Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > US Congress & The Legislative Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

US Congress & The Legislative Branch Discuss Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amendment at the Political Forums; Whoops! Accidental truth revealed!... Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amendment ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-12-2018, 11:14 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,273
Thanks: 2,340
Thanked 37,341 Times in 21,101 Posts
Default Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amendment

Whoops! Accidental truth revealed!...

Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amendment Stops Me

Quote:
Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.) said he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech" during an interview Wednesday, noting he was prevented from doing that by the First Amendment.

Lieu got attention a day earlier when Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, assailing conservative claims of the tech giant's bias against them by reading positive and negative stories about Republican Reps. Steve Scalise (La.) and Steve King (Iowa), the latter of whom has repeatedly courted controversy with racially charged remarks.

After CNN host Brianna Keilar praised Lieu for the "clever" stunt, she wondered if Democrats should have used more of their time to question the Google leader about how it and other tech companies can work to prevent the spread of conspiracy theories and other online trolling.

"It's a very good point you make," Lieu said. "I would love if I could have more than five minutes to question witnesses. Unfortunately, I don't get that opportunity. However, I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it's better the government does not regulate the content of speech."
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2018, 04:16 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,575
Thanks: 11,587
Thanked 7,767 Times in 5,131 Posts
Default Re: Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amend

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
Bottom line it, most politicians really don't like the constitution and bill of rights.
Most people ... when they get power... political or corporate have the temptation to start controlling others.
sad part of Human nature.
It's something that the founders understood and tried to prepare for in many ways, 1st of all by LIMITING the role of the Federal gov't..
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:31 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 19,150
Thanks: 12,692
Thanked 13,658 Times in 7,958 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amend

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
Bottom line it, most politicians really don't like the constitution and bill of rights.
Most people ... when they get power... political or corporate have the temptation to start controlling others.
sad part of Human nature.
It's something that the founders understood and tried to prepare for in many ways, 1st of all by LIMITING the role of the Federal gov't..
Lieu's political circus charade designed to distract from Googles partisan censorship campaign masks a far more serious attack on the first amendment by soon to be committee chairman Congressman Nadler. Nadler's opening statement as ranking member was dedicated not to framing the questioning of the witness, CEO of one of the most powerful and influential in human history, but to attacking so-called far right conspiracy theories laying down the markers for junior members of the committee to follow. Google cannot be questioned about how their search algorithm works to the detriment of Conservative content, Chairman Nadlers orders.

Nadler's tacit endorsement of Google's bias wasn't all he included in his hyperpartisan rant. Anyone who had concerns about Google's bias ought to endorse Federal government censorship in the form of the rampantly misnamed fairness doctrine. Government bureaucrats are absolutely pristine, free of political bias, just ask Lois Lerner.
__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2018, 04:53 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,575
Thanks: 11,587
Thanked 7,767 Times in 5,131 Posts
Default Re: Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amend

Google is trying to control the narratives. or at least Skew it. they and facebook have the reins on the what content is allowed to be viewed.
and it seems they are just getting worse. I've noticed in searches this year that I get far fewer if any NON-MSM responses have come up, even after digging far past page one. even after asking the search NOT to give me CNN FOX BBC etc.
the status Quo left/right/corporate narratives are the only things they want folks to see and BELIEVE. without question.

Blocking and suppressing Alex Jones and others is simply raw censorship... and seem like just the beginning.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2018, 05:21 PM
saltwn's Avatar
1966 Atlantic hurricane
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 85,009
Thanks: 56,370
Thanked 26,593 Times in 19,072 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amend

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
yes I too would love to prevent KKK from handing out pamphlets, potential terrorists from spawning tech trolls to argue for racism online, and what christian mom doesn't wish pornography and violence were better regulated in media and games.
however freedom of speech prevents most of those wishes from coming true.
Lieu's biggest mistake was giving foxnews the benefit that they prefer intelligent speech over childish out of context gotcha headlines.
"free" beacon indeed.
__________________
Prince Phillip was one of the last of that greatest generation who kept the peace and built Western liberal freedom. ~Scott Morrison, PM Australia
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2018, 05:22 PM
saltwn's Avatar
1966 Atlantic hurricane
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 85,009
Thanks: 56,370
Thanked 26,593 Times in 19,072 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amend

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
Google is trying to control the narratives. or at least Skew it. they and facebook have the reins on the what content is allowed to be viewed.
and it seems they are just getting worse. I've noticed in searches this year that I get far fewer if any NON-MSM responses have come up, even after digging far past page one. even after asking the search NOT to give me CNN FOX BBC etc.
the status Quo left/right/corporate narratives are the only things they want folks to see and BELIEVE. without question.

