justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | reply to drew
Re: to be fair
lol
I'm sure there IS a reason for it.
And I'm sure i'm not going to find it satisfying.
hidden censorship is rarely satisfying. |
|
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs:
 ·wavebroadband
| you're right... mostly.
I highly doubt google is trying to censor from the public (you CAN still find pages about it), but there must be a (good) reason for them not allowing them to come up on images.google.com
Or I could be wrong 
--
|DSLR IRC||hostingking.us||quotes| |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | google should understand their popularity rests on transparency. If there were told by the government to remove those images because of [insert stupid reason] then they should tell us that is what happened. |
|
Anon00
Premium
join:2001-09-25
USA
2 edits | reply to justin
said by justin  :lol I'm sure there IS a reason for it. And I'm sure i'm not going to find it satisfying. hidden censorship is rarely satisfying. I'm curious as to why too. It's highly unlikely (and Bush-haters attempt to use rational thinking) that our government is doing it, cause we all know what will happen if they did. And Google does bring up images if you search within the main site but it doesn't work when you use the Image search function so it is curious. The only way I could see our government to have a legitimate claim for censorship is that it is an ongoing criminal investigation and in the past it has been upheld that Judges can censor certain information, if it was deemed that if the information would be made available to the public, it would prejudice the prospective jury pool. But that goes out the window because not only can you view the images from Google search but this is a military investigation... Curious.
--
"Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"'It's the law' is just an excuse for the unintelligent to remain that way" - Me |
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | reply to justin
google.com is american.
someone try it on google.ca |
|
drew
Reformation
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs: | nothing.
but it could be my American IP (if it is censorship because of the government.) |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to BonezX
yeah i tried it on images search of google.co.uk as well
hmm, think of a major "image-like" event with a unique name in the last 3 months, and see if there are also no images of it, to prove the theory that images.google.com search is just very slow. |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| reply to justin
said by justin :google should understand their popularity rests on transparency. If there were told by the government to remove those images because of [insert stupid reason] then they should tell us that is what happened. Justin,
If they WERE told by the government to remove the images, it would have leaked and caused one hell of a stir. Indeed, it would have leaked just prior to the election as that would have been the worst possible time for it to leak.
Conspiracy theory is the province of the pseudo-intellectual, not the intellectual.
--
In the background stand the Clinton's bloody switchblade in hand, never to be blamed, but still in the running for '08. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
2 edits | said by DaDogs : said by justin :google should understand their popularity rests on transparency. If there were told by the government to remove those images because of [insert stupid reason] then they should tell us that is what happened. Justin, If they WERE told by the government to remove the images, it would have leaked and caused one hell of a stir. Indeed, it would have leaked just prior to the election as that would have been the worst possible time for it to leak. Conspiracy theory is the province of the pseudo-intellectual, not the intellectual. Merely pointing out that google is missing controversial news imagery is not yet a conspiracy theory. We first need an official theory that works well, befor there can be a conspiracy theory. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| 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? |
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | reply to justin
I know "Carlie Brucia" would show 0 pictures (or wrong ones only) until September or so. She was killed February 1. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to Steve
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? |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| 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 |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| 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 |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
1 edit | Oh geez, confusing DCMA enforcement with censoring based on content?
Wow.
Damn, that Karl Rove is one powerful guy! |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
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). |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| 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 |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| 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. |
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | i blame your president :P |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| reply to justin
said by justin :lol I'm sure there IS a reason for it. And I'm sure i'm not going to find it satisfying. hidden censorship is rarely satisfying. Could this have anything to do with safe-search?
I'd hardly call abu-gharab prisoner abuse pictures appropriate for a wide audience. That or any of the very graphic things the "insurgents" have done to American forces.
For some reason, I'm not having a problem with them not showing those pictures...
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters, fill it up: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam to date: 235 |
|
