We are shooting for IE7 compatibility, but come on... IE7 is still in beta. It's a moving target. You can't expect our timeline to be significantly ahead of Microsoft's.:-)
Also, as other posters have said, it's one thing to criticize sites for using proprietary IE-only functionality. We're using no such proprietary functionality, only stuff that Microsoft says will be included in IE7 anyway.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you said *everything* above 2^23 stops working.
It was that way in 8.5x.
However, calling Opera's JS implementation broken is *way* wrong.
I didn't write that, but the context was specific to this particular problem. Rob wrote the story and doesn't know the details, so he hand-waved at it, noting there is a bug in Opera. I apologize on behalf of Slashdot for any misunderstanding, and will be clear again: we are only asserting this particular bug exists in Opera, not that Opera's JS implementation is generally better or worse than any other.
Also, for those wondering, this was submitted as a bug report to Opera months ago, and then resubmitted when the behavior changed after 9 was released.
So if someone wants to use an integer literal with the value of 61249328751048174301457675476671098271098230134765 7340958742309875234, the browser is supposed to make sure it works? What is the maximum value, anyway? 32-bit? 64-bit? Noted as integer, but internally represented as float? Large number math library?
Since the numbers not working are only between 2^23 and 2^24-1 (inclusive), obviously, this is not the real problem here.
It's not a bug.
It certainly is, as demonstrated -- if nothing else -- by the fact that 2^23 and 2^24-1 do not work, but 2^23-1 and 2^24 do work. That behavior is, quite clearly, buggy.
You *could* call it a bug if the specs said "integer literals are supposed to support 32-bit numbers at least".
That might be a valid -- though weak -- argument if Opera 9 did not support 2^24 and up. Even if they didn't, that would be weak, because obviously Opera understands the same numeric literals in other contexts (e.g., c[123456789]). You cannot convince me that something that accepts "numeric literals" in one place and in another should have different standards for what constitutes a numeric literal in each, unless it's specified in the docs somewhere.
That being said, it's strange Opera isn't using 32-bit numbers. Still, it doesn't make it a bug simply because other browsers behave differently
Correct. It is a bug because their own behavior in regard to numeric literals is inconsistent within itself: that there is a "2^23 hole" and that you can use the same numeric literals in some contexts, and not others.
Frankly, I think not using 32 bits is itself evidence of a bug, but I understand why you do not, so I won't press the point.
Oh, and here's the documentation. There's nothing in there about restricting the use of numbers.
The real problem, BTW, is that Opera cannot handle *certain* numbers. Specifically, IIRC, it cannot handle 2^23... 2^24-1. Which happens to be where our cids fall.
There is nothing wrong with the code. "Bad Idea" implies that we are using the the object literal in a way that could possibly be misinterpreted by a standards-compliant browser. That's not true.
And yes, I already knew about the possibility of the fix you suggested, but we already have performance issues, and I am not going to add potentially thousands of concatenations per click to work around a bug in Opera, when Opera could just fix the stupid bug.
Marc Pacheco used to be my Senator when I lived in MA. I didn't like him. He was entirely dismissive when we disagreed with him about a proposal to allow more dirt bikes in the state forest (he was ferit, we were aginit).
Oh great, another one of you "living language" morons, who try and use the evolution of language as an excuse for illiteracy and general laziness. Just because a handful of idiots don't know how to use a phrase properly doesn't mean it has "evolved" into a new meaning.
First, I agree that the common usage of "begs the question" is stupid and, in most respects, wrong.
Second, you're right that a handful of idiots using the phrase improperly does not mean it has evolved into a new meaning. However, that many do so does mean precisely that. This is how language works: if the usage is common over a long enough period of time, it is de facto correct.
If you disagree, argue with the OED, and every other English dictionary, not me. Dictionary publishers realize the fact that English is not a language that is defined from the top-down, but the bottom-up, and describe their work as descriptive, rather than prescriptive.
If "begging the question" had really changed its meaning into a synonym of "raising the question", then there wouldn't be any argument about it; it would have general acceptance.
Nonsense. If 3/4 of the English-speaking people use a term in a new way, you're saying that there's no way the remaining 1/4 would resist? Pull the other one.
By the way, all the examples you list are changes in grammar, not changes in meaning, and are therefore not applicable to the alleged change in meaning of "begging the question".
