Slashdot Mirror
Google Tells Army of 'Quality Raters' To Flag Holocaust Denial (theguardian.com)
Google is using a 10,000-strong army of independent contractors to flag "offensive or upsetting" content, in order to ensure that queries like "did the Holocaust happen" don't push users to misinformation, propaganda and hate speech. From a report on The Guardian: The review of search terms is being done by the company's "quality raters", a little-known corps of worldwide contractors that Google uses to assess the quality of its systems. The raters are given searches based on real queries to conduct, and are asked to score the results on whether they meet the needs of users. These contractors, introduced to the company's review process in 2013, work from a huge manual describing every potential problem they could find with a given search query: whether or not it meets the user's expectations, whether the result offered is low or high quality, and whether it's spam, porn or illegal. In a new update to the rating system, rolled out on Tuesday, Google introduced another flag raters could use: the "upsetting-offensive" mark.
I am concerned that Google is attempting to act as a gatekeeper and arbiter of truth. While holocaust denial is certainly appalling, what else are they going to censor? What if China decides that Tiananmen Square is offensive?
The line between hateful speech and offensive speech is so thin, it can correctly be identified as in the ear of the beholder.
Even in the freest societies, the right not to be offended is not granted to any of us... that's how we keep the freedom.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
That page is exactly the sort of result I would want if I were searching for racism. It's really strange that Google would think it's a bad result. Without it a naive searcher would believe racism is a thing of the past. Does Google seriously think upsetting realities should be hidden from view?
Honestly this story smells a lot more like a trial balloon or fake news than something that actually happened. If Google actually starts censoring unpleasant realities from results I'll be happy to eat my words and stop using Google. Until then color me very skeptical.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I've always been curious about this. It's a dumb thing to do, and makes the person look foolish, but beyond that why is this actually a crime in some places? I mean I can pretend that Obama was never president, but that doesn't make it so and it makes me look really stupid, but they would never make that a crime (Note to Self: Check back in 10 years and see if they did indeed make this a crime). Just ignore the morons and let them play in their little pretend world.
Don't forget to also flag content to ensure queries like "is Google flagging holocaust denial" don't push users to conspiracy theories.
> Look at a video "6 million lies" on youtube, there is some compelling evidence that what we all "know" to be true
Ahh, "I hate Jews and that's OK if I can pretend the Holocaust didn't actually happen at all (or at least to the degree historians say it did)".
What a strange position.
I guess that's what you get when you start with "I hate Jews and believe they shouldn't be considered human" and look for ways to justify your hatred instead of looking for truth.
> I may have to give up my comfortable google searches for something a little more open and honest.
Or you could just stop looking around entirely and get all your 'information' straight from Stormfront. Why risk seeing something that contradicts your prejudice?
Not that I know of. I suspect Google's been disappearing unpleasant facts on their News product for a while now. A number of times last year I went to find an article I knew I had seen on Google News with its own search and wound up empty handed. Using DuckDuckGo, I was easily able to find the article I was looking for.
If somebody can say DuckDuckGo (i.e. Yahoo as sibling pointed out) may be doing this as well, there are other alternatives. StartPage/IxQuick seems to come up often.
If all else fails, I guess we could always go back to the days of the meta-search-engine search engine.
As opposed to the "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a neo-nazi" crap from the left wing media?
I find it unusual when people claim that today's so-called "Native Americans" somehow aren't "immigrants", while pretty much everybody else supposedly is (even those who were born in America, and who had numerous ancestors born in America often going back centuries).
It's well known at this point that today's "Native Americans" are descended from Eurasians who crossed the Beringian land bridge during several waves of migration. For the time being, let's ignore that many of today's "Native Americans" also have significant, if not a majority, modern European ancestry due to interbreeding with European settlers.
So ignoring their partial/majority European ancestry, the reality is that today's "Native American" ancestors were just among the latest to arrive, likely displacing/eliminating those people who arrived earlier, such as the Clovis peoples.
In addition, there's also some evidence to suggest that people from Southeast Asia arrived in the Americas by boat even before then.
