posted on May 23, 2006 09:00:41 AM new
Google is refusing to support sites critical of radical terrorism....So what has happened to free speech? And if expressing an opinion against terrorism is now considered "hate content", what next will Google assume the self imposed role of censor.
.
Google dumps news sites that criticize radical Islam. Search giant axes another news page,
calls terrorism discussion 'hate content'
Posted: May 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam – the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered.
Frank Salvato, who began the agreement with Google News last September, said he received a reply from the company's help desk Friday indicating there had been complaints of "hate speech" on his site, as first reported by media watchdog Newsbusters.org.
The e-mail, which cited three articles that dealt with radical Islam and its relationship to terrorism, read:
Hi Frank,
Thanks for writing. We received numerous reports about hate content on your site, and after reviewing these reports, decided to remove your site from Google News. We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google News (although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable).
For example, a number of the complaints we looked at on your site were found to be hate content:
Newsbusters says it has observed a pattern of intolerance toward conservative sites that deal with radical Islam and terrorism.
Rusty Shackleford, owner of The Jawa Report, received a similar e-mail message March 29 informing him: "Upon recent review, we've found that your site contains hate speech, and we will no longer be including it in Google News."
Two weeks later, Jim Sesi's MichNews.com was cut off, with Google providing three examples of "hate speech" by conservative writer J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Newsbusters commented: "At first blush, one can easily ignore such business decisions by the most powerful company on the Internet as being routine. However, on closer examination, such behavior could give one relatively small technological corporation (when measured by the size of its workforce) a degree of political might that frankly dwarfs its current financial prowess."
The media watchdog noted columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin wrote in February 2005 her difficulties in becoming part of Google News. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs had a similar complaint.
When Google News launched its beta site in April 2002, it said its mission was to construct an unbiased news engine free of human intervention using new methods of aggregating news from sources worldwide.
According to the April Nielsen/NetRatings report, 49 percent of all searches conducted in the U.S. in March 2006 were carried out on Google.
Along with the dropping of conservative news providers, Google has received other complaints of liberal bias.
Last June, a conservative book publisher said Google rejected his ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes.
Eric Jackson, CEO of World Ahead, said his ads for "Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine" were rejected, without further explanation, due to "unacceptable content."
As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats.
CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.
Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton, whose role in helping her husband intimidate his female accusers is addressed in the new book.
In May 2005, Google rejected an attempt by the conservative activist group RightMarch.com to run ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Also, Google agreed to allow the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."
In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision to rank news articles in search results by "quality," giving preferential placement to large and predominately liberal media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over conservative news sources, even if they are more recent or pertinent.
posted on May 23, 2006 12:57:55 PM new
"As WND reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats.
I'd read that google was owned by a group of democrats/liberals quite a while back.
So this news doesn't suprise me at all. They're very big into censorship.
And aren't they also going along with all the requests that communist China has been saying they did NOT want be on any google searches? I believe so. tsk tsk tsk
posted on May 23, 2006 01:07:16 PM new
Nevermind.....
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
[ edited by fenix03 on May 23, 2006 01:34 PM ]
posted on May 23, 2006 04:33:53 PM new
Is this a joke???
"Rusty Shackleford" is an alias used by the cartoon character "Dale" on King of the Hill. What are the odds???
"I'd read that google was owned by a group of democrats/liberals quite a while back.
So this news doesn't suprise me at all. They're very big into censorship."
Oh, Linduh... Give us a break already. Censorship is more heavily supported by you neocons and you know it. It is usually the Republicans who come up with censorship legislation and cry foul anytime someone displays artwork that you find offensive. Of course, you can easily argue the same against the likes of Tipper Gore and the PMRC in the late 1980's and early 1990's when they worked to censor musicians. Both sides have worked to censor information.
Secondly, Google is a private business. There isn't one media outlet in the world that doesn't censor news or information. Ebay censors content, Vendio censors content, Fox News censors content, as does MSNBC and so on. Imagine a business that didn't ever censor information. What a mess that would be. My point... you simply can't hold private businesses to the standard you are attempting to do.
