 
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 | Re: to be fair 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. | |
|
| | |
| | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | Re: to be fair 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. | |
|
| | | | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: to be fair google.com is american.
someone try it on google.ca | |
|
| | | | |
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs: | Re: to be fair nothing.
but it could be my American IP (if it is censorship because of the government.) | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | 
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | Re: to be fair I know "Carlie Brucia" would show 0 pictures (or wrong ones only) until September or so. She was killed February 1. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | 
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| 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. | |
|
| | | | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
2 edits | Re: to be fair 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. | |
|
| | | | | | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: to be fair 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? | |
|
| | | | | | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: to be fair 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
| Re: to be fair 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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
1 edit | Re: to be fair Oh geez, confusing DCMA enforcement with censoring based on content?
Wow.
Damn, that Karl Rove is one powerful guy! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
1 edit | Re: to be fair I'm not confusing the two.
Google can (and probably does) remove something based on a DMCA request because the rights-holder does not wish it to be searchable or visible or whatever.
This is why the DMCA is criticised so often because it can, and has, been used to "chill" rather than just to remove copyright material (google has also bowed to pressure from foreign governments rather than fight court battles). | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: to be fair Oh, there is no doubt that the DCMA is awful, for this and a long list of other reasons.
But you really think that somebody would go to the trouble of getting Google to do this, but nobody else? This is just much too hard to believe when compared with "fluke of indexing".
Hey, if it turns out that it's as you suggest, I'll eat my tool points, but I don't buy it.
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: to be fair yes i agree (that such would be across the board).
Ok well, i'll mark my diary and see what turns up there for december.
ps: i couldn't find any fallujah hanging contractor pictures either, and they are a year old. No problem on other search engines. So perhaps images.google.com is only good for stealing button gifs. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: to be fair i blame your president :P | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| said by justin :I'm not confusing the two. Google can (and probably does) remove something based on a DMCA request because the rights-holder does not wish it to be searchable or visible or whatever. This is why the DMCA is criticised so often because it can, and has, been used to "chill" rather than just to remove copyright material (google has also bowed to pressure from foreign governments rather than fight court battles). Here's a point. The Abu Ghrabe prison photos were taken by US soldiers - people on the payroll of the US goverment. I'd guess that makes their photos "work product", and that the government could try to assert some copyright.
It's twisted logic (and evil) - and based upon Google policies, I'd guess it would end up on the »www.chillingeffects.org/ website if this were to happen.
-Dane | |
|
| | | | | | | | | VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| Re: to be fair said by DaneJasper :Here's a point. The Abu Ghrabe prison photos were taken by US soldiers - people on the payroll of the US goverment. I'd guess that makes their photos "work product", and that the government could try to assert some copyright. Considering that the "work product" of gov't employees, unles it involves something related to "national security", is actually public domain. Things like research produced from gov't grants, software even. That was one of Microsoft's complaints when one project was possibly going to be placed under GPL, because MS couldn't make use of it then. Technically, in that case, they did have a valid complaint, and in fact I support that particular instance.
There's a good reason why gov't documents, in the absence of pressing needs otherwise, are considered to be "public record", and can be looked up. It is for a similar reason that the laws themselves, cannot be copyrighted. There was a hubbub about that some time ago too, because part of the text of a proposed law was derived from something that an independent contractor worked on, and attempted to claim rights on, and some well-meaning but mis-informed lawmaker wanted to copyright that part. Sheer madness and folly, I tell you. At least in the US, we are a nation of public, written law. How can you be held to rules, that you are not allowed to read? Also, it has to be remembered, that copyright is not an inherent right, it is a granted right by the gov't, to, in the end, foster the enrichement of the public domain. Ironic, isn't it, when you see the public posturing about copyright and copyright-extension issues made by large corporate media companies who's only interest is profit. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| said by justin :You believe they don't do anything despite that their images index FAQ tells people who believe their images have been reproduced unfairly, to follow the instructions on this page ? » www.google.com/dmca.html At least FileMirrors tells you when they have blacklisted a query string/term because the results set might end up including something that might implicate the site in engaging in a DMCA violation. Google makes the results just ... vanish!