Blocking and suppressing Alex Jones and others is simply raw censorship... and seem like just the beginning.
how google search works is algorithms. if you search more for apples you will probably be shown an apple when you google fruit.
__________________
Prince Phillip was one of the last of that greatest generation who kept the peace and built Western liberal freedom. ~Scott Morrison, PM Australia
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2018, 06:23 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,575
Thanks: 11,587
Thanked 7,767 Times in 5,131 Posts
Default Re: Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amend

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
how google search works is algorithms. if you search more for apples you will probably be shown an apple when you google fruit.
NOPE that's not all salt, sorry.
I'm not kidding, or being hyperbolic, when i talk about my personal internet experience.
I can tell you I used to get a LOT more search results from alternative news sources and various blogs including but not limited to Consortium News, Corbett Report, Natural News, BLacklisted News, Lifesite, Russia Today, Alex Jones , Real News, AntiWar.com and many other various Odd and Sunder sites that had SPECIFIC info of various POVs concerning my specific search queries. I used to discovered many NEW sites based on the searches. Not anymore. MSM and "authoritative sources" for PAGES on any search about recent events or history.
the censorship is very real.

Plus it's well known that google has played with the data for years. But it's just become moreso.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...t-be-regulated
...Google, Inc., isn't just the world's biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world's biggest censor.

The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.
...1. The autocomplete blacklist. This is a list of words and phrases that are excluded from the autocomplete feature in Google's search bar. The search bar instantly suggests multiple search options when you type words such as "democracy" ...
2. The Google Maps blacklist. This list is a little more creepy, and if you are concerned about your privacy, it might be a good list to be on. The cameras of Google Earth and Google Maps have photographed your home for all to see. If you don't like that, "just move," Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt said. ...
3. The YouTube blacklist. YouTube, which is owned by Google, allows users to flag inappropriate videos, at which point Google censors weigh in and sometimes remove them, but not, according to a recent report by Gizmodo, with any great consistency – except perhaps when it comes to politics. Consistent with the company's strong and open support for liberal political candidates, Google employees seem far more apt to ban politically conservative videos than liberal ones. In December 2015, singer Joyce Bartholomew sued YouTube for removing her openly pro-life music video, but I can find no instances of pro-choice music being removed....
...5. The Google News blacklist. If a librarian were caught trashing all the liberal newspapers before people could read them, he or she might get in a heap o' trouble. What happens when most of the librarians in the world have been replaced by a single company? Google is now the largest news aggregator in the world, tracking tens of thousands of news sources in more than thirty languages and recently adding thousands of small, local news sources to its inventory. It also selectively bans news sources as it pleases. In 2006, Google was accused of excluding conservative news sources that generated stories critical of Islam, and the company has also been accused of banning individual columnists and competing companies from its news feed. In December 2014, facing a new law in Spain that would have charged Google for scraping content from Spanish news sources (which, after all, have to pay to prepare their news), Google suddenly withdrew its news service from Spain, which led to an immediate drop in traffic to Spanish new stories. That drop in traffic is the problem: When a large aggregator bans you from its service, fewer people find your news stories, which means opinions will shift away from those you support. Selective blacklisting of news sources is a powerful way of promoting a political, religious or moral agenda, with no one the wiser....
6. The Google AdWords blacklist. Now things get creepier. More than 70 percent of Google's $80 billion in annual revenue comes from its AdWords advertising service, which it implemented in 2000 by infringing on a similar system already patented by Overture Services. The way it works is simple: Businesses worldwide bid on the right to use certain keywords in short text ads that link to their websites (those text ads are the AdWords); when people click on the links, those businesses pay Google. These ads appear on Google.com and other Google websites and are also interwoven into the content of more than a million non-Google websites – Google's "Display Network." The problem here is that if a Google executive decides your business or industry doesn't meet its moral standards, it bans you from AdWords; these days, with Google's reach so large, that can quickly put you out of business. In 2011, Google blacklisted an Irish political group that defended sex workers but which did not provide them; after a protest, the company eventually backed down.
In May 2016, Google blacklisted an entire industry – companies providing high-interest "payday" loans. As always, the company billed this dramatic move as an exercise in social responsibility, failing to note that it is a major investor in LendUp.com, ...
8. The search engine blacklist. Google's ubiquitous search engine has indeed become the gateway to virtually all information, handling 90 percent of search in most countries. It dominates search because its index is so large: Google indexes more than 45 billion web pages; its next-biggest competitor, Microsoft's Bing, indexes a mere 14 billion, which helps to explain the poor quality of Bing's search results.

