Google's Gatekeepers 150
theodp writes "With control of 63% of the world's Internet searches, as well as ownership of YouTube, the NY Times reports that Google is the most powerful and protean of the Internet gatekeepers, exerting enormous influence over who can find an audience on the Web around the world. Deciding what controversial material does and doesn't appear on the local search engines Google maintains in many countries — as well as on Google.com, YouTube, Blogger, Picasa, and Orkut — falls on the shoulders of Nicole Wong and her colleagues, who have arguably been given more influence over online expression than anyone else on the planet. Some find Google's gatekeeper role worrisome: 'If your whole game is to increase market share,' says Lawrence Lessig, 'it's hard to do good, and to gather data in ways that don't raise privacy concerns or that might help repressive governments to block controversial content.'"
They blacklist sites without checking the reason (Score:5, Interesting)
www.annabelleigh.net got blacklisted awhile back for allegedly hosting illegal material.
It doesn't. It never has. I take that back: If anyone posts illegal material it is removed swiftly. It's still mostly blacklisted.
Yahoo still indexes it.
Call this sour grapes and maybe it is but Google doesn't make much effort to fix errors that have only a small impact on the average person.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:2)
Google doesnt care about illegal material.
The only reason I've heard for sites getting blacklisted is for doing dodgy SEO and trying to game the system.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:5, Insightful)
Try reading the newspapers, or even searching Google for 'google censorship in China'. The top of the search shows the BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm [bbc.co.uk].
So, in fact, China censors 'illegal material' which is a violation of UN treaties to censor in international communications. The idea of 'do no harm' is not good enough for such a large and powerful company: the idea of 'do no harm in China' by not bothering their government is in direct contrast to 'do no harm in China' by restricting the speech of those who disagree with the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it up to Google to do the work of the United Nations?
Google is a company just like any other, they have to operate within the law wherever they operate.
Not censoring a youtube video almost had Google employees arrested in Thailand until the bowed to pressure and deleted the lamest movie on YT with like 20 views. Governments have Google by the balls not the other way around.
I suggest you reassess your opinion of how much influence Google holds over governments because you'll find it's almost nothing,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So denying a country 99% of useful information because Google can't give them that 1% of information they probably didn't want or could get anyway isn't evil to you?
Lets not forget that it's you that finds censorship wrong, not the people of the country in question.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
What the fuck? And you're surprised this crap is blacklisted?
"Who are these people posting here?
They are a portion of the male and female population ranging in age from their teens to quite old who share a bond of having a particular affinity for teen and/or pre-teen girls. In most cases this encompasses a clearly sexual attraction. Many choose not to act upon their sexual attraction, while others advocate a girl's freedom to sexual choice. Most of those posters accept the label 'girl lover', which is often
Re: (Score:2)
"What the fuck? And you're surprised this crap is blacklisted?"
Maybe you could explain why you wish for a legal discussion forum for paedophiles to be censored. It is not a "how-to-molest-children" forum, it is not a place for exchanging illegal material, it is simply a place where people who are attracted to girls can discuss their feelings.
If someone is isolated from their community, has nowhere to turn for support and has nothing to lose, they are less likely to care about consequences (for themselves or
Re: (Score:2)
It's not censored it just doesn't show up in Google searches. That doesn't mean you still can not access the content, just that you can not find it on Google. That just means Google sucks at finding kiddy fuck stories.
I will however tell you anyway why your outlook on this is wrong, because this question comes up a lot on slashdot and I think you need help if you can't see what's wrong with this.
When you're part of a community or group which encourages a behaviour such as child sex via fantasy then all you'
Citations needed (Score:2)
"When you're part of a community or group which encourages a behaviour such as child sex via fantasy then all you're doing is encouraging that behaviour to become more common within someone's daily lives."
The community doesn't encourage people to engage in child sex, whether through fantasy or in real life. Paedophiles will, however, fantasise about sex with children regardless of external factors, so the communities in which we participate are irrelevant in that respect. Although such communities don't enc
Moral beliefs are irrelevant (Score:2)
"If they are not discussing the relevant topic at hand (i.e., young children), then this is behavior they could engage in from any location, obviating the 'need' for a community dedicated to pedophiles."
