http://www.bowmansbrigade.com/google.htm

Chris,

Thanks for the url. I took time to read through the whole thing and the embeded links. I don't mind them pursuing whatever agenda(s) they have, but I sure as heck mind that they do not let one know up front. They used to be a search engine of choice for me; no longer.

Actually, I had started to wonder about that - I couldn't get many obvious hits for some innocuous topics from them lately - holes in the search results. Now I know why.

Regards,

Tom

Thanks Chris,

This is an eye opener, if I wanted others to make choices for me, I would have left this country long ago. I will no longer use Google or their advertisers.

Neal

I hesitated to post this. Our forums try to avoid the charged arena of Politics. But censorship and hidden agendas offend me, regardless of cause. I can tell you this isn't one of them <img src="images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

That's unbelievable. It's really sad that people can be so short sighted.
I have a question though; The very last line of text on Yahoo's search results page is "Search Technology provided by Google." Does this mean those ads and results are censored on yahoo's pages as well, or just that Google sold them the software they use? Thanks in advance.

Chris.

That's a damn shame. I rely upon search engines like Google to find good deals on gear. For those of you looking for a great alternative, try AllTheWeb Search.

Hutch: Google provided (sold) their search algorithms to Yahoo, so it's roughly based on Google technology. However, I'm not sure if they use the same censors.

John McIntire

I agree that censorship can lead to problems, but I fail to see the problem here. Google.com, while known worldwide as a search engine, is still a business, and the owners of that business reserve the right to what they accept and don't accept. While some may find their refusal to allow advertising from sites which sell guns or knives as selective censorship, they have to agree that Google reserves the right to what they display, since it is a private company.

If Sextracker.com was willing to hand over enough money to Doug Ritter and Equipped.org to keep this website up and running for another 20 years as long as Equipped displayed its ads, do you think Mr Ritter would accept this proposal? I doubt it, and that is Doug Ritters right as the owner of this site.

The issue is exactly about 'ownership'. Theoretically, in the USA radio and television are to provide access for non commercial exchange of information and opinion. It does everything but. Regardless of political view, the media censors information constantly from the people.The deliberate stifling of legal trade to manipulate social access to THINGS is but another step to manipulate social access to information. There was a reason Hitler banned THE WILLIAM TELL OVERTURE.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

"the media censors information constantly"

The media censors nothing. The media in question would run anything if the price was right. It's the viewers and listeners who dictate what is shown and what isn't. If NBC ran a Remington rifle advertisement on a Monday night during prime time, the number of complaints would be staggering. This is not censorship, this is common business practice. Do you want to keep the viewers you have or [censored] them off so they go elsewhere?
If you disagree with Google's idea of what is acceptable and what isn't, then don't use them. There are hundreds of other search engines on the internet. Everyone has a choice. It's up to you. You either turn the channel or sit there and complain.

If Yahoo.com and Equipped.org go to WNBC and wish to place an ad in the same time slot, are they going to choose Yahoo, with millions of users or Equipped with a few hundred? Is that censorship or deductive reasoning?

Wal-Mart isn't the biggest company in the world because they sell bullets and fishing gear. Perhaps in certain areas those are big sellers, but overall, Wal-Mart could drop those items entirely and it would barely register in the overall bottomline.

Chris, you and Mr Ritter are very knowledgeable and have a clear passion for this lifestyle/hobby/job. But even you have to admit that the overall meaning of being "Equipped To Survive" is for a select portion of the population. It's a fringe hobby. Something like Ham Radio is no different. Many people enjoy it, but it isn't mainstream.

Google isn't censoring anything. They are listing what the mainstream internet user wants to see, and those are the people that pay the bills.

No offense intended, but did you investigate the reports of what has supposedly taken place? You seem to have overlooked the whole point. While it is accurate to state that Google can take whatever position they choose, I won't use them now because they did not and do not state up front what they are doing. They built their reputation as an inclusive search engine but now are hoodwinking those who use the service - willingly or not, duped is duped.

And I must take great exception to "The media censors nothing" - are you serious??? What a hot button for me, LoL! I neutrally deal with print and broadcast media on a regular basis and I assure you that you are mistaken. Television is by far the worst culprit on a day-in-day-out basis, especially the formats that only air news reports 2-3 times a day. Like most things, the practice is not universal and occasionally is even well-intentioned, but it is pervasive. There are notable differences from one reporter to another; one news director or editor to another; one affiliate or another. The media in all venues often both panders to the masses (economic survival, I suppose, but where are personal values and integrity in that?) AND MANIPULATES the masses. And the manipulation is always according to ONE PERSON's point of view or agenda - a modest amount of investigation into the real-life personalities of your local news media will quickly prove the latter to you if you disbelieve my assertion that humans behave like humans...

First interviews with me take a bit of extra time because I tell it like it is to the news crew - screw with the truth and I'll pay you back, because you're not the only news crew around. Fail to be accountable for the consequences of your reporting and I'll hold you accountable in the public eye, because you have rivals. Be truthful and accountable and I'll give you newsworthy stories voluntarily. So far, I've kept my word on that. Some crews never return; the honest ones do.

Even so, my singular point of view should be suspect as only a portion of the truth, so I try to make sure that they have at least one other source and put them in contact with other sources when I can. I have met some decent newspaper and (fewer) TV journalists at local, regional, and occasionally national level... radio is an enigma to me these days, although reaching back, I recall some decent coverage of events. I have had too few encounters with periodicals to have an informed viewpoint, although I could hazard some guesses if pressed.

I'm not a famous or important person in the scheme of things, yet those things have become evident to me; it's not hard to observe what goes on.

Have you ever heard "Never get into an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel."? Why do you suppose that 19th century observation continues to be repeated? Because it's still true! However, the newspaper at that time was the "news equivalent" of TV today - read some older newspapers - especially competing ones - from late 19th-early 20th century and you'll see what I mean - it's laughable now. Now overlay TV - substitute "video tape by the pallet" for "ink by the barrel".

And now - for some folks - the WWW adds another "information dimension".

I do not envy the job of a journalist (regardless of media). A principled and intelligent journalist (and they exist - I know some) must struggle constantly within themselves to be like Jack Friday - "Just the facts, ma'am". The most despicable practice that I encounter is what I call "selective reporting" - bluntly, lying by using a portion of the truth; presenting only a singular selective view (even editied in a fashion to further twist matters). It is usually not out of laziness or ineptness that that is done - I have witnessed the practice many times - a TV station or newspaper will have multiple sources; multiple points of view, and choose to use only that which supports the predelictions of the editor/news director/reporter/etc.

Google is selectively censoring without informing their users that they are doing that. It's the "not informing the user" part of the practice that I find offensive.

As I stated in a previous post, I had recently begun to wonder what was "wrong" with Google's search engine because it was occasionally coming up with inexplicable "holes" in the results. I used to be a very satisfied user and I might still be IF I knew what exactly they were hiding and why - perhaps I might even "approve" of their policies.

Censorship per se isn't "bad" if one agrees with the aims and methods of the censor... good parents must be censors for many years, for example. Or so I believe.

My 2 cents on the topic, and as I stated up front, no offense intended.

Regards,

Tom

PS - a local radio affiliate has the publically and widely advertised slogan "We tell you everything you need to know." It may be the national slogan of their parent; not sure. That sends chills up my spine... especially because I know for certain that they do NOT - I listen to them to hear other points of view on contentious matters - they are very heavy-handed in most things. Kind of blatant, don't you think? I know the gentleman who has directed that affiliate for decades; have known him since I was a child. Mostly, he is a very decent person. And he has a decided political tilt - he's nearly horizontal, in fact. And he is stupendously ignorant of a number of factual areas, which he demostrates regularly. Doesn't make him stupid (he's not), but how ARROGANT of him to pontificate on things he is ignorant of! (The most likely alternative is that he's not arrogant, but evil-minded, which I do not believe) I'm glad he's retiring from that... I note that the newspapers run his stuff on the editorial pages rather than in the news, which is appropriate. I enjoy his other work...

(Copied from Googles Advertising Terms and Conditions)

"Google shall have the right to terminate any IO (and this Agreement), in whole or in part, with or without cause, at any time...."

Is censorship fair? No, but if you don't like living under it's umbrella, buy a houseboat, sail out to international waters and drop anchor. The original website in question isn't the first to be "duped", and it won't be the last. That isn't unfair business practice. That's life.

As Chris K stated in an earlier post, he hesitated whether to post the original message due to conflicting opinions that could arise (and did). In no way do I wish to be banned from Equipped.org because of this differing of the general opinion. I value the opinions I read here, and the website in general has been a wealth of information. If my views on this subject matter conflict with the majority of Equipped members, I apologize, but I still stand behind them.

Nobody will ever get banned here for disagreeing. For being disagreable maybe, but never for polite debate.

Quote one: "The media censors nothing. The media in question would run anything if the price was right."

Quote two: "Is censorship fair? No, but if you don't like living under it's umbrella...blah blah blah..."

Definition of censoring from Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."

Which is it, chief? Censorship or not? Where I'm from, it's called censorship. That is EXACTLY what Google is doing...suppressing and deleting anything considered objectionable by their standards.

I rest my case...

John McIntire