NationStates Jolt Archive

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/a-government-fu.html

A U.S. government-funded medical information site that bills itself as the world's largest database on reproductive health has quietly begun to block searches on the word "abortion," concealing nearly 25,000 search results.

Does this really seem like a good idea to anyone? It doesn't really matter what side of the debate someone is on, isn't having access to information a good thing?

But abortion is so evil, apparently, that we have to make sure that people can't search for it on a government health site unless they use clever euphemisms like 'Fertility Control, Postconception'. Because, you know, if I were a person researching abortion for whatever reason, that would totally be the first search string I would try....

Fucking censorship. Plain and simple. State controlling access to information for nothing but political purposes. It's an outrage.

EDIT: The update at the bottom of the article indicates that the block has been lifted, but there are still unresolved issues.

From the update:
University administrators of the world's largest scientific database on reproductive health blocked the word "abortion" as a search term after receiving a complaint from the Bush administration over two abortion-related articles listed in the database.
My question: Why the hell is the Bush administration vetting scientific information in this way?

Sandra Jordan, director of communications in USAID's office of population and reproductive health, could not identify the documents that prompted her office's complaint, but said the publications were one-sided in favor of abortion rights.
I see, so she doesn't know what the documents are, but she does know what's in them. Uh-huh. Right.

"We are part of the Bush administration, so we have to make sure that all parts of the story are told," says Jordan. "The administration's policy is definitely anti-abortion, and the administration does not see abortion as a part of family planning policy."
They have to "make sure that all parts of the story are told," except of course the parts that go against Bush's point of view.

Finally:
The American Library Association's president Loriene Roy applauded dean Klag's swift move to restore the search functionality, but said in a statement that she is still concerned about the overall policy.

"Any federal policy or rule that requires or encourages information providers to block access to scientific information because of partisan or religious bias is censorship," she said. "Such policies promote idealogy over science and only serve to deny researchers, students and individuals on all sides of the issue access to accurate scientific information."
Pretty much sums it up.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/a-government-fu.html



Does this really seem like a good idea to anyone? It doesn't really matter what side of the debate someone is on, isn't having access to information a good thing?

But abortion is so evil, apparently, that we have to make sure that people can't search for it on a government health site unless they use clever euphemisms like 'Fertility Control, Postconception'. Because, you know, if I were a person researching abortion for whatever reason, that would totally be the first search string I would try....

Fucking arseholes, Abortion is not evil, and even if you so stupid as to think it is, surely knowledge is not evil and that what you stopping here the free flow of knowledge

Just wait until Bush tries to pull "national security" on this one.

God, I can't wait until November...

This is so ming-bogglingly stupid on so many levels that I have to assume it's a work of an abortionist mole in the administration. :D

People use the American government for scientific advise?! :eek:

I think it would be an intelligently designed (naturally cooled) day in hell before I'd think of such a thing especially with something that isn't for the funnies

People use the American government for scientific advise?! :eek:

Not exactly. The science is in the articles. The government just funds the search engine.

And, apparently, is responsible for censoring certain words in the search engine.

A U.S. government-funded medical information site that bills itself as the world's largest database on reproductive health has quietly begun to block searches on the word "abortion," concealing nearly 25,000 search results.
"B...B...B...B.."

Sorry, I had to!:D

But seriously, what are they trying to accomplish with this? Blocking the flow of information isn't going to do anything! What are they trying to do?
No seriously, what ARE they trying to accomplish?

No seriously, what ARE they trying to accomplish?

if abortion information is made illegal only criminals will have abortions!

My question: Why the hell is the Bush administration vetting scientific information in this way?

Because it is the Bush administration?

if abortion information is made illegal only criminals will have abortions!
So... They're trying to throw us all in jail?

My question: Why the hell is the Bush administration vetting scientific information in this way?

To control public opinion. This isn't the first area in which the Bush administration has tried to hide information from the public.

My question:
Was it really an overreaction? Or did the publicity make them rethink it and the person who actually did it is now the scapegoat?

To control public opinion. This isn't the first area in which the Bush administration has tried to hide information from the public.

My question:
Was it really an overreaction? Or did the publicity make them rethink it and the person who actually did it is now the scapegoat?

Probably the latter...

To control public opinion. This isn't the first area in which the Bush administration has tried to hide information from the public.
I know. It was a rhetorical question.

My question:
Was it really an overreaction? Or did the publicity make them rethink it and the person who actually did it is now the scapegoat?
Of course. The sacrificial faceless bureaucrat. When you screw up, make sure you have a low level peon to blame and fire for it -- that's SOP for the Bush admin.

To control public opinion. This isn't the first area in which the Bush administration has tried to hide information from the public.