Google's dominance in search is why businesses large and small live in constant "fear of Google," as Mathias Dopfner, CEO of Axel Springer, the largest publishing conglomerate in Europe, put it in an open letter to Eric Schmidt in 2014. According to Dopfner, when Google made one of its frequent adjustments to its search algorithm, one of his company's subsidiaries dropped dramatically in the search rankings and lost 70 percent of its traffic within a few days. Even worse than the vagaries of the adjustments, however, are the dire consequences that follow when Google employees somehow conclude you have violated their "guidelines": You either get banished to the rarely visited Netherlands of search pages beyond the first page (90 percent of all clicks go to links on that first page) or completely removed from the index. In 2011, Google took a "manual action" of a "corrective" nature against retailer J.C. Penney – punishment for Penney's alleged use of a legal SEO technique called "link building" that many companies employ to try to boost their rankings in Google's search results. Penney was demoted 60 positions or more in the rankings.

Search ranking manipulations of this sort don't just ruin businesses; they also affect people's opinions, attitudes, beliefs and behavior, as my research on the Search Engine Manipulation Effect has demonstrated....

9. The quarantine list. ...Jan. 31, 2009, Google blocked access to virtually the entire internet. And, as if not to be outdone by a 1951 science fiction move, it did so for 40 minutes. Impossible, you say. Why would do-no-evil Google do such an apocalyptic thing, and, for that matter, how, technically, could a single company block access to more than 100 million websites? The answer has to do with the dark and murky world of website blacklists – ever-changing lists of websites that contain malicious software that might infect or damage people's computers. There are many such lists ...But the best and longest list of suspect websites is Google's, launched in May 2007. Because Google is crawling the web more extensively than anyone else, it is also in the best position to find malicious websites. In 2012, Google acknowledged that each and every day it adds about 9,500 new websites to its quarantine list and displays malware warnings on the answers it gives to between 12 and 14 million search queries. It won't reveal the exact number of websites on the list, but it is certainly in the millions on any given day.

In 2011, Google blocked an entire subdomain, co.cc, which alone contained 11 million websites, justifying its action by claiming that most of the websites in that domain appeared to be "spammy." According to Matt Cutts, still the leader of Google's web spam team, the company "reserves the right" to take such action when it deems it necessary. (The right? Who gave Google that right?)...
But Google's crawlers often make mistakes, blacklisting websites that have merely been "hijacked," which means the website itself isn't dangerous but merely that accessing it through the search engine will forward you to a malicious site. My own website, .


In May 2013, the highly opinionated PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak wondered "When Did Google Become the Internet Police?" after both his website and podcast site were blacklisted. He also ran into the delisting problem: "It's funny," he wrote, "how the site can be blacklisted in a millisecond by an analysis but I have to wait forever to get cleared by the same analysis doing the same scan. Why is that?"

Could Google really be arrogant enough to mess with a prominent journalist? According to CNN, in 2005 Google "blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year after the popular technology news website published personal information about one of Google's founders" – Eric Schmidt – "in a story about growing privacy concerns." The company declined to comment on CNN's story....

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:18 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,575
Thanks: 11,587
Thanked 7,767 Times in 5,131 Posts
Default Re: Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amend

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
yes I too would love to prevent KKK from handing out pamphlets, potential terrorists from spawning tech trolls to argue for racism online, and what christian mom doesn't wish pornography and violence were better regulated in media and games.
however freedom of speech prevents most of those wishes from coming true.
Lieu's biggest mistake was giving foxnews the benefit that they prefer intelligent speech over childish out of context gotcha headlines.
"free" beacon indeed.
I don't want to Prevent the KKK from Handing out Pamphlets,
someone will use it as an excuse to Prevent Christians from Handing out Pamphlets.
I'd prefer a Good person be near the KKK member and hand out GOOD stuff to the same people.

Or ban " potential terrorists from spawning tech trolls to argue for racism online".. who EXACTLY is a POTENTIAL "terrorist"?! who makes that call?
WATCH them follow them online yes. but don't BAN or control.

"and what christian mom doesn't wish pornography and violence were better regulated in media and games"
Christian Dads want to keep children away from Porn and violence as well.
In that case I think a CLEAR rating system for film and games and for the internet and a designation of DOTXXX. Any porn not found on a .xxx and Only on that designation is scrubbed and the perps fined and or jailed. No hot linking etc to .xxx domains allowed from .coms .net etc.
with various free market features to BLOCK .xxx sites completely.

the porn industry has balked at this restriction becasue part of their marketing is being everywhere and undercover and with access to the whole web.

