are) will shock them. That's like trying to shock an American man by showing him a "lewd" photo of a lady's ankle.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  19. WTF? Bad news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly HOW does this guy envision 'hounding them (ISIS) from the open web'? Its not like you have to register with some governmental agency & pay a fee to become a member of ISIS' people who post or do things on line don't necessarily have to label themselves as part of ISIS while still promoting their mission etc.

    So what this really amounts to is trying to 'hound people using speech we don't like". Private companies like FB, Google, Twitter etc. can of course set their own 'content guidelines' which I'm sure they already do & as such its simply up to them to enforce them. If however they enforce them to the extent that the 'banned speech' reaches to the point where their users who are NOT terrorists are being banned than I would respectfully suggest they'll be losing a tonne of business...in other words the content guidelines of FB for instance are fairly permissive at this time to 'hound' ISIS off the 'open web' would seemingly require a significant change in content policies at a level I doubt the standard users will agree to 'en mass'.

    Heck, once you've gotten past calls for Jihad & maybe a suggestion or two about 'it would be good if someone bombed a US embassy' for instance...how do you distinguish between a 'terrorist' (ISIS especially) and a 'freedom fighter' or otherwise calling for the 'downthrow of the west due to their interference in our religion/country'? The point is that eventually the line because so grey that you'll be banning 'legitimate speech' (or at least speech by other than 'terrorists' or specific to ISIS).

    Long story short effectively this guy is calling for the "homogenization of the open internet controlled by 'thought police' (e.g. limited to 'good think')"

  20. darkweb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    darkweb? like google+...
    and i agree all narcissist glass-hole terrorist should be blocked from the "open-web"

  21. so, what Google is saying is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, what Google, the company that is 'informs me' with every other click about more 'great products and services' is saying, is that I am too dumb to interpret information myself, to stupid to know the difference between right and wrong and to gullible to even be confronted with this information. It should be kept far from me.

    And that company thinks it is responsible behavior to expose such an incompetent person to a continuous barrage of advertisements, which will entice this person to waste all his money on unneeded goods, thus pushing this mentally weak person into bankruptcy

    I think Google needs different idea-man.

  22. Eric Schmidt by ickleberry · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm honestly surprised it wasn't Eric Schmidt who said this. Seems like something he'd say before hopping into his driverless Lexus RX450h

    1. Re:Eric Schmidt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People modding this Funny don't understand how evil Eric Schmidt and his ilk are. (Wishful thinking posting anonymously...)

  23. Always confused at the doubling back... by Vokkyt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm always confused at public statements made that require the speaker to double-back on themselves.

    In Cohen’s opinion, Isis is “not a tech savvy organisation”, resorting to tactics commonly associated with fraud or spam, but it should not be underestimated.

    I realize this is slightly semantic-nitpicking, but I see this a lot with statements from the US government and from US based companies about any online threat/problem. They walk this fine line between acknowledging and convincing people that the threat is big enough to require attention (which the Government/the companies are always able to handle), but simultaneously try to downplay the severity of the threat. Here we have ISIS using social media as a terrorism tool, with members (or at least fans) using fairly new software, services, and technology to spread their message to a world-wide audience, yet Google's spokesperson is very careful to play up the idea that ISIS is not tech-savvy. I'm not sure what to make of this, because it certainly seems like ISIS has a better handle on technology that the majority of the average US citizen. Heck, most ISIS productions and their use of modern software/services is far better than a good number of US businesses, old and new alike. Again, I'll grant maybe Cohen has a different idea in mind when saying tech savvy, but for as crooked as the organization is, I wouldn't suggest that they don't know what they're doing when it comes to Tech.

    This just creates a really weird narrative juxtaposition in my head where it feels like the speakers are trying to create a "safe threat" for the audience. By that I mean it's a threat, but it's not really, because the mighty, powerful, and benevolent organization is here to protect the audience. It feels extremely manipulative as it tries to vilify and glorify in the same sentence, like a weird form of jingoism. It scares the audience just enough to think of how dangerous everything else, and the intended result seems to be an attempt to create a dependence on the organization. The lack of actual technical details, or even specific examples of what the org is doing to help or how it's controlling the attacker are almost always omitted in favor of vague platitudes.

      I've seen this with quotes about cyberattacks attributed to Russians and Chinese as well, and its always the same foci: "it's dangerous! but we have it under control! but we had to take extreme measures! but it was never a problem! but it's a major threat! that we have under control!"
    I get that the interested parties don't want to appear weak, but the lack of any substantial information always just strikes me with that weird sense that we're getting a story, not information or news. I realize that this is a very long post to say that governments/corporations are selfish and manipulative, but it's just really off putting for me.

