Internet Censorship

Wasn't their corporate mission originally "Do no harm" or something to that effect?




The above video talks about how Google is blatantly using algorithms to determine the validity of information and bury sources of information that they do not like. Now, what is interesting is that there was a tv interview with someone from Google (in the video above) where they specifically say "If you search something on google, and get more than one answer, that's a bug in the program".

So, google wants to choose what to tell us. What we believe. What we consume.

ATS, you're no better. Just the other day I read here (maybe 2-3 wees ago) how ATS mods will immediately move a post to the HOAX forum if it is discussing an idea that there were no actual planes that hit the twin towers on 9/11. I am NOT saying that I support that theory at all, nor do I necessarily agree with that theory. But, ATS, you're labeling ideas with notions that will bias someone towards the ideas and opinions being presented. Even putting that information into a forum titled "HOAXES" is greatly filtering who will view and consume that idea/opinion.

During the 2000 presidential elections, Ralph Nader was the Green Party candidate for president of the United States. He, like just about all other candidates, were invited to a televised debate. However, when he showed up to the debate, they refused to allow him to take part. What did this accomplish? It was the primary blow that prevented the candidate from ever having a chance to win in today's day of electronic media. I firmly believe that if you cannot appear on television for something like the Presidential race you have *greatly* crippled chances of ever actually winning let alone being considered when voting.

Here on ATS, we have a problem. This is a website dedicated to conspiracy theories. Yet time and time again, I see someone saying "Oh, that was debunked long ago...." or "Science says this" or some other group think notion. So the idea that any one notion is going to be automatically sent to the hoax bin is not a good thing. ATS is a privately owned and operated forum. In other words, there is no free speech here that does not coincide with it's owners views on what they wish to allow. This is certainly their right. By nature of the beast alone, the internet itself is a contributing body of small feudal kingdoms. Every single server is owned by someone that is most likely not you. Just as when you go to someone's house, it is their right to require that your behaviors adhere to their wishes.

Nobody here that has a child would allow their child to exist on a diet of nothing but chocolate chip cookies. A healthy diet is a balance of everything. Candy is good treat in very careful moderation.

Just yesterday while discussing the idea of medical studies where I suggested that the source of the funding for the study should be considered right along side the results of the study. I was told "Challenge the science, not the money". Considering the source is just as important as considering the message conveyed.

When you are consuming ideas or opinions, remember.... no once source, no one idea is something to make your entire intellectual diet consist of. We consume food. We consume information/ideas/opinions. Be smart about your choices in consuming.

Like ATS, Google is a privately held business/forum/resource. They can do as they wish. I believe we need a way to regulate and moderate our consumption of food, information/ideas/quotes, even our internet search engines.

I am not suggesting a boycott of ATS. Neither am I suggesting a boycott of Google. Rather, very your sources of intake.

Think, and choose, for yourself. In all things, not just ATS or Google or going to Fat Burger for your meals. Isn't that sort of the point behind a conspiracy theory, not accepting the "official story" ?

The responsibility to do so wisely falls on yourself.

You might not suggest a boycott of Google, but I will!

They threw their don't be evil motto out the window and have proceeded to become everything that is evil.

a reply to: FHomerK

Your argument makes sense only when you consider the level of the filter being used. Some things are nonsense and should not be part of an intellectual debate. An example that jumps to mind is eugenics. To me, the whole flat earth idea should be in the hoax bin too. To draw on your diet analogy, candy in moderation is fine, but rocks are not. They shouldn't be on the diet at all. There are some ideas that shouldn't be on the intellectual diet either.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: FHomerK

Your argument makes sense only when you consider the level of the filter being used. Some things are nonsense and should not be part of an intellectual debate. An example that jumps to mind is eugenics. To me, the whole flat earth idea should be in the hoax bin too. To draw on your diet analogy, candy in moderation is fine, but rocks are not. They shouldn't be on the diet at all. There are some ideas that shouldn't be on the intellectual diet either.

Who gets to determine what is nonsense and what is not?

a reply to: SR1TX

The proprietor of the site.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

No, rocks are not part of a healthy moderated diet. You are 100% correct.

