It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Google censoring political hot topic: abu ghraib pictures

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

SlashDot.org "Try searching Google Images for abu ghraib, lynndie england, or Lynndie's boyfriend charles graner and note how you don't get any pictures of US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners of war. Now try it with some of their competitors, like AltaVista, Lycos, or Yahoo!. Google used to be able to find them, as is discussed in this AnandTech forum thread." I'm guesing that this is another case of our administration confusing "National Security" with "Politically Undesirable".

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Interesting new development.




posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
This is a very inersting find. A while back I did a ATSNN story that Google was censoring its searches in China to comply with Government censorship as well.

So is the company kowtowing to government restrictions? So much for the companies pledge of do no wrong.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I'm not sure about that. I went on Google.com, typed in 'abu ghraib pictures', clicked I'm feeling lucky and got this site:

www.antiwar.com...



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra I'm not sure about that.
The issue is the Google Images search. Like this one



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
hm I think thats okay when this very bad pictures taken from the net, but the the involved soldiers like lynch etc. should be stay online...everybody should know whos that things doing..Who isnt favour?



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Well unless the people behind google are doing this under some misconceived notion of patriotism I would guess that the government has asked them to do it deliberately.

I guess the big questions to ask are:

1. Is it self censorship or imposed?
2. What else are they hiding?
3. Now that they are a public company, who are the major sharholders?

Remember what the main character's job was in Orwell's 1984?


.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dacruz hm I think thats okay when this very bad pictures
So why aren't they censoring porn? It's very common to find some nasty porn images mixed in with very normal image searches.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Interesting to note here is the recent incoporation of Google, IMO once they hit the stock market, they became just like any other major coporation except they have a media like benefit to those in power. I have no doubt we will continue to see the internet loose ground. For the first time in the history of man kind, we have unlimited access to information, the internet is changing the world, and it will be sad to watch it go down. It was just too good to be allowed.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Could it be that those in control at Google, like other Americans are now feeling a sense of SHAME?

Like so many others who would like it to all just go away and be forgotten?

And others who claim there was no shame in it at all...

Who knows?

[edit on 7-11-2004 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
I guess the big questions to ask are:

1. Is it self censorship or imposed?

Before we jump to conclusions, I think your question should address the issue: Is it censorship?

Depending on the answer to that yes/no question, you may go down the path you describe. But don't base an argument on a premise that has not been established as true.




posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Before we jump to conclusions, I think your question should address the issue: Is it censorship?


Good point.

In my opinion restricting access to information is censorship.

WHY is google doing this?

That's probably the most improtant question.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:22 AM
link   
The answer appears here:

Why we are doing this

No political motiviation, no censorship conspiracy. The pictures are there, as Simulacra has illustrated. This is just an instance of stale data. Nothing to see here folks. Move along, please.





posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I can't remember if the cases are still being tried or not?

Could there be legal issues given that they are part of a current court case? They were used as evidence I presume. I realise they have been in papers and are all over the web, so are readily available, but given that Google is now incorporated could they be liable under different laws than those affecting the other search sites?

Not trying to assert anything, just curious.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I looked into this, and I'm just not seeing the conspiracy. Chris Di Bona's explanation seems plausible enough to me.

But then, I wouldn't want to rain on anyone's parade. I'm sure someone will explain how Bush did it, and that it's all part of the NWO conspiracy threatening us all. Throw in a few Zeta Reticuloids and call it good.

After all, this is a "conspiracy website".

Still, I would much rather know just how much influence U.S. intelligence agents had over Abu Ghraib, which is the real story, IMO. But I guess I'll just have to accept the public whitewash like everyone else.

Yeah, it was just some bored, randy and poorly supervised soldiers, not a systematic campaign of coercion and torture for gathering intelligence. Nope, not at all.

Now, where are some more of those shocking pictures to stare at?



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I realize this is an old thread but I figured everyone could use a refresher of those photos so we know what happens when power if abused..

www....-------------------------/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib/

Excellent source for the Horrible Photos..



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
.
I found this site when i googled.
www.antiwar.com...
Seems about as graphic as any I have seen.

You may be right about the 'image' 'picture' search, SO.

Although Abu Ghraib was a place before became our scandal.
Maybe they are just trying to keep the images 'G' rated.

edited after further observation.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by slank]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Google may be public, but regular shareholders hold very little power. They have a dual class share setup, where i think Class A shares are 1 share = 10 votes and Class B shares are 1 share = 1 vote. Most of the Class A shares are still being held by Google insiders.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The answer appears here:
Why we are doing this
No political motiviation, no censorship conspiracy. The pictures are there, as Simulacra has illustrated. This is just an instance of stale data. Nothing to see here folks. Move along, please.



Still not updated...


oddly, an Image Search for "Iraq Beheading" returns a similar void of emptiness.

especially when compared to the results of the same searches with Yahoo!

but wouldn't they want us to see that - to rile us up?? hmm.. the plot thickens..



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Just for an FYI I sttempted to get a comment from Google for ATSNN and recieved nary a email or returned phone call from them.

They also are censoring sites that the Chinese government is requesting as well.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I don't know if anyone else has had these problems yet.. maybe I'm the only one..

Has anyone had "Refused Requests" from websites.. from the domain.. most of the ones I've experienced problems with are forieng with I thought odd..




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join