    1. Re:Always confused at the doubling back... by swb · · Score: 1

      "These N+1 issues are our number 1 priority." I've always wondered how you can have more than one number one prioirty.

    2. Re:Always confused at the doubling back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you're supposed to be afraid enough to vote for increased defense spending and reduced civil rights, but not so afraid that you quit buying stocks and bonds.

    3. Re:Always confused at the doubling back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cohen is a Google exec, not a representative of the US government. It's not "doubling back", it's different people saying different things.

    4. Re:Always confused at the doubling back... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      I've always wondered how you can have more than one number one prioirty.

      I am afraid you have no future in the sales department. Collect your cards on the way out.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  24. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Let the stupidity of ISIS be shown clearly on the Internet. Censoring them is just playing into their game.
    Anyone who is influenced in joining them is already a mentally long gone case and deserves to be bombed along with them as part of natural selection.

  25. Gonna be fireworks at TGIF this week by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

    There are going to be some fireworks at Google's internal company-wide TGIF meeting tomorrow (yes, TGIF is on Thursday). Lots of Google employees are going to be really unhappy about this statement, and Larry's gonna get some really angry questions.

    I'm going to make sure I get there early. With popcorn.

    1. Re:Gonna be fireworks at TGIF this week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some software engineers just want to watch the world burn...

      [all the ones at Google]

    2. Re:Gonna be fireworks at TGIF this week by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shouldn't it be:

      "Some software engineers just want to watch the world Halt and Catch Fire..."?

    3. Re:Gonna be fireworks at TGIF this week by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Some software engineers just want to watch the world burn...

      [all the ones at Google]

      The basis for that claim? You certainly couldn't get it from my post.

    4. Re:Gonna be fireworks at TGIF this week by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Given that Google is arguably significantly more powerful than most nation states on earth it seems very reasonable of them to be discussing the topic in the open. Perhaps they are being asked to sign up to something the NSA has asked for and are seeking a public response before responding.

      There are some public issues to be discussed which I would hope will get discussed in the meeting

      - Whether censorship of an enemies propaganda during the time of war is a reasonable thing to have on the open web.

      - Does confining an enemy to the dark web automatically criminalize everybody on the dark web (I assume that all dark web users are classed by the NSA as criminals)

      - What mechanism should be used in future to control the content of the web. (Do we want Mr Trump to personally define what is on the web by banning all pages with the word "Muslim" for example?)

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  26. Light Web - Dark Web... bla bla bla by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    How about ending the proxy war instead?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Light Web - Dark Web... bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mandalorians?!!

  27. Today Daesh, Tomorrow Pirates, Day After *you* by James-NSC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once a system like this is built, it will be turned on all sorts of "undesirables" - terrorists just happen to be the undesirable de jour.

    1. Re:Today Daesh, Tomorrow Pirates, Day After *you* by kheldan · · Score: 1

      As cynical as I can be about such things myself, I know there are plenty of watchdog groups out there that keep an eye open for abuses of First Amendment and civil rights like that, and they'll make a big stink when someone does.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:Today Daesh, Tomorrow Pirates, Day After *you* by James-NSC · · Score: 1

      I'd agree, but the "system" has progressed beyond what "watchdog groups" can cope with. Where were the watchdog groups - which you purport to be capable of protecting us - during the 10+yrs of domestic spying abuses leading up to Snowden's disclosure on '13?

    3. Re:Today Daesh, Tomorrow Pirates, Day After *you* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The watch dog groups will be the first against the wall, er, to be banned. You try to say that the Kurdish Separatists should not be banned and then you are mentioning Kurdish Separatists and so you should be banned.

      The 0.01% of people that care will still be able to find out. But nobody else.

    4. Re:Today Daesh, Tomorrow Pirates, Day After *you* by kheldan · · Score: 1
      How much other stuff is being hidden from our eyes by individuals, groups, and organizations within the government that want to throw away the rulebook for whatever their excuses are and grab power? I wasn't implying that any 'watchdog' group is omniscent or clairvoyant, but if they see something that's bullshit they tend to get after it. As for what's hidden from us, how is that situation any different than any other nation on Earth since Humans have had civilizations? To quote Wesley Snipes' character from the movie Blade:

      Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate up hill

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  28. Looking forward to a world where Google decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who must be locked out of the "open web". Google only uses algorithmic solutions, so it will make completely objective decisions without even really "looking" at what anybody is writing, like they do for their ads. It will be glorious.

