NationStates Jolt Archive

You see that the number two spot is occupied by a racist site. Recently, people have been working on moving it off the front page of google. It used to be number one. Is this censorship? Should it be moved?

Begin!

shouldnt all racist sites be removed?
theres a limit to how free speech should be

Maybe.

This brings up the question what is the definition of racism. This is THE slippery slope argument.

theres a limit to how free speech should be

No, there isn't. By showing people racism, they know it exists, and how bad it is.

Also, the imposition of free-speech limits are easy for an unscrupulous government to abuse.

shouldnt all racist sites be removed?
theres a limit to how free speech should be

but where do you draw that limit

i think the way someone says something is important too
i dont think someone should be arrested for saying something racist to someone else but when someone goes and makes websites or prints newspapers etc with the sole purpose of being racist then they should be stopped

You see that the number two spot is occupied by a racist site. Recently, people have been working on moving it off the front page of google. It used to be number one. Is this censorship? Should it be moved?

Begin!

Property owners are allowed to control any sort of speech they want on their property. Try making your flag a swastika on this website.

shouldnt all racist sites be removed?
theres a limit to how free speech should be

but where do you draw that limit

i suppose it depends on whos making the decision, its like saying "how much do we tax people" the people doing the taxing need to decide

Why should there be limits to free speech? We're hindered enough as it is- we don't need people telling us what to say.

Racists sites could be a useful resource for anti-racists. For one, they can get examples of what we're (anti-racists) up against.

Well, free speech or not, i still don't understand why some people hate Jews.

Well, free speech or not, i still don't understand why some people hate Jews.

No one does. Even they don't understand, though they think they do.

Well, free speech or not, i still don't understand why some people hate Jews.

Custom and tradition.

Well, free speech or not, i still don't understand why some people hate Jews.

No one does. Even they don't understand, though they think they do.

Idiots

Well, free speech or not, i still don't understand why some people hate Jews.

Custom and tradition.

more idiots.

Well, free speech or not, i still don't understand why some people hate Jews.

No one does. Even they don't understand, though they think they do.

Idiots

Hit the nail on the head there.

The site shouldn't be removed, but I think it is inapporpriate for it to be in the first spot, and perhaps even on the top page. A non-affiliated site like an online encyclopedia entry would probably be the best thing to have at the top, but short of that it makes the most sense to have a site by a Jew in the top spot rather than one declaiming Jews.

The site shouldn't be removed, but I think it is inapporpriate for it to be in the first spot, and perhaps even on the top page. A non-affiliated site like an online encyclopedia entry would probably be the best thing to have at the top, but short of that it makes the most sense to have a site by a Jew in the top spot rather than one declaiming Jews.

That's an interesting point. A sort of 'right to self-representation' - allowing someone to explain themselves before letting others give their view.

maybe they paid google to put it on there second.

Well if it was a different company, I would say that censoring the site would damage their credibility as an information source. However, Google doesn't have any credibility anyway, so they may as well try to cultivate a family-friendly image.

Bah, Google lists sites by how many links there are and how many times people use a key word to get to a certain page. If you have enough motivated people to do it, you can get any website to number 1 on their search. "Miserable failure" used to lead right to Bush's bio on the White House website.

Google doesn't have any credibility anyway

Oh? What search engine do you use?

Google rankings are based on how many links with a keyword point to that site. There is no human overseer, therefore there is no control over how things rank.

Hmm. A racist would have more instances of the word "jew" on its site. A jewish person might have "I am jewish" and nothing else.

They have a really nice headquarters though!

Google doesn't have any credibility anyway

Oh? What search engine do you use?

Google. Is there anything better?

Google doesn't have any credibility anyway

Oh? What search engine do you use?

Google. Is there anything better?

I use google too. I thought you were implying that you didn't like it.

Google rankings are based on how many links with a keyword point to that site. There is no human overseer, therefore there is no control over how things rank.

Not really. Not only do they change their algorithms (most notably to drop google optimizers), but they can also take down/out sites that are complained about/they disapprove of.

Google doesn't have any credibility anyway

Oh? What search engine do you use?

Google. Is there anything better?

I use google too. I thought you were implying that you didn't like it.

I like the engine just fine. I strongly dislike their business practices.