My question:
Was it really an overreaction? Or did the publicity make them rethink it and the person who actually did it is now the scapegoat?

It's probably the same type of thing that happens when some dumbass school administrator misinterprets the Supreme Court and confiscates some Christian kid's Bible that she was reading during study hall.

Someone once said "never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity."

Admittedly, this takes all the fun out of paranoid persecution fantasies.

My question: Why the hell is the Bush administration vetting scientific information in this way?When exactly has it not done so? It's even expanded the practice to press conferences.

"B...B...B...B.."

Sorry, I had to!:D

But seriously, what are they trying to accomplish with this? Blocking the flow of information isn't going to do anything! What are they trying to do?
No seriously, what ARE they trying to accomplish?What do you mean "doesn't accomplish anything"? Bush got reelected, didn't he?

What do you mean "doesn't accomplish anything"? Bush got reelected, didn't he?
Don't remind me....

Dosen't accomplish anything even mildly competent. That better?

Some people looking for abortion info wont be that computer savvy. IF they fail in the 1st few searches they may give up. If it stops 1 abortion, it will achieve what Bush's people want

Fucking censorship. Plain and simple. State controlling access to information for nothing but political purposes. It's an outrage.

Pretty much. :^/

Some people looking for abortion info wont be that computer savvy. IF they fail in the 1st few searches they may give up. If it stops 1 abortion, it will achieve what Bush's people want

The articles in that database aren't really meant for lay people. A quick survery of the abortion-related titles includes "Prevalence of lifetime abortion and methods of contraception among female sex workers in Bogota, Colombia" or "Induced abortion in Denmark: Effect of socio-economic situation and country of birth". Blocking the search isn't preventing anyone from finding abortion clinics or pamphlets to help them with decisions, it's stymying social and medical research into abortion. That's what makes this stunt all the more asinine.

It shows the sorry state we're in when this kind of stuff doesnt even suprise me anymore.


If I am not angry over this because I have come to expect it, am I to jaded?

Not exactly. The science is in the articles. The government just funds the search engine.

And, apparently, is responsible for censoring certain words in the search engine.

That's because it's only evil when the Chinese do it...

It shows the sorry state we're in when this kind of stuff doesnt even suprise me anymore.


If I am not angry over this because I have come to expect it, am I to jaded?
Yes, and so am I. Hard not to be nowadays.

That's because it's only evil when the Chinese do it...
Not even then, now that outfits like Microsoft, Yahoo, et al., have the contracts to help the Chinese do it.

It's probably the same type of thing that happens when some dumbass school administrator misinterprets the Supreme Court and confiscates some Christian kid's Bible that she was reading during study hall.

Someone once said "never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity."

I normally take this as good advice and simply roll my eyes at any republican who wears loafers, cowboy boots, or rarely sandals. These are the republicans who have not demonstrated that they have the intelligence necessary to tie a pair of shoes, and may well be stupid enough to think that what they're saying is true.

Anyone who knows how to adjust a search engine so as to censor research is too intelligent to think that it's a good idea. So their behavior is only attributable to evil.

I wonder if this was the database admin's quiet way of thumbing their nose at the Bush administration?

Think about it: a database administrator working at a school of public health probably isn't the sort of person who's in favor of censorship of any kind. So she gets this nastygram from USAID complaining about two articles on the database that they think are too pro-abortion-rights -- what does she do? Take it up the chain? Take it to the press? No, then she'll look petty quibbling about two lousy articles. But comply with USAID's request and block all searches on the word "abortion"? It won't take long before some researcher notices and raises a stink. And with all the other petty repressive crap that the administration has pulled, nobody will believe that USAID didn't request the block, even if they deny it.

I admit I have no direct evidence for my theory, but as quoted in the article, the admin was pretty quick both to admit they'd blocked the searches and to point to the feds as a reason. Also, it's not dissimilar to the passive-aggressive protests pulled by other datakeepers, mostly librarians. I'm thinking of the public library that responded to the gag-order provisions of the PATRIOT act -- they weren't allowed to tell patrons if the FBI had requested patron borrowing records -- by posting a sign in their window every day that said "The FBI has not been here". If the sign wasn't there one day...well, they hadn't told you, had they?

I see, so she doesn't know what the documents are, but she does know what's in them. Uh-huh. Right.

No, she knows what the documents are. She's just not allowed to tell anyone which documents they were.

As a person against abortion....I can only say this.
Why are they censoring sources? Get off the damn internet you censoring assholes!

No, she knows what the documents are. She's just not allowed to tell anyone which documents they were.

Ooohhh, the top secret classified documents about abortion. Those must have been the one-sided pro-abortion documents that could be used to instruct al qaeda how to abort blond Christian babies, if they fell into the wrong hands. :rolleyes: