Should Google censor the internet?
It already does, apparently.
Regular readers will be aware of the robust repartee between
the "Islamophobes" and the apologists on this forum.
Some have pointed out that it seems OK to criticise Christianity,
but not OK to criticise Islam.
Well it appears that Google agrees.
http://reportonarrakis.blogspot.com/2010/01/google-blocking-negative-search.html
I did not believe this article when I read it either,
so I tried it for myself.
Using Google to search "Christianity is..."
reveals all sorts of derogatory recommendations.
Fair enough.
Using Google to search "Islam is..."
reveals no recommendations at all.
This cannot be a chance occurrence.
We know that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference
is actively seeking to ban all criticism of Islam at the UN level.
http://europenews.dk/en/node/13092
Now it seems that their message is getting through to the gatekeepers of the internet.
Should we be worried?
Or should all criticism of Islam be banned?

Google just go on popularity. Would not believe any conspiracy theory. They have a machine do most of the work and figure these things out. they only censor material brought to their attention that is against US law, like child pornography or spam sites.

HermanYutic

Secular humanism hate Christianity because it exposes there godless lifestyle and future judgement. The best their High Priests can do is hide behind pseudo science in order to justify perversion. They see little threat from Islam because it is just as godless as there own dogmas.

there is something wrong with your assertion

I typed in "islam is" into Google and got 89.7 million references

I typed "christianity is" into Google and got 34.2 million references

I typed in "islam is crap" into Google and got 2.4 million references

I figure if an anti-islamic censorship campaign was in operation I would have found no "islam is crap" references

Col Rouge,
There is nothing wrong with my assertion.
Just type in
"Christianity is"
There will be a box which drops down with a list of "recommendations"
or prompts, based on frequent search requests (I presume) for you to click on to save search time.
Now type in
"Islam is"
There will not be a list of "recommendations"
or prompts for you to click on to save search time.

TheMissus,
OK then,
Type in
"Hinduism is"
or
"Buddhism is"
and see that likewise to "Christianity is"
there is a list of recommendations,
many of them negative.
Your explanation does not hold water.

I find the stupid dropdown box a pain in the arse and would rather it was not there at all...

does anyone know how to switch it off?

so I still think you are "tipping at windmills"

Freedom of speech only goes as far racism is concerned. Apparently "Islamophobia" is considered a cousin of racism due to continual vilification regarding being a Christian is not an issue. Just ask the Atheists.

I guess fear of people of Middle Eastern origin rioting and burning stuff is of real concern, too. Possibly foreign press is of concern. Vilification is okay as long as the targets are the same colour as the people doing it.

Just look how quick we are at placating the Indians at the moment. It's a joke. Indians plead victim status by default.

Absolutely Google are doing it. They are in the business of making money, they are there for us. They'll make potential issues null and void as opposed to arguing people's right to speech in a heart beat.

Tell me why Google allow footage of people being killed on YouTube but breasts aren't?. Tell me how that makes sense.

My answer to the proposition:

-At Google's discretion- absolutely not.

-An option so *I* could block sites coming up on my search results, on the other hand would be most welcome: I would never have to suffer the indignity of realizing I accidentally clicked on a rubbishy site like Silobreaker or "Wiki Answers", and various other useless rubbish sites that seem to get express priority despite it being impossible that anyone would ever actually go to them.

If they do,simply boycott them.We can determine who the next search engine will be.

runner, at your best, with the wind behind you, you cannot aspire to more than pseudo science.

Mainstream humans, compared to which your cult is a minority, use science as delivered by qualified practitioners to improve their lives rather than try to impinge on others on the basis of a peculiar cult.

Real scientists work in labs to which you are barred without trained keepers.

Bronx cheer.

Rusty.

For those unhappy with google, may I recommend a pretty good alternative.

http://www.ixquick.com/

Here for your Firefox search extension for ixquick
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=privacy&cat=all

Other alternatives:
http://clusty.com/
http://www.cuil.com/

I don't like them as much, you may however.

All of the above would seem to respect your privacy a hell of a lot more than the behemoth that is now google.

And no, nobody should censor anything!

The fact is, HermanYutic, that you know full well that you are simply indulging in another whack-a-mozzie fantasy.

>>There is nothing wrong with my assertion. Just type in "Christianity is" There will be a box which drops down with a list of "recommendations" or prompts, based on frequent search requests (I presume) for you to click on to save search time.<<

From this it is clear that you are aware that the presence of these phrases in the drop-down box is governed by "frequent search requests".

So please explain how the search arguments entered by the general public suddenly become the responsibility of the search engine?

Perhaps you would prefer tham to show an image of a wagging finger, saying "naughty naughty", every time someone enters words that you disapprove of?

Dear Herman Yutic,

I suggest that you take a look at the
following website:

http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-censorship.php
"Google Censorship - How It Works."

Finding an explanation for "Why" something is happening -
is usually a first step towards making an informed
judgement.

As the website will tell you - Google is undoubtedly the
most popular search engine globally.
However the results of a
search are affected by various government related factors.
They vary from country to country.
There are Government laws or government backed pressure,
where accommodation is an understandable reaction,
if nothing else. However documenting and explaining
what happens can inform public understanding.

