theposse.org: Google Censoring Conservative Websites?

Post by Temporal

(Temporal) — Thu, 25 May 2006 17:52:06 GMT

Well, one man's opinion is another man's fact. It's impossible to objectively judge what constitutes an opinion site. Also, many sites with political agendas break real news, too. I think it's a bit easier -- though still not easy -- to be objective about what constitutes hate speech (we have an official definition somewhere).

Actually, my personal opinion is that Google News shouldn't remove hate speech, because, as a user, I'd rather decide for myself what sources are garbage. But, there are obviously good arguments either way.

Post by burn

(burn) — Thu, 25 May 2006 12:27:58 GMT

I am not defending The Jawa Report or its ilk - If I had my way there would not be any blogs or special interest groups on Google news results unless I checked a box which, in effect, 'opened the flood gates' --

For the most part I think Google has done an excellent job with its news search - but do we really need reports from Media Matters for America and the NewsBusters about how conservative or liberal our news is? Keep in mind both these groups have stated agendas which are diametrically opposed to the very definition of journalism - do their articles deserver to show up next to a story from AP, Reuters, or even The New York Times?

My contention is no – and that If you are going to block some opinion sites (be it ‘Islam is the suk’ or ‘Bush is a fascist Pig’) then you should block all.

Now I will admit that I didn’t read the whole American Thinker article – my blood started to boil when they pulled out the ‘fair and balanced’ mantra – which is utter bullsh*t – I am simply intrigued with the whole debate on who gets access to readers via the key technology, search.

Post by Temporal

(Temporal) — Thu, 25 May 2006 06:27:05 GMT

This story is ridiculous. Anyone who proposed removing sites based on political leaning would be ripped to shreds internally by other Google employees.

These articles were judged to be hate speech, probably after complaints from users. As it turns out, Google has a policy of removing news sites that contain hate speech, as they not only upset users but generally are not very reputable in the first place. You can argue that it was wrong to judge these sites as promoting hate speech, but that doesn't change the fact that the reason for their removal had nothing to do with political leanings.

Here are some quotes from the articles is question, linked to their respective sources, if you would like to judge for yourself. (Quotes found with the help of this Slashdot post -- I don't have the patience to read through these disgusting articles myself.)

"Honestly, I cannot open a paper or turn on the television without seeing mobs of Muslim savages celebrating in front of burning embassies..."

"Islam is moving across the world like a dark, evil cloud."

"Worship a sex-maniac and a child molester? [...] Muslims are true victims of Islam. However, they fail to realize that Islam is a cult, and the prophet was a demon ..."

I mean, for God's sake, one of the sites that was listed as being removed was The Jawa Report. What do you expect that site to contain? (Hint: Jawa = sand people) Conservatives should be embarrassed that these sites are considered "conservative-leaning".

(Opinions and viewpoints expressed here are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.)

Post by burn

(burn) — Wed, 24 May 2006 18:21:19 GMT

Please keep in mind the source: The American Thinker is a conservative site -- if you were not sure what I mean then their latest article which comments on the New York Times Story - A.C.L.U. May Block Criticism by Its Board will give you a good idea: A.C.L.U. Reveals True Colors

Quote from The American Thinker:

The only surprise here is that the Times reported the news in an objective manner[....]