  29. Google Slips further to the Dark Side by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a country's people are so disaffected they would join nutbags like ISIS, the problem isn't ISIS the problem is the country.

    1. Re:Google Slips further to the Dark Side by zlives · · Score: 2

      hmm, while there may be some iota of truth to this statement, most people join without reading the EULA and don't actually know what they are subscribing to

    2. Re:Google Slips further to the Dark Side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew I shouldn't have installed that iTunes update! Oh well, guess I'm off to fight jihad against you western infidel scum. Curse you Steve Jobs!!!

  30. Wouldn't that make it the Not Open Web? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just sayin

  31. And shine a light on them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's show the World what they are talking about and their attitudes. When they do anything show how stupid, ignorant and idiotic they and their followers and supporters are.

    And not just them. Like when the poor kid chop off his own hand the other day because he wasn't "pious" enough.

    Or even when some local forces Intelligent Design to be taught in our schools and when sued, exclaimed, "Don't call me stupid!"

    Yes, all the above are stupid. I want the World to see the idiocy of these fundamental religious groups and people. They should be shamed and ridiculed by everyone in the World. Anyone who agrees with them should be treated the same.

    Someone who goes to tries to go to those websites, should be intercepted with a page that shows the groups brutality, links to places that shows their ignorance and stupidity, and ridicule them.

    This being respectful for other beliefs has to have a line.

    And when people are afraid to say something critical about anyone for fear of violence, things must change. And it needs to be brought out into the open, examined and if anyone has a problem with it, tough shit.

    The Prophet Mohamed was a dick, by the way. And Muslims, Scientologists and Mormons are all idiots for following "religions" founded by cruel scam artists.

    1. Re:And shine a light on them. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The Prophet Mohamed was a dick, by the way. And Muslims, Scientologists and Mormons are all idiots for following "religions" founded by cruel scam artists.

      You left a few out:

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

      https://i.guim.co.uk/img/stati...

      https://desertpeace.files.word...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  32. Daesh by X10 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We should call them Daesh. Out of respect for the millions of girls name Isis. And because they hate it to be called Daesh.

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
    1. Re:Daesh by c · · Score: 1

      Daesh is the plural/organization name. Individually, I believe they're called Daesh-bags.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    2. Re:Daesh by PPH · · Score: 1

      Good. I've been wondering why we've been using the name of the Egyptian Goddess of wisdom.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  33. just honeypot the shit out of everything by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you catch murderers and hitmen by

    1.the police answering the ads of "hitmen" (morons, but so are most ISIS supporters)

    2. police posing as hitmen and picking up the losers that contract for their services

    you can do the same with ISIS

    1. answer real ISIS broadcasters with fake supporters who proceed to sabotage operations and outreach in all sorts of ways

    2. pose as ISIS and hoover up the social retards who answer the call

    but you can only do this if the idiots operate out in the open

    drive them underground and you can still do it, like with child porn douchebags. but you've made the job harder and some sympathizers go uncaught

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:just honeypot the shit out of everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is full of words like 'morons', 'idiots' and 'retards' and you appear convinced that everyone else is stupid and you're highly intelligent, yet you can't correctly capitalise your sentences. If you're going to accuse everyone else of being stupid at least get your own house in order first.

    2. Re:just honeypot the shit out of everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that's one of the most intelligent things circletimessquare has ever posted and it would probably actually work here.

    3. Re:just honeypot the shit out of everything by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you appear convinced that everyone else is stupid and you're highly intelligent

      we are talking about isis supporters. "everyone else" is not the topic

      weak troll

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  34. What he means is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The government should give them a shit load of money to try and attempt something that can not be done.

    After ISIS who is next ? Greenpeace, Amnesty International, how about any Palestinian organisation, how about Chinese dissidents, those that criticise Donald Trump, perhaps any newspaper that writes something those in power dont like.

    I am thankful I minimise my "google", they have become a sick puppy.

  35. How is it their message finds resonance with anyon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open web or not, how is it their message ever finds welcoming ears? That is the puzzling question I can't get my mind around. There's lots and lots of exhortations to do this or that, that I see on the web. It goes in one eye and out the other, to twist an old saying.

    So how is it they are able to wrap a message of "kill X, Y, Z because of $reasons" around enough sweet-sounding bullshit to actually get eager takers/

    Battlefields are are full of hardships and strife. Yet, somehow, there's people reading their shite who are willing to trade a relatively comfortable life here - many seem to come from homes where they aren't going hungry or lack shelter - for the certain uncertainty there.