Fine. "Faggot." That has clearly changed in meaning in the last 100 years. "Gay" too. (I was just in a discussion about homosexuals, so those words are the first to pop into my mind, but there are plenty of other examples.)
Um... that's because none of what you wrote was related to what I was talking about. I don't care about the things you wrote about, and had no desire to even read them, let alone argue against them.
Yawn. Misrepresent the comment I was replying to all you want, make a false implication that his paper was not scientific. whatever. Nothing you've said or implied combats the fact that Bob Carter knows a hell of a lot more than you do about the subject, and that your protestations are, in that light, pretty damned silly.
You are misrepresenting the parent. He was attempting to impugn the individual in question by saying he was not a peer-reviewed scientist/climatologist.
I agree that this would be better off in a peer-reviewed journal, but the fact is that, despite the claim of the parent, this is a peer-reviewed climatologist, who knows a hell of a lot more about this issue than, well, any of us do. Feel free to discount what he says for whatever reason, but to pretend that he is not a hell of a lot more knowledgable about this than any of us are is just stupid.
Just the opposite. I say it in spite of the fact that I neither like, nor read, WND. Well, sometimes I read them while cruising Google or Google News, or I link to them from somewhere else, as in this case. My standards are much higher than WND's are.
or because popularity is an important factor in deciding what's news and what's not news?
No, whether WND is popular has nothing to do with whether it is news. The fact is, it is news. In my opinion, it's pretty bad news, but it is news, just like the NY Post and other bad news. And the fact it, it is very popular, and this sort of malicious fabrication you envision, posted on a widely popular news site, and reported on other widely popular sites like Slashdot, would certainly warrant a response if it was, as you believe is likely, a fabrication.
PS. I'll allow you to have the last word:-)
Cute. Ask me a couple of direct questions, and then pretend it is me who is dragging the discussion on when I respond. Cute, but transparent.
But not a mere claim. A mere claim can be misrepresentation. This would amount to complete fabrication.
If I were google, I wouldn't bother refuting every nutjob out there either.
Like it or not, WND is one of the most popular news sites around; you are being dishonest to write them off as insignificant "nutjobs." And this was posted to Slashdot's front page. They have consistently refuted such stories in the past, especially since a former Slashdot editor now does public relations stuff for Google. He almost always sends us emails and IMs when we get something wrong, and this time... nothing.
So continue to pretend you have a point here, if it makes you feel better.
They did not merely claim it, they quoted it. There's a big difference, and you should being so dishonest by pretending there is not. You are asserting therefore not that they merely misrepresented the facts, but that they *fabricated* them, which is an astounding claim to make, considering Google has refused to deny it.
Cute - I said one pov (anything to have a dig at the muslims) - its perfectly clear that's a bit narrower then the extremely broad examples of pov you used. Go back and read that front page you so kindly linked to and you will see that I am correct - they do push that pov.
Right, but not just that one, which is what you said. Many others too. Just like National Review pushes many POVs: anti-abortion, pro-tax-cut, anti-affirmative action, and so on.
Further, if I'm "moving the goalposts" then so are you with your change of language to "specific ideologies" *rolls eyes*
No, I am not.
Waaah, waaah, waaah - cries the hate-mongerers. We've been kicked, quick, use some leftist language about censorship to try and confuse everyone.
Um, Google used it. But since you continue to pretend you don't know this even though the facts are staring you in the face, I guess we have nothing more to discuss. When you are willing to accept actual existing facts in evidence, let me know.
No, they don't. Both cover a range of article and don't attempt to link each article they post back to a single issue.
Move the goalposts much? First, you said this was about opinion. Then you said it was about a single point of view. NOW you say it is about single "issue." Are you done changing your mind about what this is about?
And it's not true anyway: New Media Journal has tons of articles that have nothing to do with Muslims, despite your assertion. You obviously know almost nothing about the web site, and have never really looked at its home page.
They also at least make some sort of attempt at non-bias.
That is absolutely false. The Nation and National Review are self-described journals of opinion that are biased toward specific ideologies.
I asked for a statement from google, not an email allegedly from google printed on a kook site.
Ah, so WND is not to be trusted when they quote an actual email -- you contend therefore that they are intentionally deceiving the public -- and I should take your word for this, which has already been proven to be unreliable, since you know next-to-nothing about New Media Journal, The Nation, or National Review, and make false assertions about each?
WND may not be reliable, but they don't intentionally make things up, either. And surely if a very popular site like WND had made this up, especially since it was posted on Slashdot, Google would have responded, denying it. And this isn't the first time this has come up; it's long been known that Google censors "hate speech" on their News site.
So go ahead and pretend this is about the "fact" that every article on the site is about how Muslims are bad, ignoring the actual fact that they were banned for what Google calls "hate speech," so you can feel better about supporting the decision to censor.
I think your confusion is best shown with this paragraph:
I think you are confused to think I am confused.
The site's in question were pushing one pov (anything to have a dig at the muslims). None of the examples you give are close to that - SFC, WSJ, NYT all cover a spectrum of stories.
So take National Review, which pushes one POV: conservatism. Or The Nation, which pushes one POV: liberalism. Both are on Google News.
(Your SFC example was particularly ridiculous).
Not remotely.
I understand your point, but the simple matter is that google can't index & link to every crackpot group out there.
Again, you are talking about a separate issue. This is not about how to index, but who to remove from the index, and why. To remove this site, or even to not index them in the first place, because they are some small site that no one cares about is one thing. But Google did not do that. Nor did they, as you keep falsely insisting, remove them because they offer opinions, or even because they offer only one POV. Google did it explicitly because Google views what they say as "hate speech." So stop pretending this is about anything else.
I'm not sure I've actually read anything from google about this - can you link to the google statement where google says the sites were kicked for being 'hate sites'
Yes, the very first link in the article.
Now I see the source of YOUR confusion: you never actually understood what this story was about in the first place, not even reading (or not remebering) the article this whole discussion is about. (WND seems to be down right now, but the Google cache of it works.)
I thought the constitution was written to protect the PEOPLE.
It wasn't. The purpose of the Constitution was primarily twofold: to form a strong central government, and to preserve the rights of the *states* within that government.
Many of the Amendments to the Constitution do protect the people, but that was never why the Constitution (except, of course, in protecting the people through protecting the power of the state, from the federal government).
But, I think the real problem here is that this is a 17-year-old kid who can barely put two thoughts together on his web site. Did you actually read his posts? He should sue the school... for failing to educate him.
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear when a site consistently pushes one point of view, that they're an opinion site, not a news sites.
But they include plenty of opinion sites, like The Nation and National Review, which are "journals of opinion," from the so-called Left and Right.
Not to mention that many news sites also consistently push one point of view, like The Wall Street Journal pushing free-market capitalism, and the San Francisco Chronicle pushing anti-steroids-in-baseball, and The New York Times (well, now, anyway) pushing anti-Iraq-war.
It's not opinion that is the problem, it is a nebulous and clearly flawed definition of "hate speech," which means "something I find offensive that is negative toward a group of people," despite the fact that this "hate speech" may be important for many different reasons.
Why should google be obliged to link to every "Death to America" or "Death to Jews" or "Death to Muslims" blog out there? They're trying to reduce noise.
I didn't say they should be obligated to, of course. I did say I disagree with the decision, and it's because I think, especially on this issue, quieting a viewpoint you don't like doesn't help anyone.
First, who is to say their "hate speech" is wrong? Maybe they have a point. I doubt it, but you never know. But if this "hate speech" is wrong, what about criticisms of Christians? Most of those get in. And what about lies about Bush, or about the Democrats, which are printed in Google News all the time, and are designed to instill hatred in the "other side"? Maybe I think they should censor sites that continue to print the falsehood that Bush was not elected President, or that Gore won the popular vote, or that Bush said the war in Iraq was accomplished. None of those things are true (Bush was properly elected according to the Constitution; there is no such thing as a popular vote for President; Bush was talking about the invasion, not the war as a whole), and are said specifically because they want to instill hate in the President. Or what about the lie that Kerry flip-flopped on funding for the Iraq War (in fact, he only opposed the method of funding chosen by the GOP, not the funding itself). Is that hate speech? Why not?
Second, isn't it important for individuals to be able to identify groups and sites that really *are* wackos? Wouldn't this world be a lot better off if, for instance, everyone knew that Scientologists believe, according to OT VIII, that Jesus loved -- carnally -- little boys? That would reduce the power of Scientology, which would be a good thing (not that the reasons why are similar: OT VIII is not censored by Google or somesuch, but by the Church of Scientology itself, but the reasons why I want both un-censored is the same).
