 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | reply to justin
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? |
|
 justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
Home/Office setup ..
| 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? |
|
SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | 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 |
|
justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
Home/Office setup ..
| said by Steve: I find it nearly impossible to believe that they are actively censoring anything. 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 |
|
SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5
1 edit | Oh geez, confusing DCMA enforcement with censoring based on content?
Wow.
Damn, that Karl Rove is one powerful guy! |
|
justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
Home/Office setup ..
1 edit | 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). |
|
SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | 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 |
|
justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
Home/Office setup ..
| 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. |
|
 BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | i blame your president :P |
|
 DaneJasperSonic.NetPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:7 | reply to justin
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 |
|
| reply to Steve
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. |
|
|
|
| reply to justin
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.  |
|
| reply to DaneJasper
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. |
|