    Mud, grime, not knowing where your next meal is coming from or whether you'll find sleep tonight without getting shot at... Yet somehow they are selling this as a thing to aspire to. These people must be master salesmen to have pulled this off.

  36. Which protects us best, ignorance or knowledge? by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In school, we teach kids how to protect themselves against drugs and stranger danger. We also teach them to look both ways before crossing the street; to stop, drop, and roll if they find themselves on fire; and to crawl under the desk in case of earthquake or nuclear detonation. Why not also teach them how to protect themselves against radical organizations? Then we would be protecting them with knowledge instead of ignorance.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:Which protects us best, ignorance or knowledge? by BoberFett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That SHOULD be the way things are done, but increasingly the message isn't how to protect yourself. That's considered "victim blaming." Don't teach women self defense, we need to teach boys not to rape. Don't teach kids how to defend themselves, we need to teach kids not to be bullies. We can't teach people not to listen to radicals, we need to make sure they never speak from radicals to begin with.

      It's all about keeping people's heads in the sand, not taking care of themselves but depending on [Government/Organization/Corporation] to project them from every ill in life. Because if bad things happen, it's not your fault, somebody else is to blame.

    2. Re:Which protects us best, ignorance or knowledge? by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Protect, not project...

    3. Re:Which protects us best, ignorance or knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you hadn't noticed, the "war on drugs" hasn't been going all that well. And "stranger danger" has always been a myth, most child abuse is perpetrated by family members or close friends.

      We've been trying various things to prevent these organisations (not just Daesh, but other thugs before them) from radicalising people in our own communities. Of course it's very hard to know how successful any of these attempts has been, in the absence of a control group, but what we do know is that some people are being recruited despite our best efforts. Relying on any one thing to prevent that seems - silly.

    4. Re:Which protects us best, ignorance or knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That SHOULD be the way things are done, but increasingly the message isn't how to protect yourself. That's considered "victim blaming." Don't teach women self defense, we need to teach boys not to rape.

      I'd say teaching boys not to rape is just good parenting. Heck, it's just not-completely-inept parenting.

      I'm sure both can be done. Teach boys not to rape, and how to defend themselves. Teach girls not to rape, and how to defend themselves.

      We can't teach people not to listen to radicals, we need to make sure they never speak from radicals to begin with.

      They have to listen to radicals. How else would they distinguish them?
      Just teach them not to share their views.

      Silencing people has never worked across history. Why would it start working now?

      Teaching has been working for ages.

    5. Re:Which protects us best, ignorance or knowledge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Ignorance of course! Can't have the masses thinking for themselves. What would that lead to, I ask? Surely not reelection.

  37. No, the best way to fight them online is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To directly confront how idiotically stupid their fundamental ideology is.

    Chopping the hands off of thiefs is NOT the best possible punishment. Treating women as second class citizens and not educating them and equating them to property is NOT the best way towards equality. Throwing gays off of the tops of buildings is definitely NOT a moral high ground.

    And most importantly, believing there is an all powerful sky daddy watching your every move is tantamount to delusional.

    The holy books are full of immoral commandments, contradictions, lies, and outright scientific ignorance, none of which is surprising given who wrote the books (hint it's not god, it was fallable men from pre-iron age times with very BAD moral foundations compared to today).

    The internet is where religion comes to die, and I would prefer to keep it that way.

  38. Better yet, and more effective; by Tolkien · · Score: 1

    Lock them up and throw away the key.

  39. Where is this "dark web" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is this "dark web". Sounds great, like how the web ought to be. If I want to send a message to you I want it to be "dark" to everyone else, no snooping by google, facebook, ms, etc etc. I imagine it does not have such gross amounts of vomit/seizure inducing advertising either.

    I suggest we all move over to this new "dark web" technology and leave all those who want to use us for their own ends behind.

    Is there an ISP that specializes in dark web?

  40. Bad Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free Speech isn't absolute, so we must protect people from bad speech by censoring them.

    We absolutely cannot simply refute this speech with more speech, because nobody knows how to refute ancient nonsense written by a guy who married an 8 year old.

    1. Re:Bad Speech by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I hope you're trolling.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  41. "Directory Of Google Ideas" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Directory Of Google Ideas"

    No wonder that company turned into such a shithole innovation, and a bastion of invasion.

  42. Orwell said it first by itsownreward · · Score: 2

    "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"

  43. Attribution...? by archatheist · · Score: 1

    Wait... Don't Chatham House rules apply at Chatham House?

    --
    "No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
  44. Confine the evil... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    I think we already know how this is gonna end.

    We've have countless fantasy stories where the evil antagonist was somehow confined to a crystal/underground jail cell/dimension/etc only to later escape and wreak havoc on the earth.