So it's absurd to consider today's "Native Americans" to not be immigrants. Their ancestors arrived in the Americas from Eurasia, just like the Europeans did. Their ancestors weren't even the first to arrive in the Americas. In fact, their ancestors could very well have exterminated the peoples who had arrived earlier. So it makes no sense to give them special treatment, ideologically or otherwise.
Actually, until I saw this video, I was firmly in the camp of believing that it had happened more or less exactly as depicted. Turns out it's a grand illusion, might explain why control of media is important, now that darn pesky internet is putting out information in an uncontrolled manner, how annoying!
Funny that you should think I'd want to be part of a group such as Stormfront as I am probably the first person they'd want to hang from a sturdy tree branch. Yeah, I'm a minority, educated, thoughtful, compassionate, not exactly the soldier they're looking for I'm guessing. I have actually never been to that website, not even by accident.
What I do know though is that I don't like the way Zionist Jews think or behave and how they use "teh holocaust" to hammer any opposition into oblivion. They also use it as cover for their odious, inhumane, and cruel oppression of Palestinians. So yeah, I'm not with all the "Jews are God's Chosen People" bullshit that the oblivious Christian Right and Alt-Right espouses.
BTW, I like all your ad-hominem attacks. Care to present a cogent argument instead?
Only I can judge you.
We should have a whole branch of government that 'fact checks' things.
We could call it the Ministry of Truth.
Then we could all be safer and happier, knowing the Ministry of Truth is making sure the news says what it should, right?
-Styopa
No. It's racist fascist nazi mysoginistic alt-right neo-cons. Try to keep up.
Possession is nine tenths of the law. Nobody is seriously talking about giving North Georgia back to the Cherokee nation.
Not that I know of. I suspect Google's been disappearing unpleasant facts on their News product for a while now.
"The holocaust never happened" is not an unpleasant fact - it's an out-and-out lie.
#DeleteChrome
Maybe we think the user *needs* to find the truth, but maybe they *want* to find an article that makes them feel good about their hatred. Isn't Google supposed to help them find what they want? Of course, some kid could just as easily be typing that because they really don't know and want to understand what the deal is.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
try to keep up, you ignorant slut.
The Clovis People were the ancestors of today's Native Americans, not a race that predated them. (Read your own reference)
We all emigrated, by your ridiculous hypothesis, to everywhere in the world once we left Africa.
It is not like the Cherokee had ever killed or taken land from other tribes. All war and bad things are from the white man.
Do you think that you will ever be able to think critically, or do you have no desire to ever know things?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
No. Just makes it no different that the, "holocaust" they inflicted upon whoever had the land before them.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
No one disagrees in my safe space.
back in Nov of last year...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's Microsoft's "teenage-girl" AI. Not even being snarky.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
While I fully agree with your perspective, there is no reason to censor speech. There is plenty of information out there to show that the Holocaust was real. We also have facts showing that Mao killed an estimated 80 million Chinese people, Stalin and Lenin killed more than 30 million Russian people. China hates these facts being in public and given the chance they certainly would censor information. Russia hates their history put on display, and just like China would censor if they could.
Hell, don't you think that the US is embarrassed about some if it's own history being put on display? Don't you think that certain people in Government would like you to never know about Operation Mockingbird/COINTELPRO? How about the wars with the American Indians? How about the Democratic Party pushing Jim Crow Laws? How about Iran/Contra? In other words, censorship would be an issue for much more than just Holocaust deniers and in the US it's not just a Republican/Democratic party who would want to take advantage of censorship.
Free speech is all about having the fake and stupid ideas on display, so that people can learn to defend themselves against fake and stupid ideas. You don't learn and grow by living in an echo chamber, you learn and grow by having your beliefs and opinions challenged.
Trusting some arbiter of "truth" to censor gives the censoring body the ability to censor not just fake and stupid ideas, but anything that they dislike. Wholly hell, look at the media in the US today to see what a mess they can make by manipulating information. People are lied to openly, and even worse through more nefarious means by omission which is hard to detect. Those people are the ones who would be censoring if we allowed it.