You see that the number two spot is occupied by a racist site. Recently, people have been working on moving it off the front page of google. It used to be number one. Is this censorship? Should it be moved?

Begin!I disagree with government censorship. However, there is nothing wrong with sites competing for the top ten positions on a search. For instance Pepsi held the top three places for "Coca~cola" breifly. So i'd encourage anyone who feels a Jewish site would better suit the number two postions for the search "jew", do something about it.

Google doesn't have any credibility anyway

Oh? What search engine do you use?

Google. Is there anything better?

I use google too. I thought you were implying that you didn't like it.

I like the engine just fine. I strongly dislike their business practices.

Please elaborate.

Google doesn't have any credibility anyway

Oh? What search engine do you use?

Google. Is there anything better?

I use google too. I thought you were implying that you didn't like it.

I like the engine just fine. I strongly dislike their business practices.

Please elaborate.

Well, quite aside from them dropping sites (which I think they have a perfect right to do, since it's their engine), the thing that really gets to me is that they allow advertisements from unlicensed, unregulated internet pharmacies. These pharmacies basically give people unrestricted access to perscription drugs. This is highly irresponsible and quite dangerous. Google apparently doesn't have the initiative to change this.

Edit: Whoops my bad. They actually are rectifying the situtation, and the ads should disappear any day now. I guess I mistrust them less now.

Good point about Google - The Sun tabloid newspaper does not come up first when you enter "sun".
Bad point about Google - it comes up second

You see that the number two spot is occupied by a racist site. Recently, people have been working on moving it off the front page of google. It used to be number one. Is this censorship? Should it be moved?

Begin!

Actually there are several in the top ten. That said it has to do with hits, no doubt some unintentional but perhaps a concerted effort by anti jew zealots the world over has helped it gain it's position.

I understand this banning of hate sites has become an issue in the EU. To my mind it is PC run amok. Yes they are idiots, but so is Aunt Jessie's blog about her cats. So what?

Sanitizing the world doesn't make it safer. Only awareness helps one know what to defend against or be aware of the need for defense. Like good art it causes one to think and perhaps even take a position.

SHL

We all know that the term "neocon" refers mainly to Jews who funded and founded the new conservative movement

We do? This is news to me. I'm sure its also news to the neocons.

You know, this is a second time these type of people have appeared on my threads. Look, thank you for acting civil, but please. I sincerely hope you are playing the devils advocate, especially about Jews being worse than us.

Jesus Christ on a Stick, people.

Hey, I'm a fascist so what I say is obviously subjective on this subject, but a little bit of exposure regarding the remarkable economic, political, journalistic, and general media dominance of the Jews, who after all represent about only 3% of the U.S. population, is fair enough. If someone writes on his website that this dominance is not good but in fact destructive then good for him. Someone needs to stand up and say what needs to be said.

Anyway, one person's anti-semite/racist is another person's hero. The Jews have used up all the moral capital they accrued because of their genocide and deserve to be judged on their own terms. We all know that the term "neocon" refers mainly to Jews who funded and founded the new conservative movement that is responsible for the catastrophic involvement of the US in Iraq, which is more about protecting Israel than defending America. The idea of dual-loyalties is important here. America, or Israel? Many Jews obviously choose the latter.

And need I mention the horrific treatment of millions of Palestinians? Dispossessing millions of people from their land for more than half a century does not a good Jew make. Never mind how other middle-eastern countries treat their citizens, that's not the issue. The Jewish nation wants to treated as an equal by the world but is rightly ostracized by most of the countries of the word. As I said, the Jews should not be a protected species anymore. They are just as bad, and probably much worse, than the rest of us.

Not every Jew supports Israel. Not every Israeli supports the IDF.

PS: Rupert Murdoch.
PPS: NBC Universal.

They are just as bad, and probably much worse, than the rest of us.

PPPS: Stanley Milgram.
PPPPS: Phillip Zimbardo.

How, exactly, are some people trying to get the site removed from the top ten?

Whining at Google and making them take it down manually is childish. Racism exists; hiding that fact only makes things worse. ("Mommy! He called me a bad name!" "Then cover your ears, dear.")

Using Google's ranking system and other websites to push the site down, on the other hand, is perfectly fair.

Of course, the people who are complaining about the site would be more useful trying to do something about the racism, but what do I know.

Hey, I'm a fascist so what I say is obviously subjective on this subject, but a little bit of exposure regarding the remarkable economic, political, journalistic, and general media dominance of the Jews, who after all represent about only 3% of the U.S. population, is fair enough. If someone writes on his website that this dominance is not good but in fact destructive then good for him. Someone needs to stand up and say what needs to be said.

Anyway, one person's anti-semite/racist is another person's hero. The Jews have used up all the moral capital they accrued because of their genocide and deserve to be judged on their own terms. We all know that the term "neocon" refers mainly to Jews who funded and founded the new conservative movement that is responsible for the catastrophic involvement of the US in Iraq, which is more about protecting Israel than defending America. The idea of dual-loyalties is important here. America, or Israel? Many Jews obviously choose the latter.

And need I mention the horrific treatment of millions of Palestinians? Dispossessing millions of people from their land for more than half a century does not a good Jew make. Never mind how other middle-eastern countries treat their citizens, that's not the issue. The Jewish nation wants to treated as an equal by the world but is rightly ostracized by most of the countries of the word. As I said, the Jews should not be a protected species anymore. They are just as bad, and probably much worse, than the rest of us.

Not every Jew supports Israel. Not every Israeli supports the IDF.

PS: Rupert Murdoch.
PPS: NBC Universal.

Murdoch is Jewish isn't he? Know nothing about NBC.

This debate is similar to (a very small) one in Britain, if we adopt a PR system (on the lines of Billy Bragg's second mandate system) it would mean the far-right would get into parliament. This has understandably annoyed/disgusted many people, but I am of the opinion it will help destroy them (I'll explain it in another thread)

We all know that the term "neocon" refers mainly to Jews who funded and founded the new conservative movement

We do? This is news to me. I'm sure its also news to the neocons.

Well, the founders of neoconservatism are generally regarded as:
Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, James Q. Wilson, and Seymour Martin Lipset. Four of these are Jews. The most influential neoncons today are probably William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle. All Jews. I'm sure we all know who the last two are, and about their influence with Bush. Oh well!

And? Bush once told a Jewish person if you didn't accept Jesus he'd burn in hell. Yep. Some influence those ZODists have.

PPPPS: Phillip Zimbardo.

Is this Zimbardo the one who did the (Stanford?) Prison experiment? I know little about him but he is very interesting, who is he relevent to your post?

Jüdische Leute sind durch weite schlechteste Sachen gewesen, als dieses und sie sie alle....so überwanden, das dieses ein Drücken für sie... gerecht ist

Jüdische Leute sind durch weite schlechteste Sachen gewesen, als dieses und sie sie alle....so überwanden, das dieses ein Drücken für sie... gerecht ist

Not every Jew supports Israel. Not every Israeli supports the IDF.

PS: Rupert Murdoch.
PPS: NBC Universal.

Murdoch is Jewish isn't he? Know nothing about NBC.



BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2162658.stm) article on RM. Mamser Jew reference. (http://www.theunjustmedia.com/rupert%20murdoch's%20news%20group%20international.htm)

shouldnt all racist sites be removed?
theres a limit to how free speech should be

Hmm...

While I find racism extremely offensive, for a number of reasons, I don't necessarily agree that all racist sites should be removed from Google. If you sensor racist sites, what else are you going to censor? There's a point were people have to learn to think for themselves.

________________________

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

Well, since Katholik just stole my point about the neocons, I'll just sit here an wonder why Bush, as a neocon, would have then gone to speak at Bob Jones University. Gee, I guess 2 and 2 equals 5?

sorry but why can't we press the button Holy Cyril? What does it do?

sorry but why can't we press the button Holy Cyril? What does it do?

Unleashes the Hellish hoards of FUA upon NS.

Or vice versa. I'm not really sure... :?

________________________

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

sorry but why can't we press the button Holy Cyril? What does it do?

It's unpressable... That is why you should not press it.

cyril, u should change it to-

PUSH THIS BUTTON NOW!

cyril, u should change it to-

PUSH THIS BUTTON NOW!

Yeah. But I'm trying to make a sort of half-arsed political statement. Not really sure that it's working though. :(

Oh well...