Third, I find it interesting that the numbers are so high for employee contributions to Democrats, but what does that really mean anyways? I would love to see where those numbers actually came from, but I imagine we would find a similar numbers of contributions towards Republicans in other businesses as well.
posted on May 23, 2006 04:52:22 PM newI'd read that google was owned by a group of democrats/liberals quite a while back
ooooh...like it's some kind of sinister secret that Democrats and liberals own a business...oooh...
If I'm not mistaken, Rupert Murdoch's organization has one of it's honchos serving as Bush's press secretary right now, and Murdoch's political bent is hardly a secret. Neither is the slant of most of Fox's commentators.
as stated above, Fox edits what they serve up while claiming to be unbiased, and so does Google. So what. Let's face it, liberals were the early birds on the internet, while conservatives were still trying to hook up their PeeSees. You snooze, you lose.
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
posted on May 23, 2006 04:55:59 PM new
By the way, what does the above article have to do with google supporting terrorism? There is no mention of it in the article. I guess that question mark is your way to back out and deny what you meant, right bear? You've used that cheapie before.
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
posted on May 23, 2006 06:06:42 PM new
profe, you're so far behind in the news it's not even funny.
Murdock is NOW kissing up to hillary and she to him.
-----------
Only the blind or liberals approve of this censorship. But they'll point their fingers at other issues...to DEFLECT the subject of this article. lol lol lol
Typical. They won't call them terrorists either. Now they refer to them as 'insurgents'. And when a dem does something their party is rarely mentioned. When a republican has done something they BLAST it from the roof-tops.
And the funny thing is they think others don't notice they're siding with our enemies. But they do.
posted on May 23, 2006 07:41:50 PM new
Islam (submission to God) does not equal terrorism any more than Christians equal Abortion Clinic bombers or Cross burning KKKers.
posted on May 23, 2006 07:58:16 PM new
There are plenty of sites critical of Islamic terrorism available on google, bear. All you gotta do is search for them. Censoring a site for hate speech is not the same as supporting terrorism. It's the same tired old argument that says that anyone who takes exception to the President's decision to invade Iraq is unamerican. It's the same tired argument that leaves no room for reasonable disagreement. The bottom line is, google is the 800 pound gorilla of search engines, and if it really pisses you off that they're run by liberals, don't use them. If enough folks do that, they'll get the message. In the meantime, it's as much google's right to allow or disallow sites as it is Fox News' right to broadcast slanted news and weedle their people into the White House. It's called business. It's the American way.
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
posted on May 23, 2006 10:33:28 PM new
Krafty - I'd get suspended
I mean everyone knows you can go around calling people ignorant #*!@ bigots without someone reporting you. Probably some small minded moron that can't tell the difference between a news site and an opinion site but then what would you expect of an individual with such drastically limited brain power that they immediately attach the beliefs of the worst members of a sociey to all members of that society because to see the differences in people would require a level of intelligence and humanity that they seem to be, not simple devoid of, but proudly devoid of.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 23, 2006 11:37:52 PM new
Well said, Fenix. Whenever I read the ignorant remarks I know that they do not represent the majority of the people. Each day again I deal with people from all over the world and I get a chance to talk to most of them it restores my belief in how good people are.
I wonder if the ignorant ones that post on Vendio ever have contact with others from around the world or take the time to talk to them or do they just want to kill them all and live in a world with others who hate as they do and are as close-minded and bigoted as they are.
posted on May 24, 2006 03:51:26 AM new
fenix- I agree, entirely, with what you just said. That happens on both sides of the fence, especially around here.
posted on May 24, 2006 07:46:38 AM new
Being able to interpret the intent of what others say on a message board can sometimes be difficult because we can't see facial expressions and hear inflections in their voices but what I get from what people are saying is that they don't actually hate anyone but instead they hate what they do.
I believe that most here possess equal interpetation skills and can see to a certain extent what others intentions are in their posts but to sit there all high and mighty, as if your brand of sh!t don't stink and constantly accuse others of bigotry with mundane off the cuff comments only makes you yourself look ignorant.
What's even worse is when someone calls you on your off the cuff comments, you then feign ignorance about what you said when it was clear what you were trying to imply.
posted on May 24, 2006 08:09:04 AM new
Pi - Give it up already. I did not call or imply that you were a racist in that thread. I don't think there is a need to since it i so obvious to everyone. Your problem was that your guilty conscience read that accusation into my words and even as you attempted to deny it you demonstatated it with your very own words removing any doubt in anyones mind.