People like Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, who happen to be some top notch conservative thinkers are not invited to Facebook or Google for any input. Why? Because their input harms the beliefs of the people who want to censor. That is why we can't allow it and need to push back against it.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
AC though you may be, and I have no idea if you are truly Native American or meet being rhetorical, that was one insightful comment!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Not that I know of. I suspect Google's been disappearing unpleasant facts on their News product for a while now.
"The holocaust never happened" is not an unpleasant fact - it's an out-and-out lie.
Which holocaust? The Jewish one or the Palestinian one or the Armenian one or the Native American one?
Which of these are we not allowed to say never happened? I know many Israelis would like to deny the Palestinian one and many 'Murcans would like to deny the Native American one. And of course the Turks would like to deny the Armenian one.
Are you going to pick and choose?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
"The holocaust never happened" is not an unpleasant fact - it's an out-and-out lie.
But the parent poster didn't mention it was Holocaust information he was looking for, that's just the example used in the article. We can only guess the pages he was looking for.
But be careful if you ask for things to be curated for you. I suspect that it'll be "curated" a lot more than most of us want, just like the child-safe Internet filters that filter out pornography but also filter information about sex abuse recovery, anorexia, tobacco, any information or discussion about cannabis, alcoholic recovery services, copyright circumvention, and other grey areas or topics that one lobbying group or another wants banned.
That I dropped 2 atom bombs on fully populated cities along with turning many German cities into ash with people living in them. All this while setting up Japanese concentration camps. Then let's pretend my biggest ally killed more of its own citizens during the war than its enemies. Do you think I may be able to downplay some of this by exaggerating the atrocities of my enemy? Let's say my enemy was pretty bad but maybe not quite as bad as I would like. Would it be in my best interest to turn oh say a figure like 1 million into 6 million?
Some tribes were bigger assholes than others. The Cherokee weren't that bad when it comes to making land grabs via force.
It's just Ministry of Truth, plain and simple. People are not allowed to question the authority's narrative.
As opposed to the "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a neo-nazi" crap from the left wing media?
If ultra-nationalists do agree with you, neo-nazi likely isn't that far off
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Hating Jews is something most "good" Christians did for centuries. It's no longer in vogue, but trying to claim such hate stems from the Nazi party is to revise history. Some unpleasant truths include the fact that many Christians would have happily seen those awful Jews locked up in camps.
So, you believe that all the physical, photographic, and first-hand evidence was faked? The gas chambers, the mass graves, the photos and videos of the huge piles of bodies etc were all fabricated evidence? All the people who witnessed this - victims, perpetrators, and third parties - are all actors? Where does this end, how deep does it go?
Denying that the holocaust ever happened is far worse than using the fact that it did happen in an argument ever could be. You've become worse than what you hate in an attempt to defeat it. You've also become an unwitting traitor to your cause - nothing de-legitimizes pro-Palestinian arguments more than links to holocaust denial.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Those original immigrants, probably the Clovis people, didn't displace people already on the land and force them to move or die. The Europeans that showed up after 1500 pretty much made it a way of life to exterminate or displace those that were there before them.
Go back to the Roman Empire era when the majority of slaves were white. You can walk back through history and watch the "victims" and "victimizers" switch back and forth across time. It can supply the excuses and invoke sympathy for those bitching about how unfair the world I to the today.
Actually, until I saw this video
You should check the video on why the 9/11 attacks were actually a controlled detonation by the CIA. You'll love it.
That's an upward estimate of the Great Leap Forward. I think I've read that 20-40 million is a better count, but nobody really knows, since the whole famine itself was caused as much by local officials intentionally distorting virtually all the data on food shortages and deaths for the Chinese government. One thing is certain, however many died in the Great Leap Forward, it was enough people for the Party to sideline Mao for several years and for the more technocratic party members like Deng Xiaoping to run the country until Mao found his footing again and used the Cultural Revolution to sideline those in the Party that had diminished him due to the catastrophe of the Great Leap Forward.