For example, in Germany, Google censors certain Nazi
websites like Stormfront. In China - censorship occurs
on democracy protestors in Tiananmen Sq.
In the US Google censors sites containing child
pornography - and so on.

It's very easy to make uninformed judgements when looking
at things only from a narrow lens - you don't get the
full picture.

Periculitis,

How to begin?

Type into Google:
"Christianity is"
There will be a list of common searches.
Click on:
"Christianity is bulltish" and hit enter.
There will be 999,000 results.
(NOTE: I have used bulltish because a Remove the Profanity warning came up,
But I'm hoping you can work out what I mean.)

Now Type into Google:
"Islam is"
There will NOT be a list of common searches.
So continue typing until you have typed:
"Islam is bulltish" and hit enter.
There will be 1,140,000 results.

Therefore "Islam is bulltish" is an even more
common search than "Christianity is bulltish"
but Google is NOT showing it as a common search.
Google is not showing ANY searches for "Islam is".

The normal Google search response is NOT working for "Islam is".
I am suggesting that it must have been disabled by Google.
Can anyone think of a better explanation?

If it can be agreed that Google disabled the normal search response,
then can anyone suggest a motive other than censorship.

If it can be agreed that Google censored this search facility,
then can anyone suggest a motive other than appeasing Islamic sensibilities?

I got a similar result to that of Col Rouge. Henny Penny, the sky isn't falling. I saw no evidence that Google does favours one religion over another.

Foxy,
<It's very easy to make uninformed judgements when looking
at things only from a narrow lens - you don't get the
full picture.>
So what are you saying exactly?
That the U.S. government and the Australian government have asked Google to censor searches on "Islam is"?
What is your alternative answer to my proposition?
What is your better explanation?
Or are you denying the existence of a phenomenon
which is empirically demonstrable?

david f,
You're clearly not reading what I'm saying,
just as Col Rouge was not reading what I was saying.

Dear Herman Yutic,

Read the website I gave you.
It quite clearly answers your questions.
I don't understand what your problem is.

If what you're really after is the topic of
"Google Censorship," and you want to build a
case for why it does or doesn't occur on
certain subjects (as you claim that's what you're
after) - why not put "Google Censorship,"
in as a subject - (if you're not happy with the
website I cited).

I'm not sure it should be assumed that the suggestions are based on search results. It seems entirely possible that they're based on search queries. If that is the case, the the result could be explained by people not feeling a burning need to do searches that start "Islam is". I notice that if you put in "Islamic t" then Islamic terrorism" is offered. Put in "Islamic li" and Islamic Lies" is offered. If there's censorship here, it takes a strange form.

I think Sylvia Else has nailed it.

If you type "islamis" (sans quotes) into Google you get, amongst other suggestions

islamism 2,030,000 results
islamist watch 2,070,000 results
islamist terrorism 9,140,000 results
islamization 1,250,000 results
etc etc

Doesn't look like censorship to me.

Just anothe Islamophobic troll from HermanYutic, methinks.

It's a very bad habit, HermanYutic, to deliberately mis-read other people's explanations, simply so that you can have another bash at your sordid anti-Muslim campaign.

>>There will be 1,140,000 results. Therefore "Islam is bulltish" is an even more common search than "Christianity is bulltish"<<

As others have already pointed out, the number of results returned bears absolutely no relationship to the popularity of the search criteria.

Try this experiment for yourself.

Type in "Christianity is not a religion"

The top three results are "Christian" sites, www.christinyou.net, www.knightforchrist.com and www.allaboutreligion.org.

The rest of the results follow pretty much the same pattern.

So in fact anyone actually wanting information on why Christianity should not be considered a religion will be bitterly disappointed.

Is this evidence of a conspiracy by Google, to surreptitiously insert pro-Christian propaganda when serving results to non-believers?

Are they in league with US Evangelicals, to subtly assist the conversion of all those seekers-after-truth, who misguidedly want evidence that Christianity is not a religion after all, but simply another of the many religious cults that litter the planet?

No, it's just the way search engines work.

Do I think Google should censor the internet? No, I don’t.

Do I think that the lack of Google Suggest searches after “islam is” indicates that Google is censoring the internet? No, I don’t.

Here are a few searches that trail out the same way as “islam is”:

mateship is
blacktown is
herman is

No doubt with time, and sufficient determination to uncover a conspiracy theory everywhere I look, I could come up with a theory that Google is trying to deny the existence of Australian Aborigines, and aboriginal place names:

gurrumul is
garigal is
dreamtime is
eora is
cabramatta is
goonoo goonoo is
wangaratta is

Spooky, eh?

Foxy,
woulfe,
Periculitis,
CJ Grogan,

You used to surprise me,
but you don't anymore.

Col Rouge

The search suggestions can be turned off from the search-settings form, reached from the link at the top right of the search page.

Sylvia.

Dear HermanYutic,

How could anything be capable of surprising
you Sir - with your closed mind?

You can't beat a pickled egg!

You say that, as if it is a bad thing, HermanYutic.

>>Foxy, woulfe, Periculitis, CJ Grogan, You used to surprise me, but you don't anymore.<<

I am somewhat flattered that you see me as predictable and consistent.

If ever I consider it my responsibility surprise you, you will be the first to know

Boo!

I'm shocked.