Indeed, the DMCA is very nearly the ultimate corporate censorship law, and the patriot act is the parallel for the gov't.  | |
|
| | | | | | | | | VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| said by Steve :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. Remember, "If it's not in Google - it doesn't exist". I've heard that said in the past, in relevance to the importance of getting your site's content (generally-speaking here) indexed and available to the public via Google.
said by Steve :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 Why? They have censored content before. It's not just mere theory that it has already happened. Whether or not it is actually happening in this specific case I cannot say.
I also know that Google has been working on location-based contextual filtering of the returned search results from their index, which is how they are powering their beta "Google Local" service, and probably how they are achieving some of their goals for their Chinese censorship efforts.
They have also been accused of "blacking out" more results than necessary, in an attempt to reduce the effect of "googlebombing" and other such attempts to affect the pagerank of content improperly.
I also wonder if perhaps they might have overdone the filtering from "safesearch", while they try to revamp it, and as such the range of results may not be as available as it used to be. I think that there was a thread in the security forum about Google's image search feature that turned up quite a bit of pornographic imagery, even with "safesearch" turned on, using fairly innocuous search terms. I'm sure that they may have gotten complaints about that from conservative people, and are acting to fix them. It's unfortunate, IF that happens to be true, that it would in turn also effect the functioning of the democratic process in this country, for obvious reasons. | |
|
| | | | | 
vrp
vrp
Premium
join:2002-12-05
terra
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by DaDogs :... Conspiracy theory is the province of the pseudo-intellectual, not the intellectual. .
... something like ... calling Iraq an imminent threat in the pre-war period ... falls under conspiracy theory ... isn't it? ... 
.
--
War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it. - Desiderius Erasmus (1466 - 1536) | |
|
| | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: to be fair said by vrp : said by DaDogs :... Conspiracy theory is the province of the pseudo-intellectual, not the intellectual. . ... something like ... calling Iraq an imminent threat in the pre-war period ... falls under conspiracy theory ... isn't it? ... . Uh, no.
Unrelated, can you provide link where Iraq was called an immenent threat? | |
|
| | | | | | |
vrp
vrp
Premium
join:2002-12-05
terra
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: to be fair said by joebear29 : said by vrp : said by DaDogs :... Conspiracy theory is the province of the pseudo-intellectual, not the intellectual. . ... something like ... calling Iraq an imminent threat in the pre-war period ... falls under conspiracy theory ... isn't it? ... . Uh, no. Unrelated, can you provide link where Iraq was called an immenent threat? .
... I am giving you one link ... rest you are smart enough to dig for yourself ... 
link: »www.americanprogress.org/site/pp···&b=24970
.
--
War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it. - Desiderius Erasmus (1466 - 1536) | |
|
| | | | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: to be fair Oddly, I can't find any myself.
I checked the website you posted, but I didn't find any direct quote where Iraq was referred to as an "immenient threat". If I overlooked one, please clarify.
I did not a number of posts that were second hand references to imminent threats, such as:
quote:
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
But without knowing the question (which is not linked) I cannot make a judgement on the answer.
Here is what Bush said:
quote:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
»www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases···-19.html | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Re: to be fair Have no idea if the exact words "immanent threat" were used but Bush more than once told the American people that Saddam was a real and current threat to us and we needed to do something about it before it was too late. He stressed the urgency of dealing with Iraq pretty clearly from what I remember back then. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL | Re: to be fair I do not argue that he stressed the urgancy of dealing with Iraq, but my understanding was it was important to deal with Iraq before it became an imminent threat, as he said quite clearly in his State of the Union address. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
nobodhi
I Am
Premium
join:2003-09-10
Holland, MI
| Re: to be fair said by joebear29 :I do not argue that he stressed the urgancy of dealing with Iraq, but my understanding was it was important to deal with Iraq before it became an imminent threat, as he said quite clearly in his State of the Union address. Bullshit semantics. As soon as they came out with their lies about Saddam being able to launch drone planes filled with chemical or biological weapons over the U.S. which could hit us within 15 minutes the actual use of the words "imminent threat" has become a moot point on one side and a pure, unadulterated Slick Willy doubletalk deflection on the other.
Either way, your people are criminals.
