Board 8 > Google censorship cracks down on anti-war left-wing sites, too

(+) Yeah! (+)

You could use bing!
---

Of course it matters. Why do you think I made this topic?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

It doesn't matter if it's the "right thing to do." They're totally within their rights. You are free to seek alternatives. Maybe even find them via Google search!

okay smartmuffin

Vlado obviously only uses Bing
---

Damnit Rock
---

velocycloraptor posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

It doesn't matter if it's the "right thing to do." They're totally within their rights. You are free to seek alternatives. Maybe even find them via Google search!

okay smartmuffin

Outlaw single mothers
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

this might be the dumbest thing you've said

seconding this, btw. this is "if you like socialism so much, WHY DO YOU GO TO THE STORE LOL" level dumb.
---

XD

Starting to look forward to Vlado topics because each one just makes him look worse.

Vlado posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

That doesn't make it a public service and you know that

Yes, it does.

In the end, you're literally supporting censorship.

I stand for liberty.

Therefore, everyone here knows I am the one who is right.

LMFAO

Petition for 4 line sigs.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

LMFAO

Petition for 4 line sigs.

Bitter that I am right and you are wrong, as usual? No need to mask it behind caps.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

seconding this, btw. this is "if you like socialism so much, WHY DO YOU GO TO THE STORE LOL" level dumb.

Do explain how google is not a service of public importance.
---

What's the motive anyway?

Why is promoting war in the best interests of Google?

More people searching for how to get out of warzones?
---

Man, should we just devolve these topics into complete childishness? Cause that seems Vlado's goal.

"I am right and you are wrong." Well, golly gee if you're so right then you may as well leave this site. Who wants to hang out with WRONG people all the time?
---

Vlado posted...

Bitter that I am right and you are wrong, as usual? No need to mask it behind caps.

except that you're wrong.

the sky isn't purple, no matter how often you keep saying it is.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What's the motive anyway?

Why is promoting war in the best interests of Google?

More people searching for how to get out of warzones?

"how do i build bomb shelter"
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

Bitter that I am right and you are wrong, as usual? No need to mask it behind caps.

except that you're wrong.

the sky isn't purple, no matter how often you keep saying it is.

Vlado posted...

Do explain how google is not a service of public importance.

---

Also, IF Google is censoring anti-globalist sites (on the left and right), then that's bad. Period. Not only because it stifles intellectual curiosity, but also because it fosters a martyrdom for the sites in question that "proves" they're victims of a globalist agenda. But again, you need to provide more proof of this censorship than a complaint letter.

Now, why is it okay for a national government to censor television?
---

Vlado posted...

Do explain how google is not a service of public importance.

jesus christ, a service of public importance isn't a public service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service

please read this before you further embarrass yourself.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

Bitter that I am right and you are wrong, as usual? No need to mask it behind caps.

except that you're wrong.

the sky isn't purple, no matter how often you keep saying it is.

That post wasn't even in all caps! He can't even get basic lettering correct, forget conspiracy theories.
---

Google is not a service of public importance because viable alternatives exist and are equally as accessible
---

I'm not even going to post the picture. You guys just chomped on that hook.
---

I mean the reality is that sure, you can shame Google for taking this action. Just like we shame companies all the time for certain decisions (like refusing to bake a cake for gay couples).

That doesn't make it censorship.
---

And if you accept that Steven Universe cannot have a gay couple on it's show in Russia then that is censorship by your definition.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Google is not a service of public importance because viable alternatives exist and are equally as accessible

This is actually a good response. Vlado's literally congratulating cyclo for seeking out other search engines, which implies that you don't NEED to use Google.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What's the motive anyway?

Why is promoting war in the best interests of Google?

More people searching for how to get out of warzones?

do you seriously not see the motive behind a company promoting capitalist views over leftist views? and yeah, war is necessary for capitalism

velocycloraptor posted...

and yeah, war is necessary for capitalism

Uhhhhhhh...
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

Do explain how google is not a service of public importance.

jesus christ, a service of public importance isn't a public service.

Trying to weasel out of the question using semantics again?

Explain how google is not a service of public importance.
---

Vlado posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

Do explain how google is not a service of public importance.

jesus christ, a service of public importance isn't a public service.

Trying to weasel out of the question using semantics again?

Explain how google is not a service of public importance.