Have you not considered the possibility that a marginalised group may not wish to associate with the majority who want them to be imprisoned/censored merely because of what they think?
"On the other hand, if they are discussing the topic at hand, this sort of site should be closed."
You still haven't explained
Re: (Score:1)
There are far worse sites online as far as breaking the law is concerned and it is not google's duty nor place to censor it from search results.
Re: (Score:2)
While you may have a point about religion often being used as an excuse to commit crimes , censoring it won't solve the problem.
Blaming it on slashdot won't get you any good karma either.
And what do you mean with "progressive" slashdot. Sure , we all like technology and new things , but apart from that , our political views are very different.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:1)
Legally, if Google wants to censor the internet, that's fine. But ethically, this is a problem because Google bills itself as an ethical company, and simply de-listing sites like annabelleigh.com and gc.glgarden.com (as are currently de-listed), and http://www.inquisition21.com/ (as it did for about a year) is rather problematic for a company whose motto is "Don't be evil."
While it is Google's righ
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor.
Isn't that the standard definition of repression? Mistreat one group for the benefit, sometimes completely intangible benefit, of another?
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso (Score:4, Insightful)
"90% of the people in this country will tell you that www.annabelleigh.net crosses the line. I'm guessing over 50% will have a strong reaction against it and would prefer that Google make sure it doesn't come up in their search results."
It doesn't cross a legal line, so presumably you are referrring to a "moral" line. When you begin to moralise the internet, who can say where or when the resultant censorship will end?
"So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor."
Google is not doing a "big favor" for anyone. Censoring controversial material doesn't help readers; it simply makes them ignorant.
crossing lines (Score:1, Flamebait)
Why doesn't google censor white supremacy - or even black supremacy - sites? 90% of Americans would probably think that those sites cross a line, too, but fortunately most would oppose de-listing these sites, because they want people to see these people as the slime they are.
There's no need to censor unattractive ideologies. The best response to whi
So are you a peadophile, or do you bait them? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Those are the only two groups posting at that site. From the content of your post I'd hazard you're a paedophile.
Re: (Score:2)
Just making certain, with things like this it's best to be crystal clear. I knew I'd get modded flamebait for that comment from some stupid arse who clearly didn't read your post.
Anyway, after actually considering this I'm going to support your right to free speech. Tbh, making those sorts of statements in public should be enough to get a surveillance warrant (in much the same way as admitting any crime should be enough to allow the police to start watching you) so I guess paedophiles at forums like that ar
Re: (Score:2)
"Tbh, making those sorts of statements in public should be enough to get a surveillance warrant (in much the same way as admitting any crime should be enough to allow the police to start watching you) so I guess paedophiles at forums like that are at least out in the open."
Paedophilia (a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) is not a crime, nor is it a reliable indicator of crime, so a surveillance warrant is not justified. I wouldn't be surprised if some authorities monitor the website illegally, as
Re: (Score:2)
Paedophilia (a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) ... It's not bigoted to oppose that, but it's ignorant to assume that the majority of paedophiles actually want to do that.
OK, so maybe boys too. That's what paedophilia is about, unless you want to change its definition to mean something other than sex with children. I think that's what most people understand a paedophile to be and trying to change the definition of that word, well, I reckon it'd be a teensy bit harder than rehabilitating the word hacker.
Honestly though, you use it in its commonly accepted form right at the start of your reply indicating that you understand it to mean that. How do you square the circle of bein
This is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this news? Not that I agree with their political message, but World Net Daily (wnd.com) has been on the receiving end of Google's actions for a while now, supposedly due to political motives; so yes, this should worry anyone interested in free and open access to information.
It's "hard" but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are much worse scenarios imaginable, which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
By saying this I don't want to bless all the problematic things that are happening, and it's certainly always helpful to "watch back", but we could be already living in an information nightmare already, which we aren't thanks, in part, to Google: If some other big company would have as big a share as Google, I wonder how they'd behave (don't mod me as troll please, it's just to show that we're still doing quite well.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. It's hard to tell whether or not privacy is a concern at all for Google.
