Claims of Google Censorship ?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

There are numerous cross-posted complaints in, news.groups, and other groups claiming
that Google is engaging in censorship with a political bias.  Can
someone who isn't a troll explain to me which of the following cases
they think is true?

1.  The claims about censorship are simply flamage or trolling, and
should be ignored or killfiled.

2.  The claims about censorship reflect the fact that Google is nuking
certain posts that are obviously in violation of copyright, such as
reposts of copyrighted news articles.  (If a copyrighted news article
appears on the web site of the copyright owner, the proper method to
reference it is to provide the URL as a link.)

3.  There is some basis, marginal or substantial, to believe that the
troll may be onto a certain amount of truth about Google.

     - -    Bob McClenon

Re: Claims of Google Censorship ?

 > Robert McClenon wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Trolls are trolls.  They're certainly out there on this one.

I've been a pretty regular reader of CNN News, Yahoo News and Google
News since each of them started.  Google News tends to include some
blogs as part of their general news. Frankly, I've seen more right wing
loony fringe blogs than left wing loony fringe blogs included in
Google News.  However, I'm not going to scream "censorship" because
I've seen enough left-leaning news in Google that I don't believe
any real censorship is taking place.

One big difference between Yahoo News and Google News - anyone with
any kind of RSS/XML can submit it to Yahoo News.  I have a small
Dead People Server feed that can be included on the customized
My Yahoo news.  However, the general Google News page (which isn't
customizable) doesn't include it.

Laurie Mann
Dead People Server

Re: Claims of Google Censorship ?

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 19:11:58 GMT, Robert McClenon

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The only posts I saw supportive of that thought [the censoring and
'political bias'] have been only been primarily shared by one person
cross-posting to his little thesaurus-heart's content. Most of the
responses to his posts were also crossposted - but I can't say those
were wholly "supportive" of that person's claims.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True. I've noticed if a person replies with non-political thoughts but
technical thoughts that they are somehow labeled being a "Liberal" or
something. Even agreement with maybe a thought or two doesn't have the
person not risking still being labled a "Liberal" *shrug*

Also don't forget this person also mentioned they were using Usenet
and Google Groups as a sort of way to create a "home page" or
mock-website. So part of their footstamping may be due to now seeing
the flaws in such a "site creation" thoughts?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That may be a possibility as copyrights should be protected.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Google started BETA groups several months before the election of 2004.
No political bias or censorship cries existed then although,
admittedly, those BETA groups were limited to being ones created by
individuals and not touching Usenet archived posts at that time.

In November apparently Google is starting to gradually drop the
interface, used on BETA groups prior to the election of 2004, onto the
Usenet archived posts stored in Google Groups. The US servers done
first ... then the UK ... I have little reason not to think that in
time the interface will be dropped into the other country divisions of
Google Groups to have the same interface used 'across the board' - for
Usenet and for the individual created groups in Google Groups.

In terms of censorship; the truncated posts have been explained but
that explanation has been decreed, by the one person, to a supposed
"liberal ploy" or "falsehood" even though longer posts in the past, on
the former interface, were also truncated in length/portions shared.

It may also be the person, complaining about this, and how their PGP
headers [visible in their posts] may not work well currently with the
new interface in terms of ease of search. On my side that person's
posts, with their PGP headers as part of the message itself, shows the
post to holding 0 lines of content.

I had hoped the BETA groups, created earlier this year, would been
kept seperate. Not due to political thoughts or such as much as the
differences between the two [the individual created ones would allow
for some moderation thoughts that the Usenet would not - adn such
other thoughts]. Apparently Google feels otherwise and that the main
mechanics or modes of posting are similar enough to have the two sets
of groups share the same interface. *shrug*

In terms of the one person crossposting about censorhip and political
bias thoughts - I think they got a new thesaurus and just couldn't
wait to show it off. Although I also feel they have severly overdone
the usage of 'draconian', "Liberal", and a couple of other words that
they like to pepper their posts with. And the other 90%? Attention.


Re: Claims of Google Censorship ?

All I can say is that I am the webmaster of a very politically incorrect
website.  If Google were engaging in "liberal" bias my site would be the
first to go.

My site's name, and endless variants on it are all either top placed or well
placed by Google.  Further, in November over 20,000 visitors entered  the
site from over 400 pages.  Often they used search strings I would never ever
have thought of.

All I can say is that people should get some good written information on to
their sites.

Bear in mind that google searches on the order words appear in a search

You will get slightly different results if you search for (by way of

knitting while white
white while knitting
knitting white while

these words are all in the filename and title of the document and <h1></h1>

If I was seriously interested in attracting "Charity knitters" to my website
then I would certainly create a new page with those two words similarly
featured but using very different text.

Incidentally, the "knitting while white" page has an unsolicited back link
into it which demonstrates yet again that if you deliver content that is not
available elsewhere on the internet then people will link with you.  I
really don't care if people are for against the site - just so long as they

I have no complaints about google.  If I don't like the search results for a
particular page I either rewrite the page or write an entirely new page.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Site Timeline