Or more similarly: I found an article on Google on Stormfront the other day. I just clicked on the article by the title before reading what site it was on. When I noticed what site it was on, I decided to not bother: but how would I have known that if I didn't already know for myself that Stormfront was a site I cannot personally trust? Some would say, exactly, that's why Google should help people by censoring hate speech; but I say, Google cannot shield us from everything, and by keeping people ignorant, it in the end makes the more vulnerable.
I want to know who is saying that Muslims are evil, who is saying Christians are evil, who is saying illegal immigrants are evil. I don't want a site that will "protect" me from views they personally find distasteful.
Do you really believe this to be censorship? Really?
It fits every possible definition of censorship, so, yes, of course. And worst of all, it is content-based censorship.
It's not like China, anyone can still find these sites on the 'net.
That could not be less relevant. We are talking about censorship on Google, not about Internet-wide censorship.
They're still indexed by google, they're just not indexed by
Duh. But that's not the point. You and others are making value judgments about whether Google did the right thing in censoring viewpoints, and I am asking you where the line is between what is acceptable in your judgment, and what is not.
Its no more censorship then a supermod here making a post -1. I'm surprised you can't see that pudge.
You're surprised I can't see a comparison that is flawed? In the case of Google, the content does not appear on their News section at all. In the case of Slashdot, the content is still there for anyone who wants to view comments at -1.
Further, there's an obvious and huge difference between a childish comment on Slashdot and a whole news and opinion site in Google News.
But obviously, you don't care, as long as the voices you disagree with are quieted, so they cannot bother you.
I am against the censorship by Google. I want all views exposed. I don't care one whit if it is hate speech; if so, then I'll be able to recognize it as such, and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
We are shooting for IE7 compatibility, but come on ... IE7 is still in beta. It's a moving target. You can't expect our timeline to be significantly ahead of Microsoft's. :-)
Also, as other posters have said, it's one thing to criticize sites for using proprietary IE-only functionality. We're using no such proprietary functionality, only stuff that Microsoft says will be included in IE7 anyway.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you said *everything* above 2^23 stops working.
It was that way in 8.5x.
However, calling Opera's JS implementation broken is *way* wrong.
I didn't write that, but the context was specific to this particular problem. Rob wrote the story and doesn't know the details, so he hand-waved at it, noting there is a bug in Opera. I apologize on behalf of Slashdot for any misunderstanding, and will be clear again: we are only asserting this particular bug exists in Opera, not that Opera's JS implementation is generally better or worse than any other.
Also, for those wondering, this was submitted as a bug report to Opera months ago, and then resubmitted when the behavior changed after 9 was released.
So if someone wants to use an integer literal with the value of 61249328751048174301457675476671098271098230134765 7340958742309875234, the browser is supposed to make sure it works? What is the maximum value, anyway? 32-bit? 64-bit? Noted as integer, but internally represented as float? Large number math library?
Since the numbers not working are only between 2^23 and 2^24-1 (inclusive), obviously, this is not the real problem here.
It's not a bug.
It certainly is, as demonstrated -- if nothing else -- by the fact that 2^23 and 2^24-1 do not work, but 2^23-1 and 2^24 do work. That behavior is, quite clearly, buggy.
You *could* call it a bug if the specs said "integer literals are supposed to support 32-bit numbers at least".
That might be a valid -- though weak -- argument if Opera 9 did not support 2^24 and up. Even if they didn't, that would be weak, because obviously Opera understands the same numeric literals in other contexts (e.g., c[123456789]). You cannot convince me that something that accepts "numeric literals" in one place and in another should have different standards for what constitutes a numeric literal in each, unless it's specified in the docs somewhere.
That being said, it's strange Opera isn't using 32-bit numbers. Still, it doesn't make it a bug simply because other browsers behave differently
Correct. It is a bug because their own behavior in regard to numeric literals is inconsistent within itself: that there is a "2^23 hole" and that you can use the same numeric literals in some contexts, and not others.
Frankly, I think not using 32 bits is itself evidence of a bug, but I understand why you do not, so I won't press the point.
The real problem, BTW, is that Opera cannot handle *certain* numbers. Specifically, IIRC, it cannot handle 2^23
Totally not kidding. Check this out:In Opera 9.01 build 3489 for Mac OS X, this produces:In Opera 8.54 build 2200 for Mac OS X, this doesn't work at all, because 2^24 makes it crap out completely. If I remove 16777216: 7, then it produces:Of course, in Safari and Firefox etc., it does as expected:
There is nothing wrong with the code. "Bad Idea" implies that we are using the the object literal in a way that could possibly be misinterpreted by a standards-compliant browser. That's not true.