2. Even if it is, it certainly isn't why they're so popular.
Borg (Score:4, Interesting)
It's fitting that the NY Times used the word protean to describe Google, since the word also has alternative meanings as a bacteria and is linked to a greek fable of a shape-changing god of the ocean. The problem of the internet is that people, unlike machines, don't handle decentralization well. Anarchy has always been a temporary reprise from authoritarian constructs. In and of itself that's not a problem, but there's too much political pressure to censor, alter, and manipulate access to online information, and let's face it: Very, very few of us have the resources to conduct an exhaustive independent search on the internet.
Honestly, I'm surprised the United States hasn't declared Google (and other major internet pieces) a national security asset and moved to place it under government protection. They've done it before -- citizens who worked on the Manhattan project, for example. It could also easily be looked at as a target for terrorism -- blasting google out of the water would have significant press coverage; And isn't the big reason for terrorism to be visible? It's hard to come up with a bigger target online right now than them.
cue fear-mongerers and anti-government commentary in 5...4...3...
Re:Borg (Score:4, Informative)
Um, I don't think you can just "blow Google up". Don't they have datacenters around the globe?
Re: (Score:1)
That was the fear mongering that the other poster was talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously it would take a high degree of coordination and skill but an electronic attack could take them out for awhile. It's been done before to large companies. My only point is that google is an attractive target for a great many political interests both domestically and abroad.
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously it would take a high degree of coordination and skill but an electronic attack could take them out for awhile. It's been done before to large companies.
It would be easier to offer free beer, pizza and porn. Try getting everyone back to work after that!
Re: (Score:2)
I know that your post was a joke, but they already DO offer free beer and food. Everyone seems to get back to work quite easily. Is the porn a work stoppage requirement?
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
but they already DO offer free beer and food.
Big deal. Porn is by far the most important one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
well... don't think any pathetic hacker will get in Google, all the best hackers in the world are already on their payroll (including the Chinese and the Russian renegades, those who make the best programmer/netadmin/sysadmin alive in the US look like a pathetic ubber-loser script kid...)
And if you wonder why you are not on their payroll if you are such a big H4x0r, that is because you are not, as no good hacker live in the USA... That's why China Cyber-militias invade and own US DoD systems every day...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe the hackers in the US are smart enough to not get caught in the first place. The best hacker in the world is someone nobody's heard of. You know, as long as we're doing conspiracy theory, we might as well make it sound good.... ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Borg (Score:5, Funny)
My only point is that google is an attractive target for a great many political interests both domestically and abroad.
Nah. If they take down Google, how else are they going to find out what to do with all those bombmaking materials?
Re: (Score:1)
Step 1: take down Google
Step 2: ???
Step 3: there's a punchline to this, but without Google you'll never know what it is.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
A large fraction of the employees work at a single location in Mountain View, CA.
Re: (Score:1)
But it's not like Google would stop working if they weren't there.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'm surprised the United States hasn't declared Google (and other major internet pieces) a national security asset and moved to place it under government protection.
Because it is hard to bring down Google. Google, MS, Yahoo, Apple, and a few other sites could withstand a heavy DDoS attack even by the full force of a major botnet. On the other hand, I'm sure that even the US government's sites would fail when under that much attack. Not only that but the said websites are all rather smart and won't leave open anything for crackers to exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
This is getting off topic, but out of your list Apple use Akamai and Google and Yahoo have a large distributed (geographically) network. No idea about MS. It's not so much about the websites themselves, but that they have the infrustructure in place to mitigate such attacks. It's all still possible though (I remember submitting a story years ago about Google being offline in Australia for example).
Back to the GP you're replying to, I wouldn't be surprised if 'Sovereign Risk' was one of the factors in Google
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and let's face it: Very, very few of us have the resources to conduct an exhaustive independent search on the internet.
I don't know. It's not too bad. I just use Google to conduct my exhaustive, independent searches.
Re:Borg (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that difficult to script a search that checks multiple search engines to see if the same items appear. There are folks who do that. Comparing Google to other search engines is a business function these days. I don't think that Google could go too far out on a limb with modifying or restricting information without some complaints.