The concept of free speech holds the idea that to preserve it, you must stand up and vigorously defend the right to say anything, not just the things you want to hear. It is also of the utmost importance to demand the right to say something that deeply offends you, because that is what free speech is.

As this is a forum owned by ATS, it is not free speech.

Were you in NYC on 9/11? Pennsylvania at the crash site or in that plane? How about the Pentagon?

I wasn't. I do not buy the official story as it is told to us by the US Gov't. What does that mean? It means that I do not have any personal knowledge of the situation, as I can only rely on what people have told me.

Having been born in the state of Missouri, I am a victim of the notion of "Show me".

This is not so much about free speech even though it is closely related to it. This is about the freedom of thought.

Quite frankly, I will not allow you or anyone else to dictate what I think. Or what I consume in the process of determining my thoughts.

Flat Earth. Mandela Effects. No airplane on 9/11.

I believe that the earth is not flat. I have a VERY hard time with the notion of Mandela Effects. I think it is very unlikely that it was something other than the airplanes that crashed into the buildings.

But what if there is some kernel of truth in any of those topics? By dismissing them on the basis of group think and not hearing them out you are intentionally blinding yourself.

I for one choose to hear these things out. I take the message and the person/entity delivering it with a huge grain of salt.

I choose to analyze things critically, for myself.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: SR1TX

The proprietor of the site.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Much as I stated in my original post.

a reply to: lordcomac

During the Ferguson riots, I was flipping back and forth between Fox and CNN while discussing it here as it happened on ATS.

It was hilarious to see the exact biased notions expressed by their opposing viewpoints that I had anticipated.

Why did I do this ?

Because seeing both sides (given I could not be there and observe what was happening myself without the editing and formatting of others) allowed me to make a more qualified decision on what I was seeing.

Boycotting Google would be a fruitless effort.

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" - Machiavelli (attributed to him as well as claims that was not what he actually said. But, the idea still applies)

It could be much worse...and will be.

I am honestly surprised it has lasted this long, and is still as unregulated as it is.

We honestly are the weakest, most easily controlled so-called intelligent species imaginable.

We deserve what we get because we fight for nothing except what we are told to fight for.

a reply to: Jonjonj


I concur.

a reply to: FHomerK

The 95% of the uncensored internet is the one we can't easily see called the Dark Web. It's there....

Google got to where it is because, back in the day, it was pretty much the only search engine that didn't skew results. (Others such as webcrawler, jeeves, alta vista etc let people pay to be on the front page). This meant that it was the only reliable site to search with, everything else was just so much hokum.

If it goes on like this, their search engine will become just as irrelevant as those others when people switch to a more reliable alternative.

Google probably has enough fingers in other pies now, that they probably feel invulnerable, but I wonder how much of their income is from selling ads to small businesses who won't buy off a third or fourth rate engine.

Interesting video, but I think Ms Dikes is overdoing a bit. In some places, she's highlighted words from a Google Inc document, and read them out, e.g., "Claims that directly contradict established medical or scientific knowledge".

Sounds sinister, but if you pause the video at that point and look at the rest of the sentence (i.e., outside the bit she's highlighted) you can see that this sentence refers to people who have entered search terms that indicate that they are looking for specific advice.

That's a slightly different proposition from censoring non-mainstream medical/scientific ideas from *all* searches.
Arguably it's a fairly responsible stance to take. And probably, in the long run, a legally-sensible one. You don't want to get sued by some whacko who googled what to do about the blood in his urine, found a page telling him to rub crystals over his kidneys, and then ended up on dialysis because he didn't consult his doctor in time to catch his (real) illness and his kidneys had to be removed.

Also, and this is a point people forget, Google is a business, and the results it provides are permissibly moderated because of the corporation's freedom of expression. (This was legally determined in a Californian court case a year or two ago, I'll try to search out the story if anyone cares).

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: FHomerK

The 95% of the uncensored internet is the one we can't easily see called the Dark Web. It's there....

And 94.99% of everything on the non-indexed part of the web is non-working links from part time online servers, apache server pages, unused or empty onion links and ftp private server links to someone's collection of unusable roms and crap music.

Honestly, between the crappy 90's coding of the rest of the sites and the real danger of accidentally hitting a child porn site the fun went out of the dark web long ago.

