Google Shuts Down Anti-Obama Sites on its Blogger Platform

Publius' Forum ^ | 6/29/08 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

It looks like Google has officially joined the Barack Obama campaign and decided that its contribution would be to shut down any blog on the Google owned Blogspot.com blogging system that has an anti-Obama message. Yes, it sure seems that Google has begun to go through its many thousands of blogs to lock out the owners of anti-Obama blogs so that the noObama message is effectively squelched. Thus far, Google has terminated the access by blog owners to 7 such sites and the list may be growing. Boy, it must be nice for Barack Obama to have an ally powerful enough to silence his opponents like that!

It isn't just conservative sites that Google's Blogger platform is eliminating. For instance, www.comealongway.blogspot.com has been frozen and this one is a Hillary supporting site. The operator of Come a Long Way has a mirror site off the Blogspot platform and has today posted this notice:

I used to have a happy internet home on Blogger: www.comealongway.blogspot.com. Then on Wednesday night, June 25, I received the following e-mail:

Dear Blogger user,

This is a message from the Blogger team.

Your blog, at http://comealongway.blogspot.com/, has been identified as a potential spam blog. You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

It turns out that there is an interesting pattern where it concerns the blogs that Google's Blogspot team have summarily locked down on their service. They all belong to the Just Say No Deal coalition, a group of blogs that are standing against the Obama campaign. It seems the largest portion of these blogs are Hillary supporting blogs, too.

All I can say is, WOW! If Google is willing to abuse its power like this even against fellow leftists, what does it plan against conservatives, the folks Google hates even more!?

Here is a list of the Blogspot blogs that have been frozen by Google thus far:

...Read the rest at Publius' Forum.com

[lowbridge]

bump

[rmlew]

You are right. And this affects far more than just those using the Google toolbar. Anyone using Firefox 3.0, myself included see a warning.
http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http://www.spectator.org/

What is the current listing status for www.spectator.org/?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 89 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 06/28/2008, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 04/05/2008.

Malicious software is hosted on 2 domain(s), including h25.6600.org, dns5.8866.org.

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

Over the past 90 days, www.spectator.org/ did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?

No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

How did this happen?

In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.

The people at the American Spectator need to check the server(s) and then contact Google.

[dogmorph2]

Don’t you guys think theirs a more rational explanation to this? Like maybe a group of college student obama supports wrote a bot program that would flag every anti obama blog repeatedly until google was forced to take it down until they could review it..i mean I’m all for McCain but the assumptions you guys are making don’t really seem to be based off of factual evidence...i just don’t really understand the point of posting this article when its probably not true...i don’t know maybe I’m wrong but it seems kinda silly

[Arrowhead1952]

ping

[OneLoyalAmerican]

Good Morning and Welcome to Free Republic dogmorph2:

The use of bots to take advantage of Google’s search engine weaknesses are an interesting possibility.

However, because of the extraordinary business decision where Google would begin censorship on behalf of the Chi-Coms, many Internet users dumped Google and now search with Scroogle. Because of that foolish business decision, it’s not a giant leap to believe the Google brand now censors blogs critical of Commie-Obammie.

Cheers,
OLA

[Ulysse]

Libs obsama’s fans are showing and finding out why their hero must be beaten! Thank you to liberal-fascist

[fella]

Doesn’t AlBore have a disporprontionate share of Google stock?

[cookcounty]

"Sounds like valid complaint against Google to the FEC to me."

There isn't any FEC right now. The Democrats in Congress suspended it.

[Osage Orange]

I'm a FReeper....I know stuff, and I knew that.

Thanks-

[RepublitarianRoger2]

Huh?

You advised people to, quote, “Use Dogpile.com” as an alternative to Google, presumably in order to boycott Google products. I pointed out (not just to you, specifically, but also to others in the thread) that by using Dogpile.com, you are using a Google product, specifically its search engine.

Never mind the fact that simply being a FReeper has little to nothing to do with this.

[SunkenCiv]

Democrat’s al Qaeda comment sparks Republican ire
(glad that AQ can ID Cheney’s chief of staff)
CNN | June 27, 2008 | Ed Henry
Posted on 06/27/2008 10:59:27 AM PDT by FocusNexus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2037347/posts

[snip] A Democratic lawmaker’s comment that he was “glad” that a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney could be identified by al Qaeda has sparked outrage among Republicans at the White House and on Capitol Hill... Thursday, Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Massachusetts... [end]

[Osage Orange]

Huh?