When you are as Big as Google, yes, there will be complaints. You can't please everyone all of the time. That said, I've not yet heard of Google outright doing evil.
Knowing the Bush administration and spy types in general, it's quite likely that there have been instances of co-operation, if not ongoing situations. The trouble is that given the size of Google and other Internet services providers it is not likely that there will be NO government co-operative instances. The thing to work at is keeping such things minimal and transparent/above board.
So far, Google has been good for the world. I'm not saying it will always be so, so it is good that people are watching them.
On accountability (Score:1)
Honestly, I'm surprised the United States hasn't declared Google (and other major internet pieces) a national security asset and moved to place it under government protection.
Perhaps it should go the other way and make them accountable to the citizens of the US. That means they can't have multiclass shares to stifle dissent and prevent accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fitting that the NY Times used the word protean to describe Google
I have the feeling they probably meant "Promethean".
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Ah man, I crack myself up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A consumer can search elsewhere.
A business can't just be listed elsewhere and operate on a level playing field.
If Google gets shitty and decides to ban a small business, they can put them out of business. It's that simple. They are a scary, scary thing in online business.
Only 63% (Score:3, Interesting)
Only 63%? Who's the other 37%?
I would've thought more in the >90% range.
Re:Only 63% (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"unknown to the rest of us." americans are funny
Yes, indeed we are. You're not.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Baidu.com for China. There are no doubt many other regional search engines around the world that have significant market shares in their locales.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google dominates that latin language set. Once you get into Asian languages other search engines start to win out but they are country by country.
Korea and China for example have their own top search engine.
Google is able to compete in all of them with market share in double digits almost everywhere but it's not de-fact.
Google is not easy to say in none-western languages unfortunately and is therefore not a 'catchphrasy' name either.
Re: (Score:1)
Market share varies a lot by country, though, so don't as
What About Choice? (Score:5, Insightful)
I use Google for searches, but I could easily switch to Yahoo, AltaVista or even MSN.
Until Google start doing things to stop people using other search engines, there's no problem. If people object to the dominance of Google, they must either campaign for users to move to other engines, or create a better engine and gain marketshare.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
With such a large market share, if Google starts censoring results then a site essentially doesn't exist any more.. If google were censoring specific results, how would you know? Sure, if it's your data being censored, you'll probably find out, but if it isn't something you really know well, then how do you know that you're getting totally accurate results in every search?
I'm not saying that Google is consciously censoring result
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Until Microsoft starts doing things to stop people using other operating systems, there's no problem.
I seem to recall some issues around this... was there a trial..?
Nice rewording of my post, but it's a shame that you reinforced my message while you thought you were knocking my point down.
Wrong again (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you referring to US vs. Microsoft in 1998-1999? That was with regard to Internet Explorer, not the Windows OS. Microsoft lost, and they are paying their due penalty.
Google, on the other hand, has a much larger monopoly not just on search advertising but on information availability. Your bitter dislike of Microsoft is blinding you apparently; you'd rather fight over small fries like what browser you want use rather than fight over where you can find information and who controls it.
Re: (Score:1)
The other point you seemed to ignore with your re-wording is the ease of switching. I can type "yahoo.com" instead of "google.com" much easier than I can install another operating system.
Your argument is like telling people to stop complaining about gasoline engines being so dirty when they can just retrofit their car to run on something else.
If it requires a massive investment of time or money/labor then it really isn't a "choice" as defined by any free market economist.
Wrong, and I dare say not for the first time today (Score:1)
Until Google start doing things to stop people using other search engines...
Please, tell me, what has Google done to prevent you from using Yahoo!, Ask, Alta Vista, Live, or Baidu?
No different from IE bundling (Score:2, Insightful)
Google has prevented me from using Yahoo!, Ask, etc. in the same vein that Microsoft prevented me from using other web browsers.
Does Google somehow physically stop me from using other search engines? No. Did Microsoft physically stop me from downloading and using other browsers? No.