VIVE LE FUA!!!!!!!!!!111111111111

________________________

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

It's not censorship, but it is a great reason not to use google.

www.vivisimo.com

Well, since Katholik just stole my point about the neocons, I'll just sit here an wonder why Bush, as a neocon, would have then gone to speak at Bob Jones University. Gee, I guess 2 and 2 equals 5?

I don't see your point. Don't you have any idea of how closely the Christian conservative right identifies with Israel? My own view is that the neocons have so come to dominate the party that they have made Israel into some kind of holy cow, a sacred beast that must not be touched.

Very few conservatives now have the temerity to oppose this. Pat Buchanan is one I can think of who does, but certainly not the people who write for National Review, The American Spectator and the rest of the so-called right wing magazines out there. Fox News is a neocon haven, and the most slavishly pro-Jewish/pro-Israel cable outlet in existence.

Real anti-semitism is alive and well though on the Left. It calls itself critical of Israel, not of Jews, but you can read between the lines. That's an interesting turn-around, and a healthy one. At least some people can still think independently.

But what will become of the Jewish Liberals? Think of the children, lefties.

SHL

But what will become of the Jewish Liberals? Think of the children, lefties.

SHL

Become neocons like the others, I guess.

i tried searching 'jew' and the top entry was for wikipedia, and there was a racist one underneath, but by the time i got back it was down to number five.
but on the issue of censoring the internet, i'm strongly against it. governments may be able to censor television or the press, but censoring the internet is nearon impossible, this makes it unique on our planet as being the only medium for the totally free exchange of ideas, once thats gone, we've lost something really special.
as for the jews who helped found the neocon movement, i dissaprove. zionism is just elitist, fascist, nationalist racism wrapped up in biblical fairytale clothing. and on the whole, in my opinion, the people have more power than knowledge, they can't get past their own demonisation of the palistinians enough to see the real issue.
i like to use the analogy of holiness being salt, once a land has been strown with it, no real civilization can grow on it.

theres a limit to how free speech should be

No, there isn't. By showing people racism, they know it exists, and how bad it is.

Also, the imposition of free-speech limits are easy for an unscrupulous government to abuse.

By allowing people to see, it acknowledges they are mature enough to learn from the mistakes of our forefathers. For example, take Mein Kompf, while it is available around the world, it's not available in Germany... Maybe because the Germans aren't ready to face their past with maturity and learn from its mistakes.

theres a limit to how free speech should be

No, there isn't. By showing people racism, they know it exists, and how bad it is.

Also, the imposition of free-speech limits are easy for an unscrupulous government to abuse.

Everyone has the right to free speech up to the point where their free speech is infringing on the rights of some other individual or group. This is my argument to shutting racists up

theres a limit to how free speech should be

No, there isn't. By showing people racism, they know it exists, and how bad it is.

Also, the imposition of free-speech limits are easy for an unscrupulous government to abuse.

Everyone has the right to free speech up to the point where their free speech is infringing on the rights of some other individual or group. This is my argument to shutting racists up

Interesting commentary on First Amendment case law. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/18.html#4 Group Libel/Hate Speech are proscribed so then a person who uses such derogatory terms is not protected by the First Amendment just as fighting words are not.

Must be the reason for all those "Informational Archives" disclaimers. Trying to bend the law "a bit."

SHL

You see that the number two spot is occupied by a racist site.

I'm sorry to hear that.

I would leave it up there.

If you are going to make a racist site you probably are pretty determined. After the site is shut down, they probably will start it again, just more careful and subtle. That would make it much more dangerous to people watching it. More people would trust it, Let them have their site, just have # 1 be a list of the most common racist sites.

http://www.google.com/explanation.html

An explanation of our search results.

If you recently used Google to search for the word "Jew," you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We'd like to explain why you're seeing these results when you conduct this search.

A site's ranking in Google's search results is automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for "Jew" brings up one such unexpected result.

If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:

* http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174
* http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp

Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like "Judaism," "Jewish people," or "Jews" than the single word "Jew." In fact, prior to this incident, the word "Jew" only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it's likely that the great majority of searches on Google for "Jew" are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.

Our search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google. Some people concerned about this issue have created online petitions to encourage us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Because of our objective and automated ranking system, Google cannot be influenced by these petitions. The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to both the Jewish Internet Association, an organization that addresses online anti-semitism, at http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/, and Google's search results on this topic.

I guess Google staff view NationStates.