[Bobboau]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/googlewashing_revisited/

to serve you better of course.

[Grizzly]

I knew already. Google works together with countries with censorship like Germany (everything that is related to national socialism) and China (Everything that is not related to socialism) to let searchers not find sites the goverment does not want them to find.

[Mars]

To be fair, in cases like China and Iran, it's a good thing that they allow the internet at all. They could just filter out Google altogether if Google didn't deal. Its better to have a filtered internet than none at all, because there's still some exchange of ideas.

 When it comes to countries like the US and UK, and Germany, are you certain filtering is taking place? I know I can go to communist, socialist and anarchist websites from Google if I want to.

[redsniper]

Actually yeah, there are certain sites the US won't let you visit. I remember reading about this somewhere and there was an example link to some site about bomb making or something similar and if you clicked the link it wouldn't show up and instead give some message about how US ISPs have blocked this site, or something.

[Mars]

Becuse you know, there's so many good reasons for looking up plans for building a bomb 

I do agree that this is a slippery slope though.

[Ace]

Knowing how to disarm it? 

[Dark RevenantX]

That's why you use a proxy server and have the site encrypted before it is transferred to your computer.  Problem solved.

[Mars]

Knowing how to disarm it? 

Good point.

Although why average Joe would ever need to disarm a bomb . . .

That's why you use a proxy server and have the site encrypted before it is transferred to your computer.  Problem solved.

Doesn't always work. The Chinese and Iranian security blocks out proxies IIRC, plus you get arrested if you get caugt.

[Dark RevenantX]

I was referring to non-communist and non-fascist countries where you wouldn't be arrested for browsing the internet.

[redsniper]

I was just making the point that the US filters the internet too. Granted, not nearly as much as China, but still more than zero.

[Mars]

I understood that point. I was saying that filtering out step by step instructions on how to make a bomb is probably more forgivable, but accepted that it's a slippery slope from there to filtering out dissidents.

[Bobboau]

well here is a fun question what happens when some advertiser wants a half dozen site's page rack to be 20 spots lower or they will cut there 100 million dollar deal? or if looking up some desise brings up there home page because they made a product that was responsible for sickening people and they want to be less associated with it? better to make a handful of sites a little less accessible than to lose funding to keep the whole thing running right?

[WMCoolmon]

I knew already. Google works together with countries with censorship like Germany (everything that is related to national socialism) and China (Everything that is not related to socialism) to let searchers not find sites the goverment does not want them to find.

Heard this complaint many times, and I find it utterly absurd. If Google did not work with these countries, their citizens would have even less access to information than they would have otherwise. It's better for some presumably-benevolent company to have some influence than for some government-sponsored search engine that only feeds people propaganda.

If nothing else, it's not like any other search engine would have any fewer restrictions placed on it. Google is acting as an impartial business by taking advantage of a market by adapting to the restrictions placed on it.

But regardless, if you feel the Chinese government is repressive or the German government is too paranoid, allowing them any kind of search would seem to be supportive of your position, because if you're right, all that ancillary material that isn't blocked should all point to the 'right' direction, and anyone suitably intelligent can figure it out.

And I'm not surprised that Google may doctor its search results...there are sometimes when a search may be really obviously looking for certain websites, but designing an algorithm to do that would take a lot longer than just generating some exceptions to the rule.

[IPAndrews]

Heard this complaint many times, and I find it utterly absurd. If Google did not work with these countries, their citizens would have even less access to information than they would have otherwise.

Now I know jack **** about this, but my knee jerk reaction is to think that people need to know when their access to information is being blocked so they can act accordingly. Thus if people think google is giving them results when really it isn't then google is really doing the people it serves no favours.

[Fury]

well here is a fun question what happens when some advertiser wants a half dozen site's page rack to be 20 spots lower or they will cut there 100 million dollar deal? or if looking up some desise brings up there home page because they made a product that was responsible for sickening people and they want to be less associated with it? better to make a handful of sites a little less accessible than to lose funding to keep the whole thing running right?

It's how the world goes around.

Net neutrality is nothing more than a myth, it always was and always will be. To assume internet would be ever truly neutral, is laughable at best. Those who have the power and money will see to it because it is in their best interests. This includes capitalists, communists and socialists. Humanity ftw.

[IPAndrews]

And of course it's worth remembering amongst all this that goog is not a public service, it's a business. Internet search is now effectively owned by a bunch of guys out to make bucket loads of cash       

[Solatar]

It seems to me that Web 2.0 isn't driven by some sort of "democratic" force.  Every single Web 2.0 site out there is a business that sells advertising.  Things like social networking are just ways to get you to visit a website that contains ads.  While Google certainly offers a variety of useful products, much of the "free" stuff it offers really isn't out of the goodness of their hearts, but just a testbed for applications that will later end up on cellphones and PDAs.

I suppose Wikipedia is an exception, as (as far as I know) it is funded by donations and supporters not by advertising.
Now if only a group like THAT would take control of social networking.

[Spicious]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Wall Street Journal's rather inaccurate article on net neutrality and Google.

[MR_T3D]

Officials have said that if they hear ‘Web 2.0’ one more time, they will smash someone in the face!” – Weasel News, K100 Radio, GTA IV

[redsniper]

Me too.