The really funny thing is, you had not postied in this thread an I in no way referred to you but once again, you are stuck on defensive.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 24, 2006 08:16:46 AM new
I forgot to add one thing to my last post. It seems as if some here believe that their interpretation skills are on a higher level above others and it's as if they have a crystal ball that allows them to see inside the heads of others and to see what their sub-conscience thoughts are.
posted on May 24, 2006 08:16:59 AM new
I've been here long enough to read the broad-brush bigoted and hateful statements against Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, French, Democrats, the poor, those who do not approve of Bush, the war in Iraq, etc etc These are stated over and over again by the same people (though of course one person may not target all groups) so after awhile I can form my own opinion. Genocide was even suggested here once.
posted on May 24, 2006 10:49:58 AM new
Pi - I don't know how to brewak this to you gently so I'll just say it.
You ain't that complex.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 24, 2006 08:10:23 PM new
Funny you should say that, Fenix because that's exactly the way that I see you. So tell me was that an easy way for me brewak it to you?
posted on May 24, 2006 08:16:43 PM new
Aw nothing relevent to say but you just had to try to have the last word.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on May 25, 2006 03:56:20 AM newBeing able to interpret the intent of what others say on a message board can sometimes be difficult because we can't see facial expressions and hear inflections in their voices but what I get from what people are saying is that they don't actually hate anyone but instead they hate what they do.
I agree 100%.
"I believe that most here possess equal interpetation skills and can see to a certain extent what others intentions are in their posts but to sit there all high and mighty, as if your brand of sh!t don't stink and constantly accuse others of bigotry with mundane off the cuff comments only makes you yourself look ignorant."
Of course we all possess equal interpetation skills...etc. But that's a liberal trait...to THINK they're so much better, so much more knowledgeable. LOL LOL That's why their party doesn't think people can be responsible for their own actions/decisions....or capable of handling their own money. And that the gov. can do it SO much better than we as individuals can.
--------
And those liberals here that NEVER hold the muslim/islamic terrorists, saddam, illegal immigrants, or any enemy of our Nation to blame for THEIR actions are the QUICKEST to use their OWN bigotry and their OWN prejudices when making their 'crystal ball' statements about those of us who DO side with our country against the actions of those that aren't in our Country's best interests.
I clearly see who the 'Internationalists' are here. Their posts are quite clear. Others are just against THIS administration [like peepa]. To me, that's much different than those who hold little, if any, alliance/allegiance to this Nation....but rather whose alliances/allegiances are split.
But they're going to 'read' what they want....twist what they want...and nothing going to change that....ever. They're liberals after all.
posted on May 25, 2006 04:04:49 AM new
And again on Google....any site that restricts free speech/dissent is proving they are intolerant of beliefs that are different than their own. Reminds me of how the communists restrict what their citizens can and can't read/learn. [China]
Just like the recent ACLU garbage. Trying to surpress the FREE SPEECH they supposedly have always stood for. Anyone on their board of directors that doesn't swollow their corporate 'line', hook, line and sinker....they want to silence.
Yep, they're for free speech alright as LONG as the liberals at google and the ACLU agree with it. Otherwise...they work to stiffle it.
posted on May 25, 2006 07:37:51 AM new
Welcome to Lindas Wonderful World. Here lies a land where truth is irrelevent if it can be twisted to create a partisan viewpoint.
And those liberals here that NEVER hold the muslim/islamic terrorists, saddam, illegal immigrants, or any enemy of our Nation to blame for THEIR actions
That statement is a PERFECT example of what I was talking about earlier. Somehow in your bizzaro world the fact that I don't uniformly hate all muslims means that I support terrorists?
And again on Google....any site that restricts free speech/dissent is proving they are intolerant of beliefs that are different than their own.
Well hell, why completely misrepresnt one fact a day when we can go for multiples right Linda? Are you even capable of telling the truth anymore? Or did you miss that google did not remove them from their search engine completely, they have removed them as a NEWS site. After looking at the site, I don't understand how they ever got included as one in the first place.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
[ edited by fenix03 on May 25, 2006 07:38 AM ]
[ edited by fenix03 on May 25, 2006 08:08 AM ]
They're very big into censorship.