Freedom of Speech is a basic human right, Gov't is not our Mommy or Daddy.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:32 PM
saltwn's Avatar
1966 Atlantic hurricane
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 85,009
Thanks: 56,370
Thanked 26,593 Times in 19,072 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amend

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
I don't want to Prevent the KKK from Handing out Pamphlets,
someone will use it as an excuse to Prevent Christians from Handing out Pamphlets.
I'd prefer a Good person be near the KKK member and hand out GOOD stuff to the same people.

Or ban " potential terrorists from spawning tech trolls to argue for racism online".. who EXACTLY is a POTENTIAL "terrorist"?! who makes that call?
WATCH them follow them online yes. but don't BAN or control.

"and what christian mom doesn't wish pornography and violence were better regulated in media and games"
Christian Dads want to keep children away from Porn and violence as well.
In that case I think a CLEAR rating system for film and games and for the internet and a designation of DOTXXX. Any porn not found on a .xxx and Only on that designation is scrubbed and the perps fined and or jailed. No hot linking etc to .xxx domains allowed from .coms .net etc.
with various free market features to BLOCK .xxx sites completely.

the porn industry has balked at this restriction becasue part of their marketing is being everywhere and undercover and with access to the whole web.

Freedom of Speech is a basic human right, Gov't is not our Mommy or Daddy.
it was an expression of. 'wouldn't we all like not to hear what we think is offensive or crap"
__________________
Prince Phillip was one of the last of that greatest generation who kept the peace and built Western liberal freedom. ~Scott Morrison, PM Australia
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:35 PM
saltwn's Avatar
1966 Atlantic hurricane
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 85,009
Thanks: 56,370
Thanked 26,593 Times in 19,072 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amend

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
NOPE that's not all salt, sorry.
I'm not kidding, or being hyperbolic, when i talk about my personal internet experience.
I can tell you I used to get a LOT more search results from alternative news sources and various blogs including but not limited to Consortium News, Corbett Report, Natural News, BLacklisted News, Lifesite, Russia Today, Alex Jones , Real News, AntiWar.com and many other various Odd and Sunder sites that had SPECIFIC info of various POVs concerning my specific search queries. I used to discovered many NEW sites based on the searches. Not anymore. MSM and "authoritative sources" for PAGES on any search about recent events or history.
the censorship is very real.

Plus it's well known that google has played with the data for years. But it's just become moreso.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...t-be-regulated
...Google, Inc., isn't just the world's biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world's biggest censor.

The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.
...1. The autocomplete blacklist. This is a list of words and phrases that are excluded from the autocomplete feature in Google's search bar. The search bar instantly suggests multiple search options when you type words such as "democracy" ...
2. The Google Maps blacklist. This list is a little more creepy, and if you are concerned about your privacy, it might be a good list to be on. The cameras of Google Earth and Google Maps have photographed your home for all to see. If you don't like that, "just move," Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt said. ...
3. The YouTube blacklist. YouTube, which is owned by Google, allows users to flag inappropriate videos, at which point Google censors weigh in and sometimes remove them, but not, according to a recent report by Gizmodo, with any great consistency – except perhaps when it comes to politics. Consistent with the company's strong and open support for liberal political candidates, Google employees seem far more apt to ban politically conservative videos than liberal ones. In December 2015, singer Joyce Bartholomew sued YouTube for removing her openly pro-life music video, but I can find no instances of pro-choice music being removed....
...5. The Google News blacklist. If a librarian were caught trashing all the liberal newspapers before people could read them, he or she might get in a heap o' trouble. What happens when most of the librarians in the world have been replaced by a single company? Google is now the largest news aggregator in the world, tracking tens of thousands of news sources in more than thirty languages and recently adding thousands of small, local news sources to its inventory. It also selectively bans news sources as it pleases. In 2006, Google was accused of excluding conservative news sources that generated stories critical of Islam, and the company has also been accused of banning individual columnists and competing companies from its news feed. In December 2014, facing a new law in Spain that would have charged Google for scraping content from Spanish news sources (which, after all, have to pay to prepare their news), Google suddenly withdrew its news service from Spain, which led to an immediate drop in traffic to Spanish new stories. That drop in traffic is the problem: When a large aggregator bans you from its service, fewer people find your news stories, which means opinions will shift away from those you support. Selective blacklisting of news sources is a powerful way of promoting a political, religious or moral agenda, with no one the wiser....
6. The Google AdWords blacklist. Now things get creepier. More than 70 percent of Google's $80 billion in annual revenue comes from its AdWords advertising service, which it implemented in 2000 by infringing on a similar system already patented by Overture Services. The way it works is simple: Businesses worldwide bid on the right to use certain keywords in short text ads that link to their websites (those text ads are the AdWords); when people click on the links, those businesses pay Google. These ads appear on Google.com and other Google websites and are also interwoven into the content of more than a million non-Google websites – Google's "Display Network." The problem here is that if a Google executive decides your business or industry doesn't meet its moral standards, it bans you from AdWords; these days, with Google's reach so large, that can quickly put you out of business. In 2011, Google blacklisted an Irish political group that defended sex workers but which did not provide them; after a protest, the company eventually backed down.
In May 2016, Google blacklisted an entire industry – companies providing high-interest "payday" loans. As always, the company billed this dramatic move as an exercise in social responsibility, failing to note that it is a major investor in LendUp.com, ...
8. The search engine blacklist. Google's ubiquitous search engine has indeed become the gateway to virtually all information, handling 90 percent of search in most countries. It dominates search because its index is so large: Google indexes more than 45 billion web pages; its next-biggest competitor, Microsoft's Bing, indexes a mere 14 billion, which helps to explain the poor quality of Bing's search results.

