Posted on 12/21/2013 4:38:29 AM PST by IbJensen
Ever wondered why you can’t find a post from your favorite alternative media website on the world’s most famous search engine?
The Register is reporting a pressure surge from politicians, judges, cops and the like to remove material from Google that’s critical of them:
Today, the advertising giant said that, in the first six months of 2013, it received 3,846 demands from public officials to remove 24,737 personal blog posts, YouTube videos and other pieces of content it hosts. That’s up 68 per cent on the second half of 2012.
And according to the web giant, which has just published its latest transparency report, 93 requests focused on content that was critical of people in public office. Defamation and copyright infringement were often cited, but less than one third of the highlighted material was removed in the first half of 2013.
A whopping 93% of the requests — basically all of them — were attempting to censor people who are critical of public officials on the web. While some content may actually be defamation, just how gray are the lines surrounding that definition?
In the U.S., requests were up 70% and included 27 federal agency requests to pull apps from the Google Play store for trademark infringement. As for the U.K., Google wrote, “We received a request from a law firm representing a former Member of Parliament to remove a preview from Google Books that allegedly defamed the MP by suggesting he was engaged in illegal activity. We removed the preview.”
Google legal director Susan Infantino wrote that these requests have become a consistent and “worrying trend” for the past four years. Worrying trend or slippery slope to a politically correct nightmare?
In 2012, the Internet Society took of poll of more than 10,000 Internet users from over 20 countries around the world and found that the majority of them (86%) strongly agreed that “Freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet.”
But free expression isn’t guaranteed. In fact, depending on what country you live in, the Internet landscape can look like a very different place — one with a whole lot of “filtering” going on.
Take China for example. If you live in China, you are not allowed to access social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter. They are just blocked, period. Information that might embarrass the Chinese government, such as information on the Tiananmen Square Massacre during which the government implemented martial law and killed thousands of pro-democracy protestors, simply does not exist on the Internet when accessed in China. It’s as if none of that stuff ever happened. China has essentially erased the online history books.
That’s what happened in George Orwell’s 1984 when history was literally erased and rewritten to a Big Brother-centric point of view.
And that is exactly what our so-called leaders would love to do to our Internet all over the world. Silence political dissent.
Don’t believe it? Check out the Stratfor email posted on Wikileaks claiming that CIA Director John Brennan is behind a witch hunt for “anyone printing materials negative to the Obama agenda”. (Probably not gonna find that link with a Google search…)
It’s sad we live in such an Orwellian time that politicians can just get whole chunks of the Internet they do not agree with (or that do not agree with them) erased, much like the Ministry of Truth rewriting history in the book 1984… which was a novel, not an instructional manual, for the record.
Ping
thanks I am sick of the google spin on everything.
Ok, so the author has written other crazy things.
Censorship is real if more subtle. Google may not remove actual information just the search links to them. Plenty of websites get “cleaned up” when their contents draws attention. There is the “wayback machine” website which is useful but I would recommend keeping local copies of web pages, screenshots, etc. even printed hard copies.
(recently found a printed copy of the Clinton Body Count from 1993, copyrighted (?) by Linda Thompson) (no I’m not suggesting that Linda Thompson was a reliable source, more than likely a commie disinfo agent)
Bah, humbug!
Have a Merry Christmas anyway, you filthy animal!
Debating the moderator because I chose a particular article to post.
I never agree with.everything the author has written, but feel the mature FReepers can decide for themselves whether the author is on track or a kook.
I listed no names of moderators in my profile as they remain faceless, unidentifiable entities who are, in many cases, obsessed with a sort of god complex. Even you, whoever you are, must admit that there is smugness and sarcasm exhibited in some of the reasons given for dumping a post.
Then to refer to a contributing poster's profile ( who mistakenly feels as though he or she is a member of FR) as a rap sheet is just ridiculous as well as malicious.
Once, some time ago, a moderator accessed my profile and edited it to include links to pornographic websites. I knew then it was a moderator because a mere poster can not access for purposes of modification that information. It was apparently in retaliation.
Let's just be friends and wish each other a Merry Christmas. Sometimes the fact that we have a common enemy escapes us.
Probably a periodic feature like 'Meet the Moderators' would be a good way to eliminate the vision of faceless, unaccountable beings.
Well, what do you think?
Because of where you posted it.
Do you still not get it?
It's a BLOG.
Once, some time ago, a moderator accessed my profile
The only persons that can edit your profile are the ones that have your password.
Merry Christmas.
Oh heck.
That was me, it was just an experiment that didn't go well.
Never tried that route again, full on failure.
Crazy stuff.
Stop this disgraceful practice at once! Do you hear? At once.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.