And yes, I already knew about the possibility of the fix you suggested, but we already have performance issues, and I am not going to add potentially thousands of concatenations per click to work around a bug in Opera, when Opera could just fix the stupid bug.
Thanks. This should be fixed now. Let me know if it isn't.
Marc Pacheco used to be my Senator when I lived in MA. I didn't like him. He was entirely dismissive when we disagreed with him about a proposal to allow more dirt bikes in the state forest (he was ferit, we were aginit).
Yes, the first one is mine.
The same Seattle Times printed my letter to the editor on the same subject today.
Oh great, another one of you "living language" morons, who try and use the evolution of language as an excuse for illiteracy and general laziness. Just because a handful of idiots don't know how to use a phrase properly doesn't mean it has "evolved" into a new meaning.
First, I agree that the common usage of "begs the question" is stupid and, in most respects, wrong.
Second, you're right that a handful of idiots using the phrase improperly does not mean it has evolved into a new meaning. However, that many do so does mean precisely that. This is how language works: if the usage is common over a long enough period of time, it is de facto correct.
If you disagree, argue with the OED, and every other English dictionary, not me. Dictionary publishers realize the fact that English is not a language that is defined from the top-down, but the bottom-up, and describe their work as descriptive, rather than prescriptive.
If "begging the question" had really changed its meaning into a synonym of "raising the question", then there wouldn't be any argument about it; it would have general acceptance.
Nonsense. If 3/4 of the English-speaking people use a term in a new way, you're saying that there's no way the remaining 1/4 would resist? Pull the other one.
By the way, all the examples you list are changes in grammar, not changes in meaning, and are therefore not applicable to the alleged change in meaning of "begging the question".
Fine. "Faggot." That has clearly changed in meaning in the last 100 years. "Gay" too. (I was just in a discussion about homosexuals, so those words are the first to pop into my mind, but there are plenty of other examples.)
Um ... that's because none of what you wrote was related to what I was talking about. I don't care about the things you wrote about, and had no desire to even read them, let alone argue against them.
Yawn. Misrepresent the comment I was replying to all you want, make a false implication that his paper was not scientific. whatever. Nothing you've said or implied combats the fact that Bob Carter knows a hell of a lot more than you do about the subject, and that your protestations are, in that light, pretty damned silly.
You are misrepresenting the parent. He was attempting to impugn the individual in question by saying he was not a peer-reviewed scientist/climatologist.
I agree that this would be better off in a peer-reviewed journal, but the fact is that, despite the claim of the parent, this is a peer-reviewed climatologist, who knows a hell of a lot more about this issue than, well, any of us do. Feel free to discount what he says for whatever reason, but to pretend that he is not a hell of a lot more knowledgable about this than any of us are is just stupid.
Um. The contention was that the guy wasn't in peer reviewed journals. I showed he was. So ... what's your problem?
And no, that link in the parent was not doing what you say. It was hyperbole.
OK.
/ wa-7-1-14-16.pdf/view_pdf
... talk!
http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjgg/2005/045.php
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/wa/archive_pdfs
Now
Somehow I think you'll just come up with a new way to make ad hominem attacks, though.
Right-oh.
... OK.
:-)
Um
Do you mention that because you like & read WND?
Just the opposite. I say it in spite of the fact that I neither like, nor read, WND. Well, sometimes I read them while cruising Google or Google News, or I link to them from somewhere else, as in this case. My standards are much higher than WND's are.
or because popularity is an important factor in deciding what's news and what's not news?
No, whether WND is popular has nothing to do with whether it is news. The fact is, it is news. In my opinion, it's pretty bad news, but it is news, just like the NY Post and other bad news. And the fact it, it is very popular, and this sort of malicious fabrication you envision, posted on a widely popular news site, and reported on other widely popular sites like Slashdot, would certainly warrant a response if it was, as you believe is likely, a fabrication.
PS. I'll allow you to have the last word
Cute. Ask me a couple of direct questions, and then pretend it is me who is dragging the discussion on when I respond. Cute, but transparent.
A quote without backup is still a claim.