Google's dominance in search is why businesses large and small live in constant "fear of Google," as Mathias Dopfner, CEO of Axel Springer, the largest publishing conglomerate in Europe, put it in an open letter to Eric Schmidt in 2014. According to Dopfner, when Google made one of its frequent adjustments to its search algorithm, one of his company's subsidiaries dropped dramatically in the search rankings and lost 70 percent of its traffic within a few days. Even worse than the vagaries of the adjustments, however, are the dire consequences that follow when Google employees somehow conclude you have violated their "guidelines": You either get banished to the rarely visited Netherlands of search pages beyond the first page (90 percent of all clicks go to links on that first page) or completely removed from the index. In 2011, Google took a "manual action" of a "corrective" nature against retailer J.C. Penney – punishment for Penney's alleged use of a legal SEO technique called "link building" that many companies employ to try to boost their rankings in Google's search results. Penney was demoted 60 positions or more in the rankings.

Search ranking manipulations of this sort don't just ruin businesses; they also affect people's opinions, attitudes, beliefs and behavior, as my research on the Search Engine Manipulation Effect has demonstrated....

9. The quarantine list. ...Jan. 31, 2009, Google blocked access to virtually the entire internet. And, as if not to be outdone by a 1951 science fiction move, it did so for 40 minutes. Impossible, you say. Why would do-no-evil Google do such an apocalyptic thing, and, for that matter, how, technically, could a single company block access to more than 100 million websites? The answer has to do with the dark and murky world of website blacklists – ever-changing lists of websites that contain malicious software that might infect or damage people's computers. There are many such lists ...But the best and longest list of suspect websites is Google's, launched in May 2007. Because Google is crawling the web more extensively than anyone else, it is also in the best position to find malicious websites. In 2012, Google acknowledged that each and every day it adds about 9,500 new websites to its quarantine list and displays malware warnings on the answers it gives to between 12 and 14 million search queries. It won't reveal the exact number of websites on the list, but it is certainly in the millions on any given day.

In 2011, Google blocked an entire subdomain, co.cc, which alone contained 11 million websites, justifying its action by claiming that most of the websites in that domain appeared to be "spammy." According to Matt Cutts, still the leader of Google's web spam team, the company "reserves the right" to take such action when it deems it necessary. (The right? Who gave Google that right?)...
But Google's crawlers often make mistakes, blacklisting websites that have merely been "hijacked," which means the website itself isn't dangerous but merely that accessing it through the search engine will forward you to a malicious site. My own website, .


In May 2013, the highly opinionated PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak wondered "When Did Google Become the Internet Police?" after both his website and podcast site were blacklisted. He also ran into the delisting problem: "It's funny," he wrote, "how the site can be blacklisted in a millisecond by an analysis but I have to wait forever to get cleared by the same analysis doing the same scan. Why is that?"

Could Google really be arrogant enough to mess with a prominent journalist? According to CNN, in 2005 Google "blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year after the popular technology news website published personal information about one of Google's founders" – Eric Schmidt – "in a story about growing privacy concerns." The company declined to comment on CNN's story....

I've had a different experience.
But we can always treat the internet as a commodoty and regulate it more than it was before Ajit shLt Pai came along.
Also subsidize it
__________________
Prince Phillip was one of the last of that greatest generation who kept the peace and built Western liberal freedom. ~Scott Morrison, PM Australia
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
able, amendment, but, content, first, lieu, love, regulate, speech’, the, would

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0