Because there are other search engines you can use. Now answer the question, little sheep. Is government censorship of Steven Universe okay?
---

Vlado didn't you just have a whole argument using semantics on some other topic on here, I forget what the topic was
---

you didn't say "service of public importance" which isn't a defined term for anything at all
---

like you can't just backtrack saying "I like eating goat penises" to "I like meat"
---

Honestly, Vlado does a good job making me hate globalism. Without globalism, we wouldn't have some Bulgarian loser clogging up our primarily American message board with lies and misinterpretations.
---

trdl23 posted...

I'm not even going to post the picture. You guys just chomped on that hook.

At this point, maybe Vlado is baiting YOU to post the picture
---

Vlado posted...

Trying to weasel out of the question using semantics again?

you really need to stop calling someone being 100% wrong and getting called out for it "a semantic argument." you recently did this too when ulti claimed hillary invented the term "alt-right."
---

THAT was it thank you lasa, I forgot the topic for some reason
---

Jakyl25 posted...

trdl23 posted...

I'm not even going to post the picture. You guys just chomped on that hook.

At this point, maybe Vlado is baiting YOU to post the picture

...oh my god.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Vlado posted...

Trying to weasel out of the question using semantics again?

you really need to stop calling someone being 100% wrong and getting called out for it "a semantic argument." you recently did this too when ulti claimed hillary invented the term "alt-right."

Actually, in both cases you try to avoid addressing the point.
---

Speaking of avoiding...!
---

He's self-censoring his response to the question; the greatest sin!
---

holy shit this topic


---

I kind of agree with Vlado on some level.

If you put something on twitter, and then get banned, yeah, that's you getting kicked off of a private platform.

But Google is not twitter. Google is a lookup system. Google is the lookup system. There isn't really competition (Bing is a hoax created by the Chinese). It's kind-of like if the dewey decimal system refused to list some authors.

That said, I'm not familiar with wsws.org, but they are clearly not completely unlisted (I found them with google searches just fine, and they mention themselves that they only had a reduction of traffic from Google).

I found another article on their site about the same issue, which actually has some quotes:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html

Specifically here's them talking about the Google algorithm change.

Framed as a mere change to technical procedures, Gomes’s statement legitimizes Internet censorship as a necessary response to “the phenomenon of ‘fake news,’ where content on the web has contributed to the spread of blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information.”

Well, ok, I guess wsws just has to prove that they are not "low quality" and don't have anything "blatantly misleading" on their site.

Next paragraph:

The “phenomenon of ‘fake news’” is, itself, the principal “fake news” story of 2017. In its origins and propagation, it has all the well-known characteristics of what used to be called CIA “misinformation” campaigns, aimed at discrediting left-wing opponents of state and corporate interests.

Uhhhhh.

The existence of 2016's fake news wave is fairly well-documented:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-biggest-fake-news-stories-of-2016.html

And also generally not linked to the CIA (or Russia for that matter). These stories generated millions of clicks, generating a lot of ad revenue. Most of them were traced back to poor people needing money in places like Macedonia recognizing a potential source of income.

(Not to say that CIA misinformation campaigns or Russian misinformation campaigns have never happened, they have, buuut I think calling wsws.org here "misleading" sounds like an apt description).
---

metroid composite posted...

I kind of agree with Vlado on some level.

If you put something on twitter, and then get banned, yeah, that's you getting kicked off of a private platform.

But Google is not twitter. Google is a lookup system. Google is the lookup system. There isn't really competition (Bing is a hoax created by the Chinese). It's kind-of like if the dewey decimal system refused to list some authors.

Not really. Google is a private (okay, publicly traded) enterprise and isn't actually under any legal obligation to show you every single possible result to every string of text you type in the search box. They could bury every site that doesn't tithe 30% of its annual revenue to them, and legally there's nothing anyone could do about it (outside of ceasing to use Google products and taking its ads off their own websites).

Now, ethically? Sure, if Google really is burying and unlisting sites that it doesn't like that's an issue. If there's compelling evidence that they are doing that then I will gleefully condemn them for it because that's shady as shit. If you want to make the argument that search engines should be regulated to ensure they're not doing such shady shit, that is certainly a discussion worth having. But as it stands, they aren't, so Vlado's whole argument of "Google is a public service!!1" just falls flat on its face.
---

So based on MC's post it sounds like this site was not specifically targeted, and just fell down the search rankings because Google was trying to improve their search algorithm to prioritize more trustworthy sites (which is exactly what they should be doing, since that makes their search engine more useful for the consumer).
---

lmao

Not_an_Owl posted...