... nothing.
But not a mere claim. A mere claim can be misrepresentation. This would amount to complete fabrication.
If I were google, I wouldn't bother refuting every nutjob out there either.
Like it or not, WND is one of the most popular news sites around; you are being dishonest to write them off as insignificant "nutjobs." And this was posted to Slashdot's front page. They have consistently refuted such stories in the past, especially since a former Slashdot editor now does public relations stuff for Google. He almost always sends us emails and IMs when we get something wrong, and this time
So continue to pretend you have a point here, if it makes you feel better.
They did not merely claim it, they quoted it. There's a big difference, and you should being so dishonest by pretending there is not. You are asserting therefore not that they merely misrepresented the facts, but that they *fabricated* them, which is an astounding claim to make, considering Google has refused to deny it.
What color is the sky in your world?
Cute - I said one pov (anything to have a dig at the muslims) - its perfectly clear that's a bit narrower then the extremely broad examples of pov you used. Go back and read that front page you so kindly linked to and you will see that I am correct - they do push that pov.
Right, but not just that one, which is what you said. Many others too. Just like National Review pushes many POVs: anti-abortion, pro-tax-cut, anti-affirmative action, and so on.
Further, if I'm "moving the goalposts" then so are you with your change of language to "specific ideologies" *rolls eyes*
No, I am not.
Waaah, waaah, waaah - cries the hate-mongerers. We've been kicked, quick, use some leftist language about censorship to try and confuse everyone.
Um, Google used it. But since you continue to pretend you don't know this even though the facts are staring you in the face, I guess we have nothing more to discuss. When you are willing to accept actual existing facts in evidence, let me know.
No, they don't. Both cover a range of article and don't attempt to link each article they post back to a single issue.
Move the goalposts much? First, you said this was about opinion. Then you said it was about a single point of view. NOW you say it is about single "issue." Are you done changing your mind about what this is about?
And it's not true anyway: New Media Journal has tons of articles that have nothing to do with Muslims, despite your assertion. You obviously know almost nothing about the web site, and have never really looked at its home page.
They also at least make some sort of attempt at non-bias.
That is absolutely false. The Nation and National Review are self-described journals of opinion that are biased toward specific ideologies.
I asked for a statement from google, not an email allegedly from google printed on a kook site.
Ah, so WND is not to be trusted when they quote an actual email -- you contend therefore that they are intentionally deceiving the public -- and I should take your word for this, which has already been proven to be unreliable, since you know next-to-nothing about New Media Journal, The Nation, or National Review, and make false assertions about each?
WND may not be reliable, but they don't intentionally make things up, either. And surely if a very popular site like WND had made this up, especially since it was posted on Slashdot, Google would have responded, denying it. And this isn't the first time this has come up; it's long been known that Google censors "hate speech" on their News site.
So go ahead and pretend this is about the "fact" that every article on the site is about how Muslims are bad, ignoring the actual fact that they were banned for what Google calls "hate speech," so you can feel better about supporting the decision to censor.
I think your confusion is best shown with this paragraph:
I think you are confused to think I am confused.
The site's in question were pushing one pov (anything to have a dig at the muslims). None of the examples you give are close to that - SFC, WSJ, NYT all cover a spectrum of stories.
So take National Review, which pushes one POV: conservatism. Or The Nation, which pushes one POV: liberalism. Both are on Google News.
(Your SFC example was particularly ridiculous).
Not remotely.
I understand your point, but the simple matter is that google can't index & link to every crackpot group out there.
Again, you are talking about a separate issue. This is not about how to index, but who to remove from the index, and why. To remove this site, or even to not index them in the first place, because they are some small site that no one cares about is one thing. But Google did not do that. Nor did they, as you keep falsely insisting, remove them because they offer opinions, or even because they offer only one POV. Google did it explicitly because Google views what they say as "hate speech." So stop pretending this is about anything else.
I'm not sure I've actually read anything from google about this - can you link to the google statement where google says the sites were kicked for being 'hate sites'
Yes, the very first link in the article.
Now I see the source of YOUR confusion: you never actually understood what this story was about in the first place, not even reading (or not remebering) the article this whole discussion is about. (WND seems to be down right now, but the Google cache of it works.)
I thought the constitution was written to protect the PEOPLE.
... for failing to educate him.
It wasn't. The purpose of the Constitution was primarily twofold: to form a strong central government, and to preserve the rights of the *states* within that government.
