drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs: | to be fair
I'm sure there's a reason for it. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | lol
I'm sure there IS a reason for it.
And I'm sure i'm not going to find it satisfying.
hidden censorship is rarely satisfying. |
|
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
1 edit | reply to drew
please explain what reason justifies censoring images that are plainly already in the public domain. (responding to techie) |
|
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs:
 ·wavebroadband
| reply to justin
you're right... mostly.
I highly doubt google is trying to censor from the public (you CAN still find pages about it), but there must be a (good) reason for them not allowing them to come up on images.google.com
Or I could be wrong 
--
|DSLR IRC||hostingking.us||quotes| |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | google should understand their popularity rests on transparency. If there were told by the government to remove those images because of [insert stupid reason] then they should tell us that is what happened. |
|
jrsmooth
join:2000-05-17
Washington, DC | reply to drew
Sure there is going to be a reason, and I thought the Chinese Gov. is the only who does that...
--
JR "Always" Smooth |
|
Anon00
Premium
join:2001-09-25
USA
2 edits | reply to justin
said by justin  :lol I'm sure there IS a reason for it. And I'm sure i'm not going to find it satisfying. hidden censorship is rarely satisfying. I'm curious as to why too. It's highly unlikely (and Bush-haters attempt to use rational thinking) that our government is doing it, cause we all know what will happen if they did. And Google does bring up images if you search within the main site but it doesn't work when you use the Image search function so it is curious. The only way I could see our government to have a legitimate claim for censorship is that it is an ongoing criminal investigation and in the past it has been upheld that Judges can censor certain information, if it was deemed that if the information would be made available to the public, it would prejudice the prospective jury pool. But that goes out the window because not only can you view the images from Google search but this is a military investigation... Curious.
--
"Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"'It's the law' is just an excuse for the unintelligent to remain that way" - Me |
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | reply to justin
google.com is american.
someone try it on google.ca |
|
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs: | nothing.
but it could be my American IP (if it is censorship because of the government.) |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to BonezX
yeah i tried it on images search of google.co.uk as well
hmm, think of a major "image-like" event with a unique name in the last 3 months, and see if there are also no images of it, to prove the theory that images.google.com search is just very slow. |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| reply to justin
said by justin :google should understand their popularity rests on transparency. If there were told by the government to remove those images because of [insert stupid reason] then they should tell us that is what happened. Justin,
If they WERE told by the government to remove the images, it would have leaked and caused one hell of a stir. Indeed, it would have leaked just prior to the election as that would have been the worst possible time for it to leak.
Conspiracy theory is the province of the pseudo-intellectual, not the intellectual.
--
In the background stand the Clinton's bloody switchblade in hand, never to be blamed, but still in the running for '08. |
|
sat
join:2001-01-25
WA
| reply to drew
Google *has* become a corporate citizen, that's what is going on. Remember how you could retrieve caches of anything and everything thru google's cache - an incredibly useful and popular service. They then turned it off on request, and then started applying "common sense" algorithms to do this automatically - such as no ebay links, etc. This is what happens when you have a team of lawyers telling you to watch your step every step of the way; and remember that google has IPO'ed - ie. they are a publicly traded company, at the mercy of the financial 'analysts' - nothing to do with technology. The moment they went IPO they have become much more susceptible to non-technical policies, and having to keep the investors (really the short-term profit takers at the moment) happy by not inviting costly lawsuits, or any sort of government regulations.
This is the price you pay for your incredible, runaway success in this capitalistic society.
--
Nikon D70 DSLR, Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5-4.6, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super, Lexar 40x 512MB CF |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
2 edits | reply to DaDogs
said by DaDogs : said by justin :google should understand their popularity rests on transparency. If there were told by the government to remove those images because of [insert stupid reason] then they should tell us that is what happened. Justin, If they WERE told by the government to remove the images, it would have leaked and caused one hell of a stir. Indeed, it would have leaked just prior to the election as that would have been the worst possible time for it to leak. Conspiracy theory is the province of the pseudo-intellectual, not the intellectual. Merely pointing out that google is missing controversial news imagery is not yet a conspiracy theory. We first need an official theory that works well, befor there can be a conspiracy theory. |
|
50970758
The One And Only
Premium
join:2002-02-28
mdzRghey | reply to drew
Yes, you can't look up naked pictures or hardcore porn.
--
| I'M Sorry, But That's Classified. | |
|
VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01 | reply to drew
said by drew :I'm sure there's a reason for it. Yes. Google censors. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to justin
said by justin : We first need an official theory that works well, before there can be a conspiracy theory. said by justin , earlier:hidden censorship is rarely satisfying That's not a theory? |
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | reply to justin
I know "Carlie Brucia" would show 0 pictures (or wrong ones only) until September or so. She was killed February 1. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to Steve
said by Steve : said by justin : We first need an official theory that works well, before there can be a conspiracy theory. said by justin , earlier:hidden censorship is rarely satisfying That's not a theory? If it *is* hidden censorship then it isn't satisfying. I'm not decided until someone puts up a decent theory that tests out. What is yours. the "six month blind spot for all images" theory? You predict pages of abu ghraib torture by, what, xmas? |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by justin : If it *is* hidden censorship then it isn't satisfying. I'm not decided until someone puts up a decent theory that tests out. What is yours. the "six month blind spot for all images" theory? You predict pages of abu ghraib torture by, what, xmas? I don't know anywhere near enough about Google's indexing methods (which seem to be really responsive even for middle-of-nowhere website like mine), but I find it nearly impossible to believe that they are actively censoring anything. If they had some kind of exclusive access to things, then maybe one could make the case that they could be effective, but "censoring" things that are available everywhere is utterly ineffective, not to mention lousy PR.
I'm more than happy to believe "it's a quirk of indexing" unless somebody has strong evidence that's much more than the nonsense posted here.
This week has been chock-full of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, and even thinking out loud "they might be censoring" is just more of that silliness.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
beers90125
join:2003-07-24
Kankakee, IL | reply to 50970758
Sure you can.  |
|