--
om mani padme hum ~~ Dr. Domino Dominorum et Rex Rexarum Simplis Christianus Pueris Mentalis Doktor, M.D., Ph.D. ~~ | |
|
| | Anon00
Premium
join:2001-09-25
USA
2 edits | 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 | |
|
| | 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| 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. Could this have anything to do with safe-search?
I'd hardly call abu-gharab prisoner abuse pictures appropriate for a wide audience. That or any of the very graphic things the "insurgents" have done to American forces.
For some reason, I'm not having a problem with them not showing those pictures...
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters, fill it up: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam to date: 235 | |
|
| 
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
1 edit | please explain what reason justifies censoring images that are plainly already in the public domain. (responding to techie) | |
|
| | |
| | | 
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI
| Re: to be fair said by tcp1 : Google is NOT a government entity, and they are wholly within their right to choose to include or not include certain things for whatever reason they want I think your missing the point. No one is saying the can't censor. The point is that many people would stop using Google if it were discovered that they were systematically censoring results because of a certain reason. The can censor all they want. I could just choose not to use them if they did.
--
Xbox Live Gamertag is Gupiter | |
|
| | | | VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| Re: to be fair said by biggbrother :I think your missing the point. No one is saying the can't censor. The point is that many people would stop using Google if it were discovered that they were systematically censoring results because of a certain reason. The can censor all they want. I could just choose not to use them if they did. Thank you, exactly. It's basically responsible full-disclosure, and to do otherwise is inherently deceptive to their "customers". The practical question is, though, how do you disclose censorship, if you are supposed to censor the existance of something? Catch-22.
PS. I miss HotBot. That was a pretty decent search engine, and the first major one (IIRC) to use a distributed server "cluster" for searches. DEC's AltaVista service was all running on *one* 64-bit Alpha-based machine, intended to serve as a marketing tool for their (then-new) 64-bit server systems. (There were multiple single servers though, to handle queries from different global geographic regions. The search index was replicated between them though, not distributed/shared, IIRC.) | |
|
| 
jrsmooth
join:2000-05-17
Washington, DC | Sure there is going to be a reason, and I thought the Chinese Gov. is the only who does that...
--
JR "Always" Smooth | |
|
| sat
join:2001-01-25
WA
| 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 | |
|
| 
50970758
The One And Only
Premium
join:2002-02-28
mdzRghey | Yes, you can't look up naked pictures or hardcore porn.
--
| I'M Sorry, But That's Classified. | | |
|
| | beers90125
join:2003-07-24
Kankakee, IL | Re: to be fair Sure you can. | |
|
| VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01 | said by drew :I'm sure there's a reason for it. Yes. Google censors. | |
|
| 
Kompressor
Premium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA
| Perhaps Google simply looks at themselves as being a family oriented search engine, and while trying to keep all the porn and rotten.com type pictures from being displayed, they happen to filter the nude/death war pictures as well.
Although, this theory isn’t as fun as the conspiracy one everybody else is talking about, so just forget what I’ve said here today. | |
|
| 
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| said by drew :I'm sure there's a reason for it. He who controls the present controls the past, He who controls the past controls the future- 1984. | |
|
|
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI | Given that the owners of Google are very rich now... I wouldn't doubt if they are fairly Conservative also. Look for the photos to appear now that the Election is over.
--
Xbox Live Gamertag is Gupiter | |
|
| | Anon00
Premium
join:2001-09-25
USA
| Re: to be fair said by biggbrother :Given that the owners of Google are very rich now... I wouldn't doubt if they are fairly Conservative also. Look for the photos to appear now that the Election is over. You gotta be kidding me. Has anyone even bothered to search for "Abu Gharib images" from the MAIN search index and not from the Images search. The very first link has images of what happened. Now what makes you think those folks in the black helicopters wouldn't allow images to be index on the Image search but allow the main search to link to them. I guess those boys from the NWO are slipping 
--
"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 | |
|
|
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| well, there's always rotten.com if you must have images from abu ghraib or of that hog lyndie england they are archived at rotten.com but viewer beware, there are a lot of other disturbing images there as well. it makes you wonder who is deciding what you can and cannot view. thank ashcroft, rumsfeld, cheney and some guy named bush. | |
|
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: well, there's always rotten.com i'm with this guy, i'm loosing out on some bad $hit because of a foregn governmen :P | |
|
|
howie
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-08
Little Falls, NJ | Lyndie England Who would WANT to see a pic of Lyndie England anyway? YIKES!