Does Google very closely bundle their search engine with Google Docs, YouTube, Android, etc.? Yes. Did Microsoft very closely bundle IE with Windows? Yes.
Is Google being punished for doing the same exact same thing Microsoft w
Re: (Score:2)
gOS 3 Gadgets instantly launches Google Gadgets for Linux on startup, introducing over 100,000 possible iGoogle and Google Gadgets to the desktop.
Google Documents, Calendar, and Mail launch in Mozilla Prism windows to closer resemble desktop applications.
Google _everything_ links right there on the desktop.
I'll get modded down for dissing a Linux distro, but I'm not knocking the OS, I've been running it as my primary OS for some years. Currently on Gentoo. I have installed gOS for several people.
wait, (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason this should have been marked as a 'troll'. Google is the default search engine for every popular web browser except the one controlled by Microsoft, and their search bar is installed with tons of software, including the most installed plugins on the internet. It seems very much like when Internet Explorer was being installed with every software package on the planet.
The problem is not that people can't switch search engines. It's that they're unaware of their options. They're being fed Goo
Re: (Score:1)
Google "search engines". It's even one of the top hits suggested as you type. Can you twist my words to come up with an analogous situation in Windows where it gives you a one-click option to install or even test-drive an alternative OS?
I do use Windows on a regular basis and even prefer it for some applications, but you do have to admit that they have a bit of a lock-in. Most people have a reasonable awareness of what search engine they are using, but don't recognize what an OS is. Even if they do, swi
Google workforce on the extreme left (Score:2, Interesting)
I recently finished a year working at Google as a contractor. While it's a great company to work for, the employees are tilted to the extreme left. I think this is a direct result of their rapid expansion and hiring huge numbers straight out of college. The political leanings of the employees is going to affect how they do things, it can't be helped, even if they make an effort not to be politically biased. My politics are rather moderate, but in comparison to Google employees, I was a far right lunatic
Re: (Score:2)
Google's adheres to the Internet censorship policies of China,[3] enforced by means of filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China". Google.cn search results are filtered so as not to bring up any results concerning the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, sites supporting the independence movements of Tibet and Taiwan or the Falun Gong movement, and other information perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC)."
My politics are rather moderate, but in comparison to Google employees, I was a far right lunatic.
Uh huh. [wikipedia.org] Apparently they're conservative enough to know how to make money. How right-wing were you? Joe Lieberman, Rush Limbaugh, Strom Thurmond?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's very difficult to be smart and not lean to the left. case and point: See Ted Conferences (ted.com)
Re: (Score:2)
It's very difficult to be smart and not lean to the left. case and point: See Ted Conferences (ted.com)
And of course that's very debatable, although you probably don't realize it.
Perhaps we could also apply this: It's very difficult to be arrogant and not lean to the left.
Meh. I got karma to burn if the mods aren't in a good mood.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Selfish and smart people tend to lean towards capitalism if they have lots of money and socialism if they don't. Unselfish and smart people tend to lean towards socialism if they consider guaranteeing everyone's physical welfare more important than economic liberty, and capitalism if the other way around. And stupid people tend to lean towards whichever side's propaganda they hear most.
I think that about covers it
Re: (Score:2)
But the day is nearing when the karma behemoths shall be cast down, and the whole moderation system dismantled, and all posters and and all posts shall be equal !
Yes, Comrade, but remember: some posts will be more equal than others.
Re: (Score:2)
But of course, Comrade, for there must always be the First among Equal Posts. The very laws of logic dictate that.
But I promise that I won't... I mean, whoever shall be the First won't use that position for low personal gain, but for the best of all ! Some revolution in Slashdot culture is, of course, inevitable, and some posters might need to be permabanned, but I have high hopes that all but the most decadent trolls shall be re-educate
Re: (Score:1)
when Fed is talking about directly planning the economy on the scale of trillion dollars, it's very socialist.
Re: (Score:2)
when Fed is talking about directly planning the economy on the scale of trillion dollars, it's very socialist.
That's really not a good definition of socialism, nor does it really relate to what's happening here. Our government is far more likely to evolve into a corporatist state ... well, in many ways that's here already.