Only the Intel exchange and one or two others make it even worth updating a copy of tails.

a reply to: FHomerK

The points I made aren't making a subjective judgment on the no-planes-flew-into-the-towers issue. It was more on the theoretical side of the issues that you raised.

I think we can agree that there needs to be a filter. Arrant nonsense should not be given the same level of coverage as situations that are 100% agreed upon. The question that you raise is exactly who decides the filter. We both agree that it's not a first amendment issue. But the analogy is the same. One of the main reasons for the free speech right is that the market place of ideas will out the non-sense. It's a truth seeking mechanism. It is not so every idiotic voice can be heard in perpetuity.

If something is put in the "Hoax" bin but is based on the truth. Ultimately there will be enough discussion/pressure for the topic to be removed from that bin.

originally posted by: FHomerK
Like ATS, Google is a privately held business/forum/resource. They can do as they wish. I believe we need a way to regulate and moderate our consumption of food, information/ideas/quotes, even our internet search engines.

...unlike ATS, Google has built an empire on tax payer funded subsidies, making their "right" to play game like this a lot more questionable.
mic.com...

6. Google: $632,044,922

An Illinois representative shows off his new Google Glass to colleagues.

Besides Intel, Google is the top tech company that receives government subsidies, picking up more than $630 million from states like Oregon, North Carolina and a few others. What does a multi-billion dollar company that controls the majority of the world’s Internet need with more than $630 million in government subsidies, you ask? Well, you know, for things like property taxes and training reimbursements. What, do you all think that money just grows on trees?! Also, don’t even think about googling "Google government subsidies" because THEY WILL KNOW ABOUT IT.

Your criticism of ATS' handling of hoaxes is misplaced. The decision to consider any topic a hoax is one of the most serious and thoughtful processes on the site, frankly. Topics like "there were no planes" and "Sandyhook crisis actors" are moved for several important reasons. Liability, as in the site faces potential liability for slander in some cases if patently falsehoods are allowed to be hosted as facts on the site, is one. Another reason is to keep ATS from looking like a collection of asshat nutters based on a dicrete minority of ridiculous paranoid delusions. C.T. already fights an uphill battle with the mainstream, no need to tie the anchorweights of the asinine to ourselves and make that fight even more difficult.

a reply to: FHomerK

Here's the problem though. Should we allow speech that's doing harm to people by feeding them misinformation? For example, the anti vaccine people are making their children sicker and outright causing the evolution of diseases to circumvent everyone elses vaccines. Should we as a society allow that speech, or in the name of the greater good should we shut them up and vaccinate their children?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Your criticism of ATS' handling of hoaxes is misplaced. The decision to consider any topic a hoax is one of the most serious and thoughtful processes on the site, frankly. Topics like "there were no planes" and "Sandyhook crisis actors" are moved for several important reasons. Liability, as in the site faces potential liability for slander in some cases if patently falsehoods are allowed to be hosted as facts on the site, is one. Another reason is to keep ATS from looking like a collection of asshat nutters based on a dicrete minority of ridiculous paranoid delusions. C.T. already fights an uphill battle with the mainstream, no need to tie the anchorweights of the asinine to ourselves and make that fight even more difficult.

Hey, ATS made it's decision. Don't defend it... I'm not claiming to have any authority at all to change it.

I just called it as I saw it. Even stated, it's your house so I'll play by your rules.

I stand by what I said though, and I wanted to share the video with everyone.

As far as I am concerned, this thread is closed

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It could be much worse...and will be.

I am honestly surprised it has lasted this long, and is still as unregulated as it is.

We honestly are the weakest, most easily controlled so-called intelligent species imaginable.

We deserve what we get because we fight for nothing except what we are told to fight for.

Ironically, I'll give that a +1.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Well...youre certainly right about that. Unfortunately...the internet itself....the one we use each day...is so heavily censored....we tend to not recognize it. So? Should it be?

Should there be some form of organized restrictions even on a limited basis? I think there has to be some...but then? How does that accurately reflect the real thoughts of the users?

For the part we as the general populace use day to day, forum to forum, business to business, board and one person to another...I think we have to accept it where it exists.

But no, that does not promote the free-flowing of opinion and information...but, a necessary evil....

Thanks! MS