Many of the Amendments to the Constitution do protect the people, but that was never why the Constitution (except, of course, in protecting the people through protecting the power of the state, from the federal government).
But, I think the real problem here is that this is a 17-year-old kid who can barely put two thoughts together on his web site. Did you actually read his posts? He should sue the school
Anyway, I think it's pretty clear when a site consistently pushes one point of view, that they're an opinion site, not a news sites.
But they include plenty of opinion sites, like The Nation and National Review, which are "journals of opinion," from the so-called Left and Right.
Not to mention that many news sites also consistently push one point of view, like The Wall Street Journal pushing free-market capitalism, and the San Francisco Chronicle pushing anti-steroids-in-baseball, and The New York Times (well, now, anyway) pushing anti-Iraq-war.
It's not opinion that is the problem, it is a nebulous and clearly flawed definition of "hate speech," which means "something I find offensive that is negative toward a group of people," despite the fact that this "hate speech" may be important for many different reasons.
Why should google be obliged to link to every "Death to America" or "Death to Jews" or "Death to Muslims" blog out there? They're trying to reduce noise.
I didn't say they should be obligated to, of course. I did say I disagree with the decision, and it's because I think, especially on this issue, quieting a viewpoint you don't like doesn't help anyone.
First, who is to say their "hate speech" is wrong? Maybe they have a point. I doubt it, but you never know. But if this "hate speech" is wrong, what about criticisms of Christians? Most of those get in. And what about lies about Bush, or about the Democrats, which are printed in Google News all the time, and are designed to instill hatred in the "other side"? Maybe I think they should censor sites that continue to print the falsehood that Bush was not elected President, or that Gore won the popular vote, or that Bush said the war in Iraq was accomplished. None of those things are true (Bush was properly elected according to the Constitution; there is no such thing as a popular vote for President; Bush was talking about the invasion, not the war as a whole), and are said specifically because they want to instill hate in the President. Or what about the lie that Kerry flip-flopped on funding for the Iraq War (in fact, he only opposed the method of funding chosen by the GOP, not the funding itself). Is that hate speech? Why not?
Second, isn't it important for individuals to be able to identify groups and sites that really *are* wackos? Wouldn't this world be a lot better off if, for instance, everyone knew that Scientologists believe, according to OT VIII, that Jesus loved -- carnally -- little boys? That would reduce the power of Scientology, which would be a good thing (not that the reasons why are similar: OT VIII is not censored by Google or somesuch, but by the Church of Scientology itself, but the reasons why I want both un-censored is the same).
Or more similarly: I found an article on Google on Stormfront the other day. I just clicked on the article by the title before reading what site it was on. When I noticed what site it was on, I decided to not bother: but how would I have known that if I didn't already know for myself that Stormfront was a site I cannot personally trust? Some would say, exactly, that's why Google should help people by censoring hate speech; but I say, Google cannot shield us from everything, and by keeping people ignorant, it in the end makes the more vulnerable.
I want to know who is saying that Muslims are evil, who is saying Christians are evil, who is saying illegal immigrants are evil. I don't want a site that will "protect" me from views they personally find distasteful.
Do you really believe this to be censorship? Really?
It fits every possible definition of censorship, so, yes, of course. And worst of all, it is content-based censorship.
It's not like China, anyone can still find these sites on the 'net.
That could not be less relevant. We are talking about censorship on Google, not about Internet-wide censorship.
They're still indexed by google, they're just not indexed by
Google - its there aggregator after all.
Duh. But that's not the point. You and others are making value judgments about whether Google did the right thing in censoring viewpoints, and I am asking you where the line is between what is acceptable in your judgment, and what is not.
Its no more censorship then a supermod here making a post -1. I'm surprised you can't see that pudge.
You're surprised I can't see a comparison that is flawed? In the case of Google, the content does not appear on their News section at all. In the case of Slashdot, the content is still there for anyone who wants to view comments at -1.
Further, there's an obvious and huge difference between a childish comment on Slashdot and a whole news and opinion site in Google News.
But obviously, you don't care, as long as the voices you disagree with are quieted, so they cannot bother you.
So, you think it is hate speech, not news.
Who draws that line?
I am against the censorship by Google. I want all views exposed. I don't care one whit if it is hate speech; if so, then I'll be able to recognize it as such, and move on.