Google censorship

It seems Google has refused to run an ad for a “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” bumper sticker on the grounds that it’s “hate speech”. Then they had the audacity to say “Google believes strongly in freedom of expression” in the form letter notifying the advertiser that the ad had been pulled. I’m a big Google fan so this is really disappointing.



hexed says:

What’s your take on this? I’m totally unsure how much of it is Truth and how much of it is Paranoid Fantasy, but it’s a somewhat interesting read.

Needless to say, I’m still using Google for my regular searches… but am using their anonymous proxy for anything “questionable” just in case. I do find that the straight Google search tends to turn up more useful info than the anonymous proxy,though.

kchrist says:

What do I think about google-watch? I think Daniel Brandt is a paranoid kook.

His ranting about Google’s cookies misses one important point: They don’t require you to accept the cookie to use their services. It’s only for setting preferences like language, number of results per page, etc.

He rants about their search term retention policy, but if he was truly interested in providing an anonymous proxy he’d cut his access log storage from 30 days down to maybe 24 hours or log straight to /dev/null the way any reputable anonymous HTTP proxy does.

He complains about google using GET instead of POST in their search fields because it discloses search terms to the sites you follow links to.

He even says “Google is so important to the web these days, that it probably ought to be a public utility” and suggests that the FTC regulate them (at the bottom of the page), which is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.

According to this Salon article, his real problem is that “He has spent thousands of hours building a Web site that he believes is both useful and important, and Google, in its algorithmic blindness, has given Brandt a lower page rank than he thinks he’s entitled to“. The second half of the article gives more information about his other site and how he feels google’s search results should work. Sour grapes, basically.

hexed says:

Cool. I knew you were the guy to talk to about this stuff.

I had a feeling that the great majority of it was paranoid nutjob-ism, but it’s good to see evidence supporting that.

kscaldef says:

Google has some odd policies for Adwords. For example, they have no problem with you advertising barely legal teens, but knives violate their community standards.

raindrops says:

Many is the time I’ve used my trusty barely legal teen to cut me a length of rope, or open a sealed package. Clearly, Google is preserving the delicate sensibilities of America by not accepting advertising for tools which happen to have sharp edges.