Re:Google workforce on the extreme left (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all relative; Compared to places like Berkley or downtown San Francisco, Google is pretty moderate; Compared to the rest of the country, not so much. What else would you expect for a company from the San Francisco Bay area?
P.S. We do at least have some closet Libertarians, as evidenced by the Ron Paul talk a while back. Also, remote office locations also tend to reflect the local populace pretty well.
If you didn't read the article yet, please do :) (Score:2)
That was quite enjoyable.
I particularly like that they are willing to push the envelope of freedom of speech whenever they can.
Google cannot control content (Score:2)
from personal experience (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
For lazy people here's a link to images from the site on google: http://images.google.com/images?as_st=y&&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=site:gulfportinflorida.com&&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=18 [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Do No Evil (Score:1)
Every slashdotters know this famous slogan.
I must say I agree that Google is doing very well so far. There are restrictions that Google is applying to some countries' users because of local gov regulations. I once asked someone in Google, she told me a *standard answer*: Google will try to provide the most info to the people in that country as possible. Agree or not, I think it is doing okay.
But the key is, it *is* doing well. Not *will* do well. Corporates change their minds. We do not rely on their histor
Jealousy (Score:2, Insightful)
Before internet, the gatekeepers to information were powers like NY Time.
Re: (Score:2)
Before internet, the gatekeepers to information were powers like NY Time.
That, actually, is what a lot of this is about. Sour grapes. Matter of fact, it applies to broadcast television as well. The Web has consumed a lot of and money that was previously spent on print/broadcast advertising, and a lot of eyeball time has been taken away from the traditional news outlets. They don't particularly like that.
Before you call choice on the Do Evil company.... (Score:1)
...consider that they are only a practical choice given the conditions. While other choices may exist, undue force (equivalent to but not from a gun) goes their way.
So what is the big deal? Google censors some things, don't like it? Go to one of the thousands of other search engines.
Seriously, censorship is bad but this is the internet, not the government-regulated airspace, there is no FCC, it is --
That does not excuse a lack of accountability to the US government. Giving a private entity a shield from it is asking for trouble. No, anything related to markets does not count as accountability. Regulation is accountability.
I must say I agree that Google is doing very well so far. There are restrictions that Google is applying to some countries' users because of local gov regulations. I once asked someone in Google, she told me a *standard answer*: Google will try to provide the most info to the people in that country as possible.
That's a non-answer since their stock structure prevents any meaningful dissent. Perhaps it would mean something if
Here's an idea (Score:2)
'it's hard to do good, and to gather data in ways that don't raise privacy concerns or that might help repressive governments to block controversial content.'"
Actually it's pretty easy. Just be a search engine and generate revenues though benign info spidering. They've got it. The second they let politics in, it's over. That would be like traffic lights turning green for BMW's. It just won't work out in the end.
Politics entered when they dealt with China. (Score:1)
That would be like traffic lights turning green for BMW's.
...or bowing to a country instead of actively encouraging it to change.
Gatekeepers are a myth (Score:1)
Gatekeeper? How about stopping the spam? (Score:2)
Typical for the current mental state of /. Apparently only a single mention of "spam" and in an irrelevant sense.
Wouldn't it be nice if Google would use their so-called gatekeeper status to discourage spammers? Many options and many points of attack, but I'll just mention the nuclear one that is most convenient for Google: If an webhosting persists in spammer-friendly policies, then Google can stop indexing *ALL* of the websites hosted by that webhost. (Actually, even that wouldn't be sufficient for a webho
Google's response (Score:2)
Google doesn't "block" anything, they can't prevent you from accessing a site, they can simply fail to point you to a site. Exactly what would make these people happy? If Google responded with a new search algorithm that did away with PageRank and displayed all results on a page in random order every time? That would make the Internet better, yay. Anything less would surely be called "censorship" by someone. Is Google obligated to point you to every single possible site? If Google, then why not have everyon
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,640,000 for China's moon program. (0.14 seconds)
Re: (Score:1)
I think he is confusing why China abandoned their moon program. There isn't any reason to try and go there since it blew up, so it isn't that confusing that they would stop trying.