Why Google backs an Obama Presidency, page


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 6-9-2008 @ 06:55 PM by jetxnet
Google believes the government should control Internet ISPs (Internet Service Providers). Google is the same company that censors Internet searches for the Chinese government. It's no wonder why, then, Google supports an Obama Presidency. Obama and Google have the same goal, to make huge profit off the American people through censorship and Internet access.

Google: Huge Profit in Censored Searches

Google believes in censored searches if it means getting a large profit for doing so. China is paying Google lots of money to censor searches of Chinese citizens.


Google's adheres to the Internet censorship policies of China, enforced by means of filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China". Google.cn search results are filtered so as not to bring up any results concerning the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, sites supporting the independence movements of Tibet and Taiwan or the Falun Gong movement, and other information perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC).


Source

Obama Government: Huge Profit for Internet Access

When you access the Internet, you pay an Internet service provider (ISP) for a broadband connection. These ISPs make ALOT of money providing this service to you, as there are many subscribers per provider.

More than rumor has it, and something the Obama campaign won't tell you (but Google already knows), is that an Obama government will pass legislation allowing the government to take control of US ISPs.

It has HUGE implications for your personal rights and privacy. If the government gets control of ISPs, the following breach of personal liberties would occur:

1) You pay the government for a broadband connection. There would be no other choices, you'd be restricted to paying only the government for your broadband connection.

2) By owning your connection, the government gets to monitor your e-mail in real-time through a centralized data collection process that would be created for that very purpose.

3) A government ISP would only grant/allow servers hosting certain US websites and web applications to be permitted for accessiblity. If the government doesn't like a website, the government can have this site taken off the Intenet through a government controlled ISP.

4) Censored Searches. The government will pay Google to censor searches of US citizens, just like China does.

Number 4 is the reason why Google backs an Obama Presidency. Google stands to gain huge profit in censored searches by the same country that allowed the company to prosper in the first place. It goes to show you, greed has no bounds.

Ask yourself these questions?

1) Do I want to pay the government to access the Internet?

2) Do I want the government to monitor my e-mail and blogs?

3) Do I want the government to censor my searches through Google?

4) Do I want the government to have the authority to determine what websites and web applications are allowed for me to access?

If you answered NO to any of these questions, then you should not vote for an Obama Presidency. Google wants you to do the opposite.

Censorship cannot occur unless the government controls the ISPs, just like in China.

Google also stands to eliminate competition by becoming America's only choice for a search engine. Only government controlled ISPs can make this happen. Google is willing to risk it's own free enterprise existance by walking a thin line for increased profit and being friendly to the government.



[edit on 6-9-2008 by jetxnet]


reply posted on 6-9-2008 @ 07:16 PM by Jbalon
Completely incorrect.

www.ontheissues.org states, for Barack Obama:

Ensure net neutrality: no corporate-tiered Internet. (Jan 2007)

You know what, screw it, here's all of ontheissue's facts for Obama on technology:

* Incentives for next-generation broadband in every community. (Feb 2008)
* Increase funding for math and science research & education. (Oct 2007)
* Airlines got into trouble after deregulation. (Oct 2007)
* Organizes campaign events via MySpace.com and FaceBook.com. (Oct 2007)
* JFK inspired with space program; now same with energy R&D. (Sep 2007)
* Increase funding for basic research; expand broadband access. (Aug 2007)
* As Senate freshman spoke out on Katrina ramifications. (Aug 2007)
* $42B more in university-based R&D. (Oct 2006)
* Invest on transportation and clean coal technology projects. (Oct 2004)
* Voted NO on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007. (Mar 2006)
* Close digital divide with high-tech training. (Jan 2001)
* Ensure net neutrality: no corporate-tiered Internet. (Jan 2007)
* Create online database of science & math scholarships. (Dec 2007)
* Website for competitive federal awards. (Jun 2008)
* Overturn FCC approval of media consolidation. (Mar 2008)

Organizing campaign events through MySpace and Facebook is the opposite of censorship. I don't know where you got your facts from, but they're completely wrong. Just because A = B and B sometimes = C, does not mean A = C.

From a business perspective, Google would be completely stupid to not adhere to China's strict censorship policies. Just because China is saying "Hey Google, better censor search results for our search engine" does not mean they are doing it for America's, or any other country in the world. Now, for a business to make money overseas, they have to adhere to that country's laws. In the case of Germany, blocking porn sites and some Nazi-related websites from the search results must be done to make money.

I still don't understand where the whole Obama is going to censor the internet comes from, when he is in full support of net neutrality. McCain and the Republicans are the ones who want tiered internet, they want you to pay more money a month to access more sites, like this one, instead of one flat price for any website you want.

Once again, quoting more bull# with absolutely no sources. You provided a wikipedia article, but that says nothing about these "rumors that Obama is going to censor the internet."

Please, there's enough of this crap on ATS already, from quoting other ATS members and trying to pass it off like it came from a scholarly article.


reply posted on 6-9-2008 @ 07:25 PM by southern_Guardian
It’s the hypocrisy express rolling up in here again and yall seem to be falling for it every time.

When the media was fully behind Bush and Cheney back in 2002-2004 posting all this propaganda BS around the nation none of you here stood up and accused it of bias.

When the media was putting down Hillary, making comments about her body, her husbands antics, the way she talks, her belief system, none of you righties stood up and called it bias, you said nothing, in fact you helped post this BS coming from the media around the net few months back. The minute she lost the nomination, guess who we find praising Hillary and bringing in an inexperience female VP? None other than John McCain.

The minute any news station criticizes the GOP, the Bush administration or McCain and his policies, their immediately labeled as "liberal media", as if the GOP should be left clean?

When criticism of Palin continues to increase, however factual they may be on McCain’s hypocrisy, why not target Google now as well? They must be liberal.

The hypocrisy express is just beyond reason, and you fellas don’t seem to want to get off anytime soon.

You know what sickens me about the hypocrisy express the most? Few years back if you dared question the Iraq war, Bush and how government influenced the media was over the war, you were labeled anti-American, anti-troops, anti-anything that is patriotism. Patriots do not protect the corruption of their government. Patriots do not excuse the lies of their government.

Get off the hypocrisy express Jetty.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]


reply posted on 6-9-2008 @ 08:43 PM by jsobecky
reply to post by jetxnet


jetxnet

I'm sorry, but I do not believe this. There is a lot of discussion, and misinformation, going around about net neutrality, and this may be part of that confusion.

I have never, ever, heard anything about the gov't wanting to own the ISP's. Do you have a link to this info?
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



A Really Sad Picture That I Saw Today, Left Me Speechless
  Posted 12 days ago with 148 member flags
Fact Check: First Lady\'s False Fairy Tale of Struggle
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags
Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
  Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags
Stephen King\'s Message
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags
Paul Ryan Exposes Elite Agenda, "Shut Up" Says Banker
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags