Google filtering 'objectionable' search terms

[Phier]

I know TWC has been slipping in posting, I think all internet forums are going through this to some degree, but I'm surprised this one slipped by a bunch of nerds and geeks or at least wasn't worth talking about.

This is the second story of its kind really, as a UK man was fined for being mean online and Reddit turned over his info to do so.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/23/troll-...-died-6148787/

At least he only got fined, apparently jail could have been involved too. Anyone in the UK still going to argue you have free speech again? Anyways, I digress.


http://www.newstatesman.com/science-...-engine-racist

In an undertaking known as “Operation Google”, some 4chan users are resisting Google’s latest artificial intelligence program, Conversation AI, by swapping smears for the names of Google products. Conversation AI aims to spot and flag offensive language online, with the eventual possibility that it could automatically delete abusive comments. The famously outspoken forum 4chan, and the similar website 8chan, didn’t like this, and began their campaign which sees them refer to “Jews” as “Skypes”, Muslims as “Skittles”, and black people as “Googles”.

Basically google is filtering out, to start, racist words. Now I've read this will apply to searches as well, not just youtube comments or the like, but this I think really is spelling the end of free speech online. G-lining is a thing where google will not have something come up in a search it thinks is offensive for some reason, its been around a while, but it was manual, it required complaints. Now you can basically automate the process, basically hiding anything you want and doing so in a non-transparent manner.

This should be troublesome as the internet is the method we all use for everything from research to daily local news. While you could argue that some words should be blocked out, you would be wrong, but you could argue, the very same technology could be used to hide just about anything from online detection.

Now on the plus side, there are other search engines. I've personally tried using a few. They are no where near as effective as google. Added for those who are aware of this sort of censorship, you might be able to find something using other methods. The key is being aware. How many people do you think have any idea that google does this sort of thing? We have what is going to amount to private monopolies on information, and even my libertarian thinking knows monopolies are bad.

About five years ago I said we were all going to be in trouble when google turns evil, this sort of thing started about 3 years ago when google went from wow cool! To how do we make money of this. Now with these changes and changes to youtube, the aggregation of news sites into a few hands there is a real danger to freedom coming, if anyone can be bothered to stop snap chatting their food to see it.

[saxdude]

This is the second story of its kind really, as a UK man was fined for being mean online and Reddit turned over his info to do so.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/23/troll-...-died-6148787/

At least he only got fined, apparently jail could have been involved too. Anyone in the UK still going to argue you have free speech again? Anyways, I digress.

What is it exactly that you want to prove here? That the UK free speech laws are not the same as american ones? Or that reddit should not have given the police his information? Because if you are arguing the former, get over it, you've discussed it to death. He was fined for being the that he was, It's just as well that he can't hide behind internet anonymity anymore. It has nothing to do with anything that google has done lately.
If the latter, what if he was sharing child pornography? Foreign terrorism? Domestic terrorism? You know, since the whole crux of your diatribe is basically "slippery slopes guys! slippery slopes \ಠ_ಠ/ ".

Snip, snip, snippity snip

Google does as Google wants, 'cause google owns Google. You can whine (nonsensically) about censorship all you want Phier, but the fact is that google is a private company entitled to do whatever it pleases with it's service and pander to whoever it god damn wants within the constraints of local law, no matter how much it antagonizes the extremely valid and well though out opinions of the brilliant, super masculine and totally endearing 4chan crowd. It's a business, not Disney's version of Tortuga.
I thought that's what the free market was all about?


Fact of the matter is that the real argument to be had here isn't about censorship or free speech or whatever it is the point you wanted to make here is, but Google's monopoly. And since that's the case... might as well changed the subject thread. Where's the competition? Why is it so crap? Is it also the lefts fault? I thought the changes in youtube were pandering to advertisers? I'm so confused.

the aggregation of news sites into a few hands

This coming from the guy that has continuously quoted Fox as a good news site. Ha. Ha. ha.

[Condottiere 40K]

If the cost of entry, specifically creating an online search engine, goes down, what Google does to cripple the internet would dwindle in relevance to zero.

However, they have been buying up fibre.

[Phier]

However, they have been buying up fibre.

Its even more simple than that too.

If a real competitor pokes its head up, google will simply buy it. Unless that person has no desire to sell for whatever reason, why not? Google comes in with a giant check, the share holders retire, problem solved.