    Think, man!

  45. Google exec says the open web must be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone is locked out it's no longer open.

  46. This! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    As it was, we had US Government spooks trying to silence people pushing for equality. Look at Mockingbird and COINTELPRO if you don't know or don't believe. Yes, people would be silenced. In fact I'll argue that a tremendous amount of silencing happens today. Censorship already happens all the time, because it benefits people in power to control the narrative. People should try to count how many clips of audio they hear everyday in the "News" which are intentionally taken out of context so that you have a certain viewpoint. Then add in how many issues are simply ignored because it harms a narrative. Hint: It is closer to 100% than 0% in terms of how much the dialogue is devised for people to have and hold a specific opinion.

    To the point you raise: Google is not the arbiter of what should and should not be said any more than I am or you are. Words do not harm, and have never caused harm(1). I read lots of stupid shit that I don't agree with because it makes my opinion stronger. I also happen to read things I didn't know about in the process, which does the same or causes me to update my opinion.

    (1) A call to action like "yelling Fire in a crowded theater" which implies "run for your life" is not "speech", it's a call to action. People often confuse the two and often for sophistry.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:This! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Google is not the arbiter of what should and should not be said

      That's not the same as saying Google has a legal responsibility to include all links in search results or allow all videos on YouTube.

      I'm pretty sure you see the difference.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:This! by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Words do not harm, and have never caused harm

      Try telling that to those who were denounced to the secret police in totalitarian states. Oh wait, most of those people died.

      tl;dr: Fuck you and your libertard ranting.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    3. Re:This! by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Now THAT's an interesting argument. "Free speech hurts people living in totalitarian states, 'cuz when people speak freely the state goons beat them to death." Huh. Seriously dude, I never even thought of that one. Good on you.

    4. Re:This! by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Now that's an example of complete fucking illiteracy.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    5. Re:This! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You lack the capacity to differentiate action from words. No matter how you slice up your statement, the problem is in the ACTION and not the WORDS. If I write "John is a spy" and hand the note to the KBG the action is intended to harm John. Since you gave a pathetically inept appeal to emotion I could take the statement the opposite direction. People talking results in a Totalitarian Government killing them. Which then makes your statement mean that talking is the problem, not that an entity is silencing people by murdering them

      No matter which way I attempt to view your statement, it demonstrates an irrational and illogical thought. More simply put, you are not very bright. Certainly not bright enough to attempt to use the term "libertard" as an insult. You do however reinforce the normal that idiots regularly resort to ad hominem because they can not argue their opinions with logic and reason. Good on you, I guess.

      Actually I thought you were trolling but you defended and reinforced your idiocy in the same thread. Request an increase in dosage, and if that fails, you should strongly consider a lobotomy.p.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re:This! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Be careful with that, because you are attempting to invert the problem. Giving Google Government approval to modify and remove content from views is the complaint.

      While the initial discussion is always something small, it never ever ends up that way. The US did not become corrupt and full of cronies in a flash, it was incrementally done. So this time they want to remove content from ISIS. What happens when they want to remove content from "Tea Party", or an organization you may agree with? You should probably take a look at who the Government claims are the biggest threats. Like people who believe in the Constitution and individual rights, people who believe in the freedom of speech, people who believe in the second amendment, and people who question Government authority are all on the list.

      Should the Encyclopedia Britannica have been able to remove content they didn't agree with to rewrite history as they saw fit? Sure, but there were other encyclopedias people would buy if that happened. If the same company was allowed to monopolize the market, would you still believe that they should be able to edit history as they see fit?

      With the regulated monopolies we have, we lack that same freedom of choice and power of economic influence. Either freedom trumps and we remove regulations and government support which give companies legal monopolization, or we maintain our current status quo and allow the Government to control markets. If we continue the latter, we can't claim that these companies are private so get all the benefits of being private.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    7. Re:This! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      While the initial discussion is always something small, it never ever ends up that way.

      The slippery slope argument is fallacious.

      Should the Encyclopedia Britannica have been able to remove content they didn't agree with to rewrite history as they saw fit?

      Do you know how Encyclopedia Britannica is made? Of course they remove content and rewrite history as they see fit.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:This! by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Utter fucking bullshit. Without the words, there is no action to take.

      And if had said, in the days of DADT, that I spotted Lietenant Smith in a gay bar, I would have killed his career.

