Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (19761)	5/23/2006 9:49:48 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

MORE COMPLAINTS ABOUT POLITICAL BIAS AT GOOGLE: Instapundit << Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites >> newsbusters.org Google would be wise to address this before they join Dell in the category of once-loved tech companies that forfeited customer trust. (Via James Joyner, who has more thoughts.) outsidethebeltway.com feeds.feedburner.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19761)	10/21/2009 2:28:16 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

Hat tip to Brumar89 & Lindybill: I hadn't noticed this piece on google till now - posted by Lindybill a week ago. I haven't been on google for months now - use bing instead: World's biggest search engine makes a common search term difficult Classical Values An article that Glenn Reynolds linked about the up-and-coming search engine Bing reminded me that something is rotten in the state of Google -- especially where it comes to searches related to abortion. If you're familiar with Google (and who isn't?) you know that most of the time when you enter a search word, you won't even have to get half way through the word before the most common suggestions appear in the search window. Now, the word "abortion" is certainly not unusual (it draws over 24 million Google hits), and it is neither right wing nor left wing, it is not a dirty word, and because no one I know of considers the word offensive, it cannot be said to be either politically correct or politically incorrect. But try typing abortion. As soon as you type "abor" up comes a list of suggestions: ABORIGINES, aboriginal art, aboriginal culture, and aboriginal names. And if you keep typing and add a "t," all suggestions disappear and you have to enter the word "abortion" all by itself. Now, if Google were working normally (which it obviously is not), there would be all kinds of suggestions. Like abortion, abortion clinics, etc. To illustrate, here's what I get as a dropdown list if I search at Bing.com So what's up with Google? Surely abortion can't be among Google's censored words? I don't know what it is, but I'm thinking it may have something to do with Google advertising. Google has been sued for refusing to accept anti-abortion ads: <<< A Christian group is suing Google over the internet giant's refusal to take its anti-abortion adverts. The Christian Institute, a "non-denominational Christian charity", wanted to pay Google so that whenever the word "abortion" was typed into the popular search engine, its link would appear on the side of the screen. The link would have read: "UK abortion law - news and views on abortion from the Christian Institute. www.christian.org.uk." But Google refused the advert because it said it had a policy of declining sites which mixed the issue of abortion with religious views. Its Dublin-based advertising team replied: "At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content'." Google does, however, accept adverts for abortion clinics, secular pro-abortion sites and secularist sites which attack religion. The Christian Institute has now started legal proceedings against Google on the grounds that it is infringing the Equality Act 2006 by discriminating against Christian groups. >>> This lawsuit appears to have been settled. OTOH, there are also allegations that Google has restricted access to abortion advertisements in 15 countries, and I'm not entirely sure what that's about, although I noticed that pro-choice activists are irate. Might the litigation explain why Google would disable the functionality of its search feature? In the Wiki article about censorship by Google, there is some discussion of Google's attempt to censor anti-abortion advertising, but no mention of the failure of the word itself to appear as a search term. The whole thing is baffling. After all, Google is supposed to facilitate searches, not obfuscate them. Whatever the reason, I am beginning to think that Google has gotten too big for its britches, and I am glad there are alternatives like Bing. classicalvalues.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19761)	12/4/2009 1:18:39 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Politics of Wikipedia By: John J. Miller The Corner Wikipedia maestro Jimmy Wales says the political content of his website--the most popular reference source in the world--is balanced, in a Wash Post web video. "We do a pretty good job of neutrality," he says. "I kind of hate to say fair and balanced, a phrase that's sort of been taken and maybe not the best, but we try." This is both wrong and right at the same time. It's wrong because Wikipedia really does have a liberal bias. I've written about it in NRODT. The bias exists because Wikipedians--the activist editors who control most of the site's content--lean to the Left. But Wales is absolutely correct in another sense: Wikipedia is a wide-open venue. Virtually anybody can shape its entries as fact checkers and content providers. Conservatives may have legitimate gripes about Wikipedia, but they also have a better recourse than complaint: participation. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19761)	1/11/2010 12:52:36 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Hat tip to Robert G: Here’s to the thought police. Can’t Hide the Decline of Google “Climategate” search results January 10, 2010 · 9 comments climategate.com Air Vent today brought up something we’ve been noticing as well. At one point, there were over 50 million Google search results for for the term “climategate.” When we purchased the domain name climategate.com a couple months ago, I remember there were just over ten million, and since then we’ve watched the number dwindle down what we have today: 1,950,000. In fact, when Air Vent wrote their article earlier today, they said it showed 2.2 million results. Between our two testings, that’s a quarter of a million fewer pages in less than a day. At this rate, climategate will cease to exist on Google in eight more days. So what of the other search engines. Here are the numbers at this very moment: Yahoo: 30,100,000 Bing: 51,400,000 No declines with them. Put this together with their buddies over at Wikipedia who don’t call the climategate page “climategate” (they call it “Climatic Research Unit hacking incident”); and with their buddies over at GE who are working with them in green energy projects, and it kind of make one wonder, don’t it now? Not that Google would ever manipulate their data. Here, you can prove it yourself. Goto to Google.com and key in the search field, “Christianity is” and see all the auto suggestions like “Christinaity is bullshit” that come up. Then try it with any other religion, except Islam. When you are done with the world’s religions, try “Islam is.” Huh? There is nothing there. You see, just as Google is watching out for our best interests and not discouraging negative comments towards Islam, they also know that it’s in our best interest to not keep on keeping on with the absurd “Denier” crap. Here’s to the thought police.

To: Sully- who wrote (19761)	3/29/2011 10:05:21 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

The Evil Empire: Them Googlers Act Fast By Chris Horner Planet Gore March 23, 2011 11:30 A.M. After ICECAP posted this item, noting Google’s activism and hiring as an adviser an academic whose name and address pop up with some frequency in the ClimateGate emails, Google flagged ICECAP’s website with this warning, discouraging traffic: <<< This site may be compromised. >>> ICECAP host Joe D’Aleo who brought this to my attention assures me this was not the case until now. So not only are they [Google] global-warming activists, but they fit in with that crowd in every way. One more reason to go elsewhere for your searching.