The Great Leap Forward is indeed a good example of how suppression of information can, if not create a catastrophe, then greatly inflame it, but in that case it worked somewhat in reverse. It wasn't the central government trying to stifle information, it was local and regional officials. But the reason those officials did it was because they had been handed absurd quotas (like the amount of steel to be produced by a certain district), and because they were sufficiently afraid that they wouldn't meet these quotas, they had a great deal of impetus to distort both the production numbers and quality of production (there are plenty of stories of large amounts of steel being produced that were of such low quality that it was effectively useless), and almost certainly to try to suppress any reports of famine and death tolls. But it's hard to imagine even if the figures had been honestly communicated to the the Chinese government that that information would ever have been disseminated, though possibly the plan might have been abandoned before the death toll reached as high as it did.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What happened to that phrase? Some offensive asshole sharted it out and then everyone promptly and rightly forgot about it because it was stupid as all hell.
If you disagree, I would like you to note that both you and your crackwhore mother suck diseased cocks for pennies, and that any offense you took to this sentence is entirely your fault, probably because you're just sensitive ;-)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I don't see how not elevating a grossly incorrect idea like Holocaust denial in search results is akin to censorship. Google isn't taking these delusional twits off the Internet, they're just not directing unsuspecting fools to it. This isn't censorship and not a bad thing from my perspective.
People can have their soapbox. Google is under to directive to point people to the bullshit ones.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
The difference here is that you are under no obligation to trust Google at all. Use another search engine if you want to. It's not like Google hasn't filtered search results for years, it's just that anti-Semitism is simply the latest flag. At the end of the day, there's always someone being an arbiter of some kind. You're not likely to find too many libraries that will have any of Ernst Zundel's work, and you won't find any mainstream encyclopedias that have articles debating whether the Holocaust happened or not.
What is true is that up until about the last 15-20 years, White Supremacist groups had a very difficult time gaining anykind of mainstream exposure. When their activities were reported on at all, it was in terms of criminal or anti-social activity. The best these hate groups could do is put sort of encoded advertising in newspapers to their latest meetup location, or every once in a while to shove fliers under windshield wipers. Their literature could never get any mainstream publisher to even touch it, so they ended up forming or using small publishing houses, or more often just sending out their photocopied rags via snail mail in plain brown wrapping (this was particularly necessary when shipping their crap abroad, as other countries' postal services often have rules against delivering such materials).
But the Internet gave them a whole new life, and thus you have Stormfront. But Stormfront isn't really good enough. It's still a walled community, and in general the only people that seek it out are likeminded travelers in space and time. That's why it's critical that they find ways to get on to Twitter and Facebook, or get good rankings on search engines. These avenues have allowed them to penetrate the wider society to probably the greatest extent since the pre-Civil Rights South.
Google is a private company, and if it wants to make it a policy that it isn't going to deliver search results of sites it views as hate sites, I think Google doesn't really have to justify itself. It clearly recognizes, as Twitter and Facebook slowly are, that to become to easy a vehicle for these groups is to devalue the brand overall. As it is, even if Google kills every anti-Semitic site result it can find, it's still pretty goddamned easy to find these kinds of sites.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I've already addressed the so-called gas chambers and the so-called human ovens. Look it up yourself, there wasn't the capacity for the volume of exterminations claimed. Yes, the accounts were made-up for the sake of political and monetary gain. Anything for the much-sought Jewish homeland. I honestly don't know how deep it goes but watch the video "Six million lies", decide for yourself how much you beleive.
The horrors being visited upon the Palestinians are being overlooked because the "Holocaust" provides convenient political cover and perpetual victim-hood for the Israeli government. I think the one needs to be debunked/investigated and the other needs to be ended. They are two separate things though. The Jews have become the very perpetrators of violence and inhumanity while complaining how much they suffered from it. Kind of like how child abuse victims at the hand of their parents grow up to be child abusers of their own children.
Only I can judge you.
Already saw it. It was interesting how the buildings fell in such a vertical manner, as if someone had planned it that way and didn't want to cause excessive damage to adjacent structures. An expert building demolition team couldn't have hoped for better results.
Only I can judge you.
Oh wow your cherry-picked alternative facts from a tinfoil hat video answer everything. I'll just disregard all the best historical evidence we've had until now in favor of this lunatic nonsense!
(seek help)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I think you're going to find for a lot of Holocaust deniers, the sentiments may not be as mutually contradictory as you think. For them, the Holocaust is a lie concocted by the evil Jews as part of their grand scheme to control world sentiment, and thus control the world, and thus, while they may assert the Holocaust is a lie, most wish it had been considerably more successful.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So by your own logic, if all of the major book sellers in the US told us they were going to ban certain books you would be okay with that? Hell, you can still find them at other types of stores right?
In other words, you are a delusional moron to believe that partial censorship has a different result as full censorship.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The Dreyfus Affair shows that even in late 19th and early 20th century France, a country that at that time was seen as one of the most modern and cosmopolitan nations in the world, anti-Semitism was rife throughout all sections of society. The Nazis had plenty of fuel to work with both in Germany and in Occupied Europe. An entire continent was populated by people whose sentiments ranged from benign anti-Semitism of "I like the Jewish baker down the street, he's not like most of those money-grubbing Jews" to Wagner's infamous "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I love the spelling mistakes in this anti-Semitic diatribe. It really underlines the rabid and mindless hatred of the anti-Semite. What's next, a link to the picture of Churchill as the vile "Jew Lover"?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm seeking help, this is all a cry for help, you're not helping much. Thanks for being mean though.
Only I can judge you.
The point that even Holocaust denial is free speech is well taken; but HD is also a lie. It's also just one particular type of lie. How about a general purpose registry of lies and a "warning, contains registered lies" flag next to the search results?
Now even what's a lie can be subject to debate. Some people think climate change is a lie. Some people think evolution is a lie. So. We'd need multiple lie registries, and you could chose to have your search results flagged based on preferences. Christians could chose a Christian lie registry, and any search results with evolution in them would be flagged as lies.
Eventually, everything would be flagged by somebody's lie registry. Believe me when I tell you, everybody's a liar.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The only thing the First Amendment bans is government censorship. If you're in my house and you start spouting anti-Semitic nonsense, I am completely within my rights to have you removed. Private individuals and organizations are not bound by First Amendment constraints.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Not disagreeing, but by that reasoning pretty much everyone and anyone is an immigrant in their own country, bar perhaps a handful of tribes in Africa.
You completely avoided the issue and argument I presented. Instead of rambling talking points someone gave you, try addressing the actual points I made. Not incoherent bullshit and lies like your last statement, but actual points of debate.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Its cheaper to censor globally than to try and censor for one language, a nation and still risk court in Germany.
So create a global push to report and ban history by SJW and that needed global ban looks like a user request.
The brand can keep selling products and services in Germany.
Other nations, kingdoms, brands will soon ask their SJW to create lists of topics to ban.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The product is staying in the EU and Germany.
The sale pitch is a global ban on searching and search results.
A backlist of sites just for German users might not always work.
So whitelist all the internet results.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This will be a great selling point of any new search engine product or brand.
A search engine that still searches the internet and shows results to the user.
Freedom of speech, freedom after speech and the freedom to search the internet.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Making up fabricated information is not compelling. Making yourself anonymous does not make you a different person, by your writing style and infantile points I can tell you are the same person.
You presented a hypothetical, but neglected to present your position on it, thus you didn't actually make much in the way of points, but presented a conjecture in a very shallow manner.
False. My response to my hypothetical was clear as day as the complete 2nd paragraph. "In other words, you are a delusional moron to believe that partial censorship has a different result as full censorship."
Can't think, can't read, can't present a valid argument against my own, and resort to a cowards position of hiding when challenged. Simply pathetic!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There are any number of books I am sure that you would have a hard time finding via mainstream booksellers. In fact, a lot of the White Supremacist "publications" (which historically have been mimeographed periodicals without much in the way of a publisher at all) are an example of the kinds of works that few if any mainstream booksellers would ever touch. For mainstream book and magazine distributors and retailers, stocking such works would likely constitute considerable reputational risk, and certainly aren't worth the potential PR problems, not to mention the fact that they aren't likely to be very big sellers at all.
Do I feel I have been injured because Barnes and Noble and Amazon, or hell, the local magazine shop won't sell copies of American Renaissance or The Crusader? No, not particularly, and not just because I find the magazines appalling and loath everything they represent, but also because these are all private businesses that are not even the smallest bit obliged to stock every conceivable publication out there, lest someone like you declare "You're a censor!" I equally support a Catholic bookstore's right not to stock pro-choice literature or Wiccan spellbooks.
Google is in precisely the same position. Giving high rankings to blatantly racist sites has the same capacity for reputational damage as does B&N stocking copies of The Crusader. For all these *businesses*, reputational damage means a potential of real harm to shareholder interests, not to mention what doubtless at least some of these companies view as their responsibility to society not to be disseminators of hate literature. No one is blocking you from buying this kind of literature or reading these kinds of web sites, but they do not have any obligation to assist in procuring them. And that's the only point that counts. No private entity has any obligation to you in this regard, unless you and they have signed a contract explicitly laying out that obligation beforehand. Seeing as Google has been known for many years to filter its search results, you have agreed by using Google's search engine to accept the results it provides.
The "right" and "wrong" of this is something that you and Google as entities in a free country have the right to agree or disagree upon. You obviously feel it is wrong that Google will filter anti-Semitic results, so your remedy is simple. Don't use Google. The same goes for Amazon or Barnes and Noble. If you feel offended that they don't stock The Crusader, don't go into the store.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Not that I know of. I suspect Google's been disappearing unpleasant facts on their News product for a while now.
"The holocaust never happened" is not an unpleasant fact - it's an out-and-out lie.
"The earth is flat" is also an out-and-out lie, but search engines won't delist my pages if I make that assertion, nor will I be subject to prosecution in any nation for saying so.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
"Holocaust" and "genocide" are not synonyms. The Holocaust is a specific attempted genocide, namely that against the Jews by the Germans.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The amount that google pays the raters ensures that the pages will be glanced at for no more than 30 seconds each. Included in that time one has to fill out a check list to specify the relevance of the page in respect to the search, "spamminess", trustworthiness, deceptiveness of title, level of "offensiveness"(hate speech/porn), etc.
The raters get paid by the hour, but they have a quota to fulfil. This ensures that one will pay a minimum of attention to the content of the pages one is rating.
"Independent contractors" sounds a little grandiose... google rating is the cheapest for of "mass production"
google also expects its "staff" to be active in the "rater forums"(on their own dime) to discuss the cases where people disagreed about the ratings.
I did mean a white person. We know black people are allowed to use it.
Position 1: People can not learn to defend their opinions and beliefs without hearing alternative opinions and beliefs. History and Education back my assertion.
Your answer: "nuh uh"
Position 2: It is impossible to accomplish partial censorship. History again backs my position, seeing what happens with censorship in virtually every communist nation, every despotic nation, every dictatorship, every monarchy, and every socialist nation who has tried. Not once has it been successful.
Your answer: "nuh uh"
Google, nor any other company needs to give "high rankings" to anyone (your words). That is an excuse for censorship, nothing more. You are an intellectual infant. I'm done reading your blithering idiocy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Google can do what it likes. If you want to read what white supremacists think, it's easy enough to find. Therefore no censorship.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's because the flat earth society has yet to be involved in a massive genocide, despite having supporters around the globe.
Eat the rich.
"Holocaust" and "genocide" are not synonyms. The Holocaust is a specific attempted genocide, namely that against the Jews by the Germans.
So is there some requirement on how many people are killed before it counts as a holocaust? Does it have to be more than 1 millon?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
There is no such thing as "a holocaust" any more than there's such a thing as "a los angeles". There's just The Holocaust, which is one specific genocide, like there's just Los Angeles, which is one specific city. It's not a generic noun, it's a proper noun.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The word originated as a term for burnt offerings to God in Jewish religious ceremonies, so yeah they kinda do.
The generic word you're looking for, for a killing off of an entire people, is "genocide". The Holocaust is a specific genocide the way Los Angeles is a specific city; you wouldn't say something like "the Massachuetts los angeles" when what you mean is Boston, even though Boston is the same kind of thing as Los Angeles, a city. Because it's not that specific city by that name.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
There is no such thing as "a holocaust" any more than there's such a thing as "a los angeles". There's just The Holocaust, which is one specific genocide, like there's just Los Angeles, which is one specific city. It's not a generic noun, it's a proper noun.
Oh right of course.
For Palestinians its al-Nakbah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
kind of like the Trail of Tears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The word 'holocaust' has meaning outside of the Jewish context, its not a proper name. The term appears to date from the 13th century.
http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
mid-13c., "sacrifice by fire, burnt offering," from Old French holocauste (12c.), or directly from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston "a thing wholly burnt," neuter of holokaustos "burned whole," from holos "whole" (see holo-) + kaustos, verbal adjective of kaiein "to burn" (see caustic).
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
There is no Palestinian "holocaust". There are "Palestinian" terrorists killing innocent Israeli civilians and there are Israeli soldiers and law-enforcement fighting terrorists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Well gosh-a-golly! I guess they had that genocide coming then!
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Which is exactly what a lot of people say if and when the US goes down.
They will point to our, "War Mongering" and everything else they do not like about us and say, "They had it coming".
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Hopefully we are lucky enough that once we are defeated that the people coming in give us a shitty piece of land and let us be semi autonomous. They will not though. Because that NEVER happens. They only place that the defeated culture was given a partial independence is here.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Unfortunately decentralizing almost never aligns with business models.
We have government to do things that businesses can't or shouldn't do, but there are so many people screaming about how government is bad and shouldn't do anything at all.
Doesn't matter. They were conquered. Just as everyone else has been at one time or another. They should have no land in the US any special rights, etc. They should just be Americans like the rest of us.
BTW, Yea, I'm part Indian.
It was until the Drumpf's immigrated to American and brought their "Wrong! Fake! Never Happened!" brand of debate to the US.
Well...That's not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I do this all the time, and the infowars.com people hate it because I ruin their arguments about stupid shit like chemtrails and 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Palestinian holocaust?
Even the fiercest of the Palestinian nationalists do not pretend there is/was Palestinian holocaust nor genocide (I mean, obviously you could find a crazy nut somewhere, that's not what we are talking about here)...
All massacres or war crime does not equal genocide!
Palestinian holocaust?
Even the fiercest of the Palestinian nationalists do not pretend there is/was Palestinian holocaust nor genocide (I mean, obviously you could find a crazy nut somewhere, that's not what we are talking about here)...
All massacres or war crime does not equal genocide!
Put it this way.
I've known Israelis who claim that there is no such thing as a Palestinian; they are really just Arabs. Palestinians who live in Israel are not allowed to refer to themselves as 'Palestinians', they are 'Israeli Arabs'.
Israel is trying to deny the very existence of an entire people, isn't that a very subtle form of genocide? What if Hitler had declared that Jews don't exist and that any Jew living in Germany had to be referred to as a 'German Semite'? Would that have been ok?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
When Google seems to care about the 20,000,000 Russian lives lost in WWII, it might begin
to appear that Google is using its power with some sort of sense of fairness.
No one is trying to deny that 20 million people were killed in Soviet gulags. More to the point, no one is trying to deny that 20 million people died in the Soviet gulags and use that non-fact as justification for arson and murder today.
No it isn't, and no it wouldn't.
And yes many jews and gypsies and others would have most certainly much, much, much preferred that Hitler ask them to refer themselves as "german semites" than murdering them and their families - I don't even understand why this needs an explanation.
Nor how one would not understand that there is a huuuuge gap between "not ok" and "genocide".