      Speech is action, and it can certainly hurt. Only idiots and teenagers living in their mom's basements believe otherwise.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    9. Re:This! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Then by your own words, go sit in a cave for the remainder of your life. Remove your tongue and fingers so you can not speak or write. Never ever attempt to communicate from here on out. Anything you ever say may result in you being harmed, and by your logic it was the fault of the communication. Words caused the murder, the murderer did not cause the murder.

      I really don't believe someone could possibly be as mentally slow as you, so I'll treat you as a troll after this post. If you truly happen to believe your own idiocy, seek professional help after disconnecting yourself from the rest of society. Lord knows it may be contagious.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    10. Re:This! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      A slippery slope is perfectly logical and only a fallacy if given as the only proof. Since we have a whole US Government and a century of proof, your claim of slippery slope is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

      Extremely poor form and maturity in the attempt to cherry pick the free market example and argument I gave.

      Do you have any rational arguments, or just more sophistry?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    11. Re:This! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Extremely poor form and maturity in the attempt to cherry pick the free market example and argument I gave.

      Don't be so hard on yourself. You chose that example to make your argument. It failed, but it doesn't really speak to form or maturity.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:This! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Haha, the argument failed because you said so? Is that really how logic and reason work in your mind? I don't have to prove you are wrong, I can just claim "fallacy" and you lose., so "you are a fallacy" and I win again! (But I refer you back to the arguments you chose to simply dismiss and not answer if you really want logic.)

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    13. Re:This! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The slippery slope argument works here.

      Currently, Google indexes everything it can, except for links to sites that people specifically object to. It's neutral.

      Now, suppose that Google starts cutting access to certain sites that they consider bad. This is a major change, and it creates a slippery slope where there was none before.

      What can happen then is that various groups think that their bete noirs should be banned, as they're worse than ISIS. There is pressure to break more searches, such as ones for atheist groups or Communists or neo-Nazis. There's not as much pressure the other way.

      If Google continues censoring, it becomes more responsible for what it does allow to be found. Right now, you can find a lot of horrible stuff on Google, and it's not Google's fault. If Google censors ISIS and Nazis and hate speech and stuff like that, someone can find a site that they really dislike, that might be advocating lots of illegal violent action, and sue Google if they can make up an argument for harm.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:This! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      To send words to the outside world, I need to take action. I can exhale while manipulating the air passage. I can type on a keyboard. I can make precise movements with a device intended to leave marks. There is no clear demarcation.

      We can look at other situations. Suppose we run businesses that are in competition. I start saying things that associate you with a locally unpopular political or religious viewpoint. Large numbers of ordinary people are going to believe me, or at least think it might be true, and they'll buy more at my place and less at yours. It's not their fault, that's what humans are wired to do. We don't have an evil KGB agent here to blame. The only bad guy in this scenario is me.

      I have therefore harmed you by use of words. I took no action except to say and/or write things.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:This! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I have therefore harmed you by use of words. I took no action except to say and/or write things.

      Wrong. You should have paid more attention to what I said, regarding the yelling fire in a theater, because you should have been able to see how you are wrong. In your example the harm was with action, and in particular it is a form of thievery. Slander and Libel have specific legal definitions very intentionally. The "words" used in Slander and Libel are not the problem, and not what makes them illegal. Slander and Libel both require that we have a measurable loss.

      If words were the problem we could never speak for fear of harming someone somewhere. You can not possibly defend a claim that "speech" is the problem. Speak all you want. A call to action, such as "run for your life" or "inciting harm to that person'" is more than simply speech.

      Here is a hint: The Founders of the US put speech in as a fundamental right very intentionally. There is a whole lot of history where people with the wrong opinion were killed for expressing that opinion, quicker if it might cause someone to lose undeserved wealth. The concept and purpose of the First Amendment is very well thought out and the wording in the first amendment is very intentional.

      You might be a smart person, but I don't believe that you are smarter than dozens of brilliant philosophical minds about fundamental philosophical concepts.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    16. Re:This! by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      So tell me, are you in favour of abolishing the laws against libel and slander? Would it be okay if I were to put up a site alleging you are a paedophile? It's only words, isn't it?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    17. Re:This! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actions? In my example, all I did was badmouth you. I didn't incite violence. I didn't necessarily say things about you in a manner other than standard chitchat with the customers. If I do the exact same things, and vary the specific words I used, you'd be fine. And yet you were harmed.

      Slander is the act of saying words to harm someone, and libel is the act of writing words to harm someone, if the speaker or writer knowingly speaks falsely or doesn't care about the truth. The words are the problem, and all the suits I'm aware of were about words. It at least hasn't always been necessary to show harm; if somebody called you a Communist around 1960 that would be slander or libel without show of measurable harm.

