Google and new rude words

p2pnet news | Freedom:- “Google is being accused of an infamy often disingenuously levelled at P2P file sharing applications by the vested interest corporate entertainment industry,” p2pnet posted yesterday.
So what is this horror?
Exposing children to online porn.
And how’s Google doing that?
According to Huch Medien GmbH, owner of German porn site Amateurstar.de, Google.de and Google.com’s image search displays, “hundreds of pornographic images for users of all ages who enter such terms as ‘porn’, ‘fuck’, or ‘oral sex’.”
So Huch has “filed for expedited proceedings at the first-instance District Cour of Frankfurt to force Arcor to block Google.de and Google.com in order to prevent pornographic texts from being displayed without age confirmation,” says Heise Online.
But, “Look,” says Andy in a p2pnet Reader’s Write, “when I was a kid I looked up new rude words in the dictionary; so sure, if I’d had google, that’s the very first thing I’d do.”
He goes on:
But is it up to google to do the censorship?
I don’t really think so.
Of course, if they want to follow the ‘do no evil’ mantra, they could supply parents with an applet to disable unsuitable hits.
And, “Wake up, people,” posts The Angry Offender, continuing:
This is how freedom is destroyed. We start making distinctions between ‘good’ speech and ‘bad’ speech, and the ‘bad’ speech category being legally infringed upon is the tip of the crowbar pushing through the door.
Demanding that Google, which is basically a giant indexing robot, be blocked for reporting unbiased results from its indexing that happen to show what SOME PEOPLE consider to be objectionable content is absurd.
Let’s take a ride down the slippery slope. Consider the methods by which children (or teens) can be prevented from viewing ‘objectionable content’ online. The perfect way to do it? No more Internet, period. The next less drastic step? Massive oversight of the entire Internet, requiring that all content be published through, say, a government entity, and even then there is no guarantee that objectionable content won’t be published.
Next we would have designated third parties that do the regulation management instead of the government, which opens more holes for bad content but makes it somewhat easier to publish content. Now keep following this inverse traversal of the slippery slope we’re on, and where are we? We’re at the part where some assclown can come along and demand that an ISP *VIA GOVERNMENT ORDER* block out some form of content because ‘kids might see something bad.’
Granted, they trump up the ‘threat’ by using typical lawyer exaggeration such as ’systematically committed felonies’ and ‘horrible breaches.’ That’s not too terrible yet, but how far does it have to go before someone stands up and says ‘to hell with this censorship?’ Don’t people have a right to self-censor?
If someone sees that Google is spitting out porn to their kids, don’t they have the right to take measures to keep them off of it and have them use other search engines? Why is it that governmental bodies are parenting the general population more and more as time goes on?
Have we really degraded to the point that we can’t make decisions for ourselves? Or is it that some people wish to exact their individual morality and beliefs upon others, using the government as the tool to bring about that goal of fascism?
I wasn’t aware that a government would ‘blacklist’ websites; it seems that the free market is the place for such ‘blacklisting’ to take place to me. But then again maybe not, since governments have proven for centuries that they can surely manage things better than the private sector, like healthcare. Yep, government-run healthcare makes free market healthcare look like a joke, especially since the government-run healthcare doesn’t have waiting lists and rationing out of live-saving operations. Oh, wait…
(Remember who said ‘the government that governs least, governs best?’ Hmmm?)
Also See:
p2pnet – Google: exposing kids to porn, December 1o, 2007
Heise Online – Arcor to block Google, December 5, 2007
Want to help p2pnet stay online? Please click here.
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php







December 11th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
The sensorship should be done at the client level because it is too hard to do on the server side even withy only world.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Actually if you go to Google-> Preferences you can select the level of “SafeSearch Filtering”. http://www.google.com/preferences?hl=en
December 12th, 2007 at 2:40 am
perhaps google could add some text next to “dont filter my results” to include “i am of legal adult age in my country”
i have to verify my age at porn sites even yahoo, ask etc.. do this so whats the big deal.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I don’t get it. Did I just read about a porn site suing Google for showing porn images?
What the fuck?
But seriously. If someone can’t figure out SafeSearch, they don’t need to be using Google.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I should elaborate that my mention of free market healthcare versus government-run healthcare is an often misinterpreted comparison because of the fact that people (especially those who advocate for the government-run variant) associate “government-run” with the Canada and UK implementations and “free market” with the healthcare system in the United States; however, the fallacy lies in the assumption that the USA has a free market healthcare system. It’s not. I don’t know where I read it as I was researching the topic in more depth, but one website had an extremely insightful anti-government-healthcare article in which it was mentioned that the USA and Canada both have healthcare systems that are almost entirely run by either one third party or an oligarchy of third parties (the US insurance providers coupled with laws forcing them to insure lots of things they otherwise wouldn’t.) Because the insurance companies have a near-monopoly on the control of healthcare in the United States (and the government heavily regulates that industry), they said, IT IS NOT A FREE MARKET SYSTEM.
In a REAL free market healthcare system, you as an individual are responsible for your own healthcare costs, and competition between doctors will drive down prices, boost quality of service, and might actually cause PRICE QUOTES to exist in the American system.
All I’m saying is that using what we’ve got in the USA as the idea of what a “free market healthcare system” is, is an egregious error in reasoning, and should be rethought.