--
"I could be wrong, now... but I don't think so! - Adrian Monk | |
|
atangel
Now What??
Premium
join:2002-02-18
Bronx, NY
| Need a New Search Engine Before they went public, they claimed not support any kind of censorship and that all the rankings were driven by user searches.
Now that they are a public company, they worry about their share price.
There needs to be a non-profit search engine on the net...... You can't trust a company when $$$ on are the line (it's like trying to make a profit when running a city. It doesn't make sense and doesn't work).
--
The reason you think I'm way on the left is 'cause you're so far to the right.
Dell Dimension, XP Pro, 2.4 Ghz, 512MB, BEFSX41, ZAP 5, NOD32, BOClean, a2, Adaware, Spybot, MW Pro, The Bat! | |
|
| 
agent_007
Premium
join:2003-07-25
Simi Valley, CA | Re: Need a New Search Engine Google censoring is just wrong. | |
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | Conspiracy 101 Give credit where credit is due.
Unfortunately the answer is far simpler then those wandering in the land of conspiracy theories. The index cycle is set at about 6mo. You are using the wrong tool for the job. | |
|
|
See 18 replies to this post |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Different Google? Am I using a different Google than the rest of you?
EDIT" BTW, Moderate Safe Search is ON... want to see what I get with it off?
--
Nuke 'em all, let God sort 'em out. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
GooblesII
@riv-eres.charterpipe | This is explains When I did a search for lyndie england a few weeks ago nothing came up and I was like WTF well its time for me to say goodbye to google and move onto another search engine | |
|
BM Fan
join:2004-08-20 | censorship of war images? well if we can't count on google anymore, whats the world coming to | |
|
| 
rideboarder
welcome to the social
Premium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA
clubs:
| Re: censorship of war images? said by BM Fan :well if we can't count on google anymore, whats the world coming to At least I can depend on Yahoo...5+ years, and nothing fishy has happened yet. | |
|
| | 
Jeremy341
Bye
Premium
join:2000-01-06
localhost
| Re: censorship of war images? said by rideboarder :At least I can depend on Yahoo...5+ years, and nothing fishy has happened yet. That's a good point. Before Google, Yahoo used to be the search engine. Google has been accused of censorship before, and now people are using the excuse that "they're a public company, so they have to obey their investors." Well, Yahoo's been a public company for a lot longer than Google has, and you won't see anybody accusing them of censorship. It looks like it's time to move away from Google and back to Yahoo.
Good riddance. Google's moving in a direction I don't like anyway.
--
I do not trust Firefox. Spread anything besides that horrid piece of crap. | |
|
| | | 
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA | Re: censorship of war images? Yahoo also censors images but lycos at the moment doesnt | |
|
| | | |
rideboarder
welcome to the social
Premium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA
clubs:
| Re: censorship of war images? said by BodyBumper :Yahoo also censors images but lycos at the moment doesnt how did you make that assumption? I have yet to encounter anything that's censored on Yahoo. | |
|
| | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| said by Jeremy341 : Good riddance. Google's moving in a direction I don't like anyway. My sentiments exactly... don't let the door...
Gawd, people, even DSLR engages in censorship. Set yourself up with an XXX rated Avatar and see how fast that crashes in flames.
--
In the background stand the Clinton's bloody switchblade in hand, never to be blamed, but still in the running for '08. | |
|
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC | Just A Guess Thought control!?!?!? | |
|
M A R K
Premium
join:2001-06-15
Long Island
clubs: | Wow.. This makes me think alot about using google...
--
You voted BUSH, Its your kids.. | |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| One other point I'd make. The pictures are property of the US Government. They are part of an on-going legal investigation and trial(s), I believe.
There are a few which were obtained by the press, which could also be shown on public media and which probably can be located given the right search criteria.
I would expect the majority of the images which got into the public arena were subpoenaed and have never been published on the web. I would also expect that there were a lot of other pictures which were confiscated by the military before they ever entered the public arean.
