So Google admits to censorship?

Question by L.T.M.: So Google admits to censorship?
Google this week admitted that its staff will pick and choose what appears in its search results. It’s a historic statement – and nobody has yet grasped its significance.

Not so very long ago, Google disclaimed responsibility for its search results by explaining that these were chosen by a computer algorithm. The disclaimer lives on at Google News, where we are assured that:

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.
A few years ago, Google’s apparently unimpeachable objectivity got some people very excited, and technology utopians began to herald Google as the conduit for a new form of democracy. Google was only too pleased to encourage this view. It explained that its algorithm “relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page’s value. ”

That Google was impartial was one of the articles of faith. For if Google was ever to be found to be applying subjective human judgment directly on the process, it would be akin to the voting machines being rigged.

For these soothsayers of the Hive Mind, the years ahead looked prosperous. As blog-aware marketing and media consultants, they saw a lucrative future in explaining the New Emergent World Order to the uninitiated. (That part has come true – Web 2.0 “gurus” now advise large media companies).

It wasn’t surprising, then, that when five years ago I described how a small, self-selected number of people could rig Google’s search results, the reaction from the people doing the rigging was violently antagonistic. Who lifted that rock? they cried.

But what was once Googlewashing by a select few now has Google’s active participation.

This week Marissa Meyer explained that editorial judgments will play a key role in Google searches. It was reported by Tech Crunch proprietor Michael Arrington – who Nick Carr called the “Madam of the Web 2.0 Brothel” – but its significance wasn’t noted. The irony flew safely over his head at 30,000 feet. Arrington observed:
Here’s the article….

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/googlewashing_revisited/

ARE THERE ANY OPTIONS OPEN TO US?
youtube is owned by Google. I had to go thru 100 pages to find this…

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/11/googles-admits.html

Best answer:

Answer by sexy21hotness
I was a paragraph into reading this post and then lost interest. Who cares. Google is better than all the other search engines.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

10 Comments

  1. “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
    - Carl Sagan

  2. This is sad but i’ve known this for a while, sometimes i can find shepherds chapel and sometimes i can’t like other things. It is still better than other search engines.

  3. what do expect its google its all government controlled everything you type in and google gets recorded in your little file in some federal data base,

  4. They are doing this for The One. He doesn’t like people talking the truth of what a fraud he is. Notice they started this about 7 months before that Ba@tard won. Tomorrow the Electorate decides. I bet you those Liberal Electorates gives it to that Monster.

  5. Who cares?… Well there ya go. That pretty much sums it up doesn’t it?

    It’s nothing new dude. When I was designing websites, you could actually pay to have your site appear as high in the Google listing as you wanted. The more you pay the higher the listing. In a highly competitive market this can be a real money making opportunity.
    Worse yet, if somebody wanted to promote their own agenda (political or otherwise) a few bucks could certainly insure their ideas were the first to show up. Multiple sites promoting the same ideas but under various “authors” could be used to fill the first several pages of search results thus influencing the reader to believe these results were a consensus. Most people rarely read the results of their search beyond the first few pages. That poor sucker on last result page may have the right answer, but because he didn’t pay the bots…he’ll never be heard.
    But who cares, right?

    Are there any options? Well, I use other searches to back up what Google provides. They often provide results that Google overlooks or list so far down the results you’d never find it. Whereas G.. results are often redundant site for the first several pages.
    One of my favorites was Web-crawler…but it has gone by the wayside I guess. Google sucked it up along with others. It’s acquiring a monopoly status now and where there’s a monopoly you can almost certainly find corruption.
    But who cares?

    P.S. I noticed a disclaimer, (unlike the old one that omitted some redundant results) this one said basically, “Some results have been omitted/censored from the following for various reasons or violations.” (the reasons/violations were not given)
    I wasn’t searching for any illicit or illegal material. I was trying to find some biographical information about a public figure AND was basically told to forget it. Sounds like censorship to me.
    But who cares?
    Hell, throw another book on the fire!

  6. It all came out with the China Olympics about Yahoo and Google sanitising the data search modules on behalf of the Republic of China underworld of freedom dissidents.

  7. Do you understand the movie now special movies by Hollywood were begin the chain of subconscient….

    To control the brain and the thoughts of the poeple they have to hold the press, the tv the school,and generally the media to let work your subconscient for them.
    We know the trouble here for a long time and explained from where it was coming.
    Freud and Trotsky were fellows yes during exil in Austria 1906
    Freud told Trotsky how to enter in the subconscient of poeple
    Anybody do know who was Freud ans he has student in each country!
    The spirit dominate the harware you understand
    Trotsky is always the master of international socialism who murged in the States with democrats.His grabe stinks and his members called the goofer work under the ground and sometime they do met the underworld for association!
    In any case the socialist are internationalist and they need and want to control any international media press to impose the unic thoughts.
    We will have to work like mac carter with the communists they are worst because instructed and ipso facto more credible.
    They excite you for years again the sowiet union including after 1973 when no danger after the death of Andropov.It would make a good long question the behaviour of Albright with Milosevic explain for part this large question answered 2 weeks ago.
    Now stop joking on France we are liberal and not a socialist country.we have been vaccinated it’s you turn care the fiever.
    The word social don’t belong to the democrat socialist party.The salvation Army is social too!
    Since they murge call them like this please it will help to take off the mask.
    We use to see the small piece of hay in the neightbor’s eye but not the beam in our own!
    .Here they try to control the banks remember the credit lyonnais sure the insurances companies too, the national health care one reasons for trouble becaus ethey use the money to buy votes on wellfair.

  8. Dr. Awkward pretty much covered it all in a very well done post. When people stop caring about what’s going on around them, they’re leaving a gap that can & will be filled by those that do, often with disastrous results. Personally, I’ve never used Google, and don’t intend to. And even on the search engine I do use, I’ll go to the very last page if I have to, in order to find what I’m looking for. I figure if it’s out there, won’t every search engine have the same kinds of information? Maybe I’m just too naive. At any rate, it IS important that the search you’re using be accurate, and include as much as is available. If the search engine is withholding what’s out there, then you’re not getting all the facts. And that COULD make a difference in how you think about many different important issues. Just look at the last presidential election. When the media stays silent on certain issues, the public is left in the dark. And if there were no other way to have access to accurate & true information, then the wool gets pulled over our eyes, much like what happened for many Americans. So, if the search engine is omitting certain websites, how can we trust it to be accurate & true? In order to be impartial, all known sources should have equal access, even if we don’t agree with them. In the final analysis, it’s the American way for us to expect our media sources to list what’s out there, so that we can make intelligent choices. < *)))><

  9. Yep, looks like it’s NOT living up to its “Don’t be evil” motto

    This is why it’s bad if they are the only search game in town -> because absolute power corrupts absolutely

    Peace

  10. I already know this from years ago, its all recorded, anything we do or say!! just another form of big brother watching us!!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Choose a Rating

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv Enabled