      If you can show harm from slander or libel, then you are affirming that the words can cause measurable loss.

      I'm not discussing philosophy here, and I'm strongly for free speech. What I'm addressing is the empirical fact that words themselves can harm.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  47. Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Tasked with building tools to fight oppression" by silencing political groups you don't agree with.
    I don't support ISIS in any way shape or form, but if we're serious about our ideals, we should be stopping their crimes, not their speech.

  48. Now I "Get" His Job Position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that's why Mr. Cohen is "Director of Google Ideas", not "Director of GOOD Ideas".

    Seriously, when somebody says this and his job title is "Director of Google Ideas", it pretty much implies that it's the view of the company he works for. Hopefully his "idea" won't become policy at Google and in his future he'll be having a talk with his boss about publicly stating "ideas" without running them by Google executives first.

  49. Blot're got all the webs by blotre · · Score: 1

    Yo ISIS, come join Us in the future here at Blot're. All are welcome: http://blog.blot.re/we-are-the... We've got all the webs you'll ever need: #000000 web, #ffffff web, and even some #A74CAB web.

  50. Re:The only thing that will stop a bad man with a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, apparently the ideals of ISIS are so appealing that the only way to stop them is to shut them up. Apparently Jared Cohen doesn't think there are any good arguments against ISIS propaganda? Is ISIS' bullshit really that well written and the arguments for our society's benefits that weak?

  51. Sure Google, push more people to the Dark Web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm completely opposed to censorship, but its clear that Google and its ilk will be censoring the web as much as they can get away with, as soon as they can. Google and Facebook and the rest want us locked into their lantations walled gardens, which is the real impetus behind this.

    But... the more people they push into the Dark Web, and the sooner they do it, the better it will be for all of us in the long run. Every reporter or academic who has to learn to use Tor to do research, every pedophile or terrorist who makes it harder to government to catch them, every drug deal and laundered bit of cryptocurrency makes it harder for the statists to keep us ignorant and obedient.

    So go ahead Google. Be Evil. We need the practice, because we all know you're going Full Cthulhu eventually.

  52. Idiotic by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    It's not an 'open web' if someone can be locked out.

  53. As workable as having 2 garbage bins. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    It will work.

    I'd like to have the idea extended to a full set of classifications for content so that I can sort and filter out all the other garbage on the web that is just as harmful to my kids.

    So long as adults can find anything by controlling those sorting filters I see no problem with the idea, just don't tell me what I as an adult have a right to read or know.

  54. Someone link me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sick of hearing how awful these isis web sites are, I want to see what all the fuss is about..

  55. That's OK. 7th century didn't have it anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want to live like Mr. M, pieces be upon him, in the 7th century, so if they're kicked off this 20th century technology they should be a lot happier.

  56. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite simply "I strongly disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it".

  57. Re:The only thing that will stop a bad man with a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, apparently the ideals of ISIS are so appealing that the only way to stop them is to shut them up.

    Let's say you agree with the ideals expressed in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: that countries should be governed by governments of, by and for the people - that it's bad to have a small mostly-hereditary ruling class living lives of ease and luxury by brutally exploiting everyone else. But let's say you also look around the world and see something of a "banana republic" situation: that there's a mostly-hereditary upper class in the USA that has disproportionate influence on the USA government - and that some members of the upper class (e.g. the Bushes) use their influence to have the US government use it's military to prop up brutal dictatorships (e.g. Saudi Arabia) - and then these brutal dictatorships do all kinds of favors, including millions of dollars in gifts, to these members of the upper class back in the USA. So let's say you see this whole banana republic situation as a betrayal of the most fundamental principles of good governance - specifically, the principles on which the US government was founded. Well, presumably ISIS also doesn't like the USA mucking about in the Middle East and doing the banana republic thing. Does that mean that the ideals of ISIS are appealing? Should Google work to censor any suggestions that it's wrong for the USA to be doing the banana republic thing in the Middle East?

    Or what about discrimination? We live in a world where it's technologically possible to hop on a jet plane and be on literally the other side of the planet in about a day (24 hours). But many people seem to want to live in a world where most people are constrained to live out their lives within whatever arbitrary geopolitical boundaries they were born into - where the world is mostly segregated by race and religion and ethnicity - where a person is expected to submit to whatever cultural norms existed long ago in the part of the world that they happened to be born into. It's not too bad in large and diverse countries like the USA. But imagine being born into some little Middle Eastern country: imagine being constrained to live out your life within a hundred miles of where you were born - and being expected to submit to whatever culture happened to exist long ago in that little part of the world. But then Obama comes along and claims he wants a two-state "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian situation: that he wants Palestinians to live out their lives trapped on the tiny disjointed little islands of land within Israel. Suppose you don't like discrimination and segregation? Suppose you want to live in a world where people are free to live and work and travel wherever they want without arbitrary restrictions imposed by some inane government bureaucracy based on race and religion and ethnicity? Well, in that case, you're not going to like the USA's policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It's a safe bet that ISIS also disagrees with the USA on those points. But should Google work to censor suggestions that discrimination and segregation are bad - particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian situation?