We all understand the general implications of copyright. Simply displaying a picture in public does not place that picture into the 'public domain'.
They are not on google for a reason. It is bloody unlikely that the reason is censorship.
--
In the background stand the Clinton's bloody switchblade in hand, never to be blamed, but still in the running for '08. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
slim
Premium
join:2001-02-13
Arlington, VA
| Seriously, I don't get it, so its available everywhere else but Google and the theory is there's some sort of hidden government censorship going on? Right. I can see the use of censoring images on google that have been shown 1 billion times in every medium and are available all over the internet and on every other search engine
So explain for me please the reason for the U.S. Government to single out one internet seach engine to censor images that are available everywhere else?
Maybe they are self censoring? If so, what's the problem. They are under no obligation to give you anything.
Just use another service. | |
|
| 
pleekmo
Triptoe Through The Tulips
Premium
join:2001-09-14
Manchester, CT
clubs: | Re: Seriously, I'm with shosho, justin: any theory you come up with must satisfy Occam's Razor. This is something that conspiracy theories rarely, if ever, do. There is likely a simple explanation for this occurrence. | |
|
rtcpenguin
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Fairfax, VA | ... Weird indeed | |
|
Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON
·Cybersurf Corporat..
| Canada Google's image search has been blocked by many places in canada. Even my 206. proxys cannot get to it. The ISPs don't block it direclty but i know for sure my workplace does.
google.ca in canada does not seem to be censored. you can do a search for anything, including »images.google.com/images?hl=en&l···G=Search abd find it. | |
|
|
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs:
·wavebroadband
| Re: Canada That link provides me with a total of two images.
It is either a cluster issue (read one of the other threads on this topic) or they are truly censoring based on country.
--
|DSLR IRC||hostingking.us||quotes| | |
|
volntn
The Volunteer
Premium
join:2002-01-05
Cleveland, TN
clubs: | conspiracy? No censorship i can find,all the porn seems to come up just fine.  | |
|
|
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA | Re: conspiracy? Which makes sense its better to keep people busy jerking off than worrying about events in their own country. | |
|
8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
| Lack of enough interest algorithm Remember, all search engines use secret proprietary methods to index & rank what's relevant. Not only does a site have to be found and indexed by the search engine, there are other factors such as the number of other links from other websites that point to a given web page, number of searches for a particular string or topic words, clicks to the site, etc. Some topics or keywords may not have enough of a 'relevance' to be indexed at all by some sites, and fall into different rankings between different search sites.
Remember when sites used to index EVERYTHING and you used to get 50,000 pages from a search and had to wade through all the links that didn't apply. The other side of the coin is that some sites may not be worth indexing if there is little to no activity or interest. There has to be a balance in order to make the search engine return good results you can actually use. | |
|
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA
1 edit | Google Censors alot more without our knowledge Including results of those who have been beheaded recently | |
|
glazenuts
Premium
join:2002-06-13
Culver City, CA | Google suck? Anyone concider poor taste being the reason. They don't allow kiddie porn either....... :P. quit whinning about something that's FREE. As stated by another reader, there are other sources besides Google.
W. 4 more years...... | |
|
| |
| | 
maximus_808
Proud Veteran
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Green Cove Springs, FL
clubs:
| Re: Google suck? Well ... I tried to post my opinion but it seems it has been suppressed for whatever reason.
This is what i tried to say ... " Could this get anymore pathetic.
Is this going to go on for 4 years ... the conspiracy theory's against the President.
Good luck in your quest Justin."
Lets see if this one shows up.
--
We dont run from hurricanes .. we drink them. | |
|
| Xorro
join:2003-05-26
Upland, CA
| Wait a sec....
I'm open to the possibility of a conspiracy sure, but....
Did anyone in this whole feedback chunk ever think that perhaps, just perhaps, the pulling of most of those images was....
Out of respect for the families of the victims?
If it was you, or your Father or Brother.... that was tortured and beheaded.
Would you want your children and their friends and the rest of your family to be able to easily view photo's of your gruesome death?
Or have them freely available to have some sick Fvck gather them all together on some bizarre website. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
·
