cont'd ...

I forgot to add and clarify that search
engines are the electronic libraries of today -
providing information in today's
technological world. They are the electronic
equivalent of libraries providing us with information.
Those that have access to computers prefer to use
the search engines. Those that are unable to access
the search engines for whatever reason can still find
information at their local libraries

Paul,

Not many posters (hardly any) are interested enough in the subjects I'm interested in – or I've been sent to Coventry. You slipped in SSM, which had nothing to do with the topic, so let's change that

Ten politicians abstained. Have they discharged the duties they are very well paid to discharge? I don't think they have. The options were YES or NO, which even politicians should get that. 'I don't have the guts to vote' was not an option. The 10, including Abbott, should get out and give someone else a go, in my opinion.

Change again. I glad that the “Manchurian Candidate” has resigned, even though he should have left long ago.

Oh dear ttbn,

You've (ably abetted by Paul) utterly misunderstood the nature of Google (by which I assume you mean Google search).

People don't "regaling us with Google references". There is no such thing. People might insert references to things that they found by using Google but they aren't Google references at all. Google search is merely a way to find information on one of the billion gazillion servers that is the web.

If I go to the local library and refer to a book I found by using their database, it'd be insane call that reference a 'local library' reference or a Dewey decimal system reference. Similarly what you find using Google isn't a Google reference.

Now it very true that Google probably skews their search results toward the references they like, but that's a very different thing to what you seem to imagine. Again, imagine that the left leaning local library puts all the leftist books at the front of the shelves. That's what Google (sometimes) does. But you just have to look a bit harder.

Similar with Google. Don't just check the first few things it offers in a search but look at things on page two or three.

Or don't use Google. I use Duckduckgo which to my thinking offers a less skewed search result.

Unfortunately, by making this error about Google, you end up sounding like someone who just doesn't like the way others find data you don't like and have decided that all that data must be suspect because of Google.

The Australian National Library carries a copy of the Communist Manifesto. That doesn't make the library's entire contents suspect.

That Library would be the worst and in Canberra to boot.
" Australian censors described their role as a "bulwark for Anglo-Saxon standards". The task is complicated by the fact that police and post office involvement in censorship was extensive but is not systematically traceable. - Moore is working on a database, with 4099 titles at last count.. Moore believes copies were sent out to give the clerks at wharves and airports an idea of what to confiscate.

It wasn't just sex - sedition laws kept out The Communist Manifesto, while concern about inciting crime kept out Special Detective, Dime Mystery Magazine, horror stories and westerns.

"If this legislation were active in the same way today," Moore says, "we'd have no CSI, no psychic forensics, no Law and Order on our TVs."

You seem to be right about that dude. If these big sites aren't neutral then they should be banned, like if you go to one of them, it says '404 could not be found', or something like that.

Too right , newspapers should be banned . Printing presses. Optometrists. Schools.