Not really. Google is a private (okay, publicly traded) enterprise and isn't actually under any legal obligation to show you every single possible result to every string of text you type in the search box. They could bury every site that doesn't tithe 30% of its annual revenue to them, and legally there's nothing anyone could do about it (outside of ceasing to use Google products and taking its ads off their own websites).

I mean technically legal sure.

And due to the recent rescinding of net neutrality rules, Comcast is probably going to do something similar to every site that doesn't tithe them 30%.

In the case of Comcast, I believe pretty strongly that there should be a law (title II net neutrality regulations), because in many locations there literally is no other carrier servicing a neighborhood.

Google doesn't quite have that level of monopoly; there are in fact other search engines, and just other ways to get to websites in general (typing in the address, getting linked from twitter/reddit/gamefaqs). I don't think a law is necessary here. But it's definitely approaching that borderline of uncomfortable monopoly while presenting itself as an unbiased tool; I just intuitively assume that it merely searches and indexes stuff. If it were systematically burying any website that takes an anti-war stance, as WSWS claimed, yeah, that would be kind-of a problem. Not a problem in need of a law, but maybe a problem that deserved a boycott.
---

There's a fundamental difference between the search engine case and the ISP case, though. For the ISPs it's possible for them to treat all sites equally (just avoid throttling/prioritizing sites). A search engine, however, is forced to choose some order in which to display the results for a given query. Unless they're going to do something stupid like randomize all results they must be biased towards or against some sites (for a given search term), so it makes sense to prioritize things like relevance, trustworthiness, etc.
---

metroid composite posted...

I kind of agree with Vlado on some level.

If you put something on twitter, and then get banned, yeah, that's you getting kicked off of a private platform.

But Google is not twitter. Google is a lookup system. Google is the lookup system. There isn't really competition

Thanks. At least someone from the "opposition" doesn't pretend not to understand my point.

metroid composite posted...

(Bing is a hoax created by the Chinese)

Uh, Microsoft is "the Chinese"? I'm not sure I understand.

metroid composite posted...

Next paragraph:

The “phenomenon of ‘fake news’” is, itself, the principal “fake news” story of 2017. In its origins and propagation, it has all the well-known characteristics of what used to be called CIA “misinformation” campaigns, aimed at discrediting left-wing opponents of state and corporate interests.



Uhhhhh.

The existence of 2016's fake news wave is fairly well-documented:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-biggest-fake-news-stories-of-2016.html

And also generally not linked to the CIA (or Russia for that matter). These stories generated millions of clicks, generating a lot of ad revenue. Most of them were traced back to poor people needing money in places like Macedonia recognizing a potential source of income.

(Not to say that CIA misinformation campaigns or Russian misinformation campaigns have never happened, they have, buuut I think calling wsws.org here "misleading" sounds like an apt description).

Come on. If a single opinionated sentence leads you to the conclusion that they are "misleading," then what do we say about all the mainstream media with their attacks on Trump, the fabricated Russia connections, equating all Trump supporters to neo-nazis, etc.? Yet, those are HEAVILY prioritised by google. Sometimes, I need to scroll several pages to find a reliable source on political events.
---

metroid composite posted...

If you put something on twitter, and then get banned, yeah, that's you getting kicked off of a private platform.

But Google is not twitter. Google is a lookup system. Google is the lookup system. There isn't really competition (Bing is a hoax created by the Chinese). It's kind-of like if the dewey decimal system refused to list some authors.

uh, not really? there's tons of alternatives to google you could use, as evidenced by the list in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_search_engine

not saying all of these search engines are necessarily great (i'm not familiar with all of them) but at least some of them are fine. if you don't like bing there's always yahoo search, for instance. not sure how it's comparable to the dewey decimal system.

if anything, twitter is a better example of your point because that site doesn't really have any competition, to my knowledge. and they, too, have every right to ban people who post stuff they disagree with.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

For the record, the left shit all over the Bush administration for censorship, but they defend all censorship that agrees with their own agenda.

...there's a HUGE difference between the government censoring people and a private company "censoring" people.

(i'm allowed to respond to ulti when it's not the politics topic, right?)
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Watching the leftists on this board defend open censorship is hilarious.

i'm sure you're one of those people who throw a hissy fit about "censorship" when you get modded for breaking the ToU.
---