  58. Re:The only thing that will stop a bad man with a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen, is a good guy with a pen.

    If they use the pen to express any opinion not in accordance with the interpretation of the Koran ISIS uses, it will kill them both. Then it destroys any history of those men ever existed.

  59. Re:The only thing that will stop a bad man with a by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen, is a good guy with a pen.

    Unfortunately the bad guy wrote "Don't read what the good guy wrote" and the angry youth will not read what the good guy wrote.

  60. What we need is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An Internet License. Swipe your license to get on the Internet, provided you aren't on the government's "no-internet list"

    This post written with a healthy dose of sarcasm.

  61. Re:The only thing that will stop a bad man with a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen, is a good guy with a pen.

    Unfortunately the bad guy wrote "Don't read what the good guy wrote" and the angry youth will not read what the good guy wrote.

    The solution for that is a parent or two.

    Old-fashioned, I know.

  62. A pretext for carrying out SJW's will? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    The question remains whether they will stop at terrorism, but to enforce the will of certain left-leaning interest groups.

    Facebook already censors (yes, it's not just a government thing, Virginia!) in this way to enforce the leftist narrative in Germany.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  63. Re:The only thing that will stop a bad man with a by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    How unamerican of you.
    *reloads shotgun*

  64. then it ain't an Open Web by samantha · · Score: 1

    You would think this would be freaking obvious. And who gets to decide what is evil enough to be banned from the Web? On what grounds is the determination made? This leads to something much worse than the actual danger ISIS poses. It leads to putting the power to stroke out sections of the global brain, to limit the connectivity of humanity and puts that power in the hands of a few. No thanks. This once again is letting terrorists win.

  65. Re:How is it their message finds resonance with an by coastwalker · · Score: 1

    You clearly have no understanding of the effect of exclusion from society has on people. Even if the exclusion is largely largely your "own" fault because your religion is different or as we would say out of sync with the modern world.

    Daesh is like any other cult - it finds the excluded and pissed off and gives them a feeling of belonging. That is all it takes to radicalize young people who have not found themselves.

    The awful irony is that our western society with its abundant freedom of choice and opportunity to define your own life obviously completely fails to attract the misfits who go off to Syria and Iraq to be killed by drones. The 60 people with half the worlds wealth might ponder on why the societies they run have so little meaning to the people who live in them.

    The number one task of Daesh is obviously to continue to recruit, hence the odd high profile slaughter in western countries to keep their meme alive in the media and the relentless social web presence.

    The number one task of western military should be to kill their propaganda and cut off their supply of recruits.

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  66. "Head of Ideas" Fighting an Idea With... by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    ISIS is, ultimately, an idea. Google's "head of ideas", Jared Cohen, can't come up with any counter ideas.

    The solution: Suppress ideas.

    What an idea!

  67. Just use another search engine by partofthepuzzle · · Score: 1

    If ISIS or anyone/anything else is "removed" from the "Open Web" (i.e.no longer indexed by Google), then word would get out to use another search engine (easily found via Google) or the word will get out to go to a specific ISIS URL or to use a specific messaging app,etc. It might temporarily slow down access to their sites and they might reach a smaller number of potential recruits but a senior Google's excec to make this suggestion displays a staggering of stupidity.

  68. That's not quite true... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both Yourself & I live in the same city (Syracuse N.Y. area) - you largely DO have the option for Verizon FIOS (if you're outside the "city proper" & iirc, some sections of the city even get FIOS now as well).

    APK

    P.S.=> I know this (being from same city) from you mentioning you wrote for Windows Magazine & they featured several of my wares in freeware/shareware from 1997-1999 (iirc from the timeframe) - so I looked into your name & voila - you were good to your word... apk

  69. who are you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because... if Google does not know who you are... then you must be a criminal.

    Besides... how can Google present to you the products and services that you will want without knowing your profile.

    Finally... Google will lose money when the authorities ask for massive amounts of customer data and they are unable to produce it.

    Will someone please think of the profits?

  70. Patriotism by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Patriotism is a favorite device of persons in India with something to sell;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...