I posted a alternative to just using google.

Did I ever say anything about boycotting anyone's products...?

Nope, I didn't.

[webheart]

MySpace (owned by Rupert Murdoch)

That will only be true once Murdoch buys the New York Times' parent company, NewsCorp, which also owns MySpace.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

Whatever!

The whole subject of the thread was about Google’s supposed censorship, and most of the comments preceding yours were related to boycotting Google products and using alternatives in response to that censorship and its liberal slant.

In that context, what exactly would be the point in posting a comment that offers a so-called “alternative” to Google but in fact is no different than using Google.com directly? I’m sure you can see how any reasonable person would understandably apply your comment to the context of the article and thread and assume that you were offering this “alternative” as a way to NOT use Google.

If, in fact, you were apparently just randomly throwing this out as a general suggestion to use the particular metasearch engine that you prefer, then...OK. But it’s a little weird and out of place in the context of this thread.

[PA Engineer]

I have a simple solution. Ping freepers to flag all the obowelmovement blogs as objectionable. 100,000 complaints + will add a fun amount of chaos to the google admins. We ping freepers to polls so I see a fun solution to this problem. Heck, bring some other conservative sites along and do a 24 hour flagathon.

[antiRepublicrat]

I thought Murdoch had a controlling interest in NewsCorp. “Owned” probably wasn’t the best word, maybe “controlled.”

[Osage Orange]

LOL!!....

I'm not in the habit of lying...

I read a post. I posted.

I could see how you might come to the conclusion you did....But you would be wrong.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

...Lying? No idea what you're referring to there.

As far as "reading a post and then posting" goes, you replied to the original poster of the article, so one would assume that you were making a post that was relative to the article. The article was about Google's alleged censorship of blogs. If you simply read that article and were replying directly to it, then your post makes no sense within the context and is irrelevant. If you were instead reading the comments that preceded yours and were replying to one or more of those, then your post is still irrelevant since the posts that preceded yours were on-topic discussions of Google's censorship and were specifically on the subject of boycotting Google. When you read a post, then post in reply, one would hope that that post would have some sort of relevance to the subject at hand. Yours, by your own admission, did not.

Honestly, I don't know what your problem is with me. You posted "Use Dogpile" -- two words with no other explanation of your intent. In the context, it was perfectly reasonable to assume that you were suggesting to use Dogpile as an alternative to Google in order to avoid being a patron of Google. I was simply trying to politely point out to you and to others that Dogpile is a metasearch that uses Google, so if the presumed purpose was to avoid using Google, Dogpile is not the answer. That's all! A perfectly reasonable post in the context of the article and the thread at hand.

You apparently took it as a personal insult -- though I can't fathom why you would -- and replied quite curtly, "I'm a FReeper. I know things. And I know that."

Now I ask you: Was that an appropriate response to my post, which was simply offering people some information about Dogpile, relevant to the "boycotting" discussion at hand? I don't know why you would think my post was intended to be any sort of personal affront on you at all.

Looking at your posting history, I notice that you seem to enjoy making these types of posts. You post something that consists of just a few words, then take umbrage at those who apparently "misinterpret" your posts within the context of the thread. Then there begins a back-and-forth between them and you, with your posts exhibiting the same sort of indignant, deliberate ambiguity that is displayed here in this thread. If this is some sort of game you like to play for your own amusement, I'm not playing anymore.

Let's drop it.

[Osage Orange]

You obviously have way too much time on your hands there Chief.

You've attempted to make me rise to your little petty bait...more than once now. I could careless what you think, and how you interpreted my posts.

You are obviously a much better person than I.....because you told me you were.

Great....I'm good with whatever you happen to think of yourself.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

Wow, that was pathetic.

You've attempted to make me rise to your little petty bait...more than once now. I could care less what you think, and how you interpreted my posts.

You've written the perfect ending line for me. My feelings exactly. I will not rise to your petty little baiting games. I could care less what you think, since you are obviously a real jerk. My response to your first post was polite, and you responded like a total assclown. I tried to reason with you, to no avail.

I never told you or even alluded to being a better person than you -- but now I don't have to. Your posts are going a long, long way toward making that argument. Bravo.

Drop it already.