Heck I've seen this tactic used in medical supplies *yes vague* and we are talking companies that can't even wait on googles tables.

[Condottiere 40K]

What else are they going to do with their billions; don't you miss the days when Microsoft just stole the ideas and then made them a free feature on their products, instead of paying out for companies they later just write off?

But it's the angel venture capitalists that tend to pressure sell outs; think of Zuckerberg, he stuck to his guns, and if he starts developing a search engine, you will have the first internet thermonuclear war, something Microsoft never had to escalate to, since practically everyone uses Windows on their personal computers, and Bing seems sad.

[Copperknickers II]

Google and similar companies are under enormous amounts of pressure to protect children and put-upon minorities from the dangers of the online world. Personally I don't see the problem with censorship of obscene language, it will solve more problems than it causes, but I can see how eventually this kind of thing could go in the wrong direction. I guess the market will correct itself if it goes too far though: if it starts causing any real problems people will switch to other search engines.

[Gigantus]

Changed totally misleading and sensationalist thread title as a OP related discussion has developed - else it would have been closed until review.

[PointOfViewGun]

Isn't Google a private company? I thought a Republican response to the way they conduct their business would be to tell people to go elsewhere if they don't like it...

[Enros]

Isn't Google a private company? I thought a Republican response to the way they conduct their business would be to tell people to go elsewhere if they don't like it...

Hear, hear.

[Heathen Hammer]

What is it exactly that you want to prove here? That the UK free speech laws are not the same as american ones?

Well, no. USA has free speech (at least for now). UK just doesn't have free speech.

Or that reddit should not have given the police his information? Because if you are arguing the former, get over it, you've discussed it to death. He was fined for being the that he was, It's just as well that he can't hide behind internet anonymity anymore. It has nothing to do with anything that google has done lately.

Yes, he should not have been fined, and reddit shouldn't hand over its user information unless it has to do directly with causing someone physical harm.

If the latter, what if he was sharing child pornography? Foreign terrorism? Domestic terrorism? You know, since the whole crux of your diatribe is basically "slippery slopes guys! slippery slopes \ಠ_ಠ/ ".

That's the point. UK laws work under precedent, so today they fine a guy for making fun of some thugs' death, tomorrow they will start fining or even jailing people for saying bad things about the government. You are trying to make it sound like "slippery slope" isn't an argument, while we can observe it throughout history many many times.

[Mangalore]

...Now on the plus side, there are other search engines. I've personally tried using a few. They are no where near as effective as google. Added for those who are aware of this sort of censorship, ....

Small fun fact: Private companies are by definition incapable of censorship because censorship is defined by the meddling of a state actor into press outlets.

[Condottiere 40K]

Google is more than a state within a state.

[sumskilz]

Small fun fact: Private companies are by definition incapable of censorship because censorship is defined by the meddling of a state actor into press outlets.

Nah, anyone can censor. It's just that private censorship isn't a violation of freedom of speech. At least that's how the word is defined in American English. For example, TV stations censor parts of movies before showing them in order to fit their own or their sponsors' guidelines.

[Kraut]

Why is it so crap? Is it also the lefts fault?

I am pretty sure some leftist caused this, but there might also be some Skittles and Skypes involved in the conspiracy...

[Copperknickers II]

Well, no. USA has free speech (at least for now). UK just doesn't have free speech.

The USA has limited free speech, the same as the UK does. The UK just has slightly more limits than our transatlantic cousins do. If you think the USA has freedom of speech, try shouting 'allahu akbar' in JFK airport, or 'black power, kill whitey' as a black man during a traffic stop, and see how much good your 1st amendment does you. In fact it would be better to do that in the UK, since here in Ye Olde Englande we don't give our police guns, since we value the right not to be murdered by our own government above the right to have the freedom to be an . It's one of our quaint old world customs: we recognise that freedom is a privilege and is not worth more than life. You'd think that conservative Americans would agree with that since they're all pro-lifers, but apparently not. Americans say: give me liberty or give me death. And your government says: Whatever you say pal. But just to warn you, we're all out of liberty.

Yes, he should not have been fined, and reddit shouldn't hand over its user information unless it has to do directly with causing someone physical harm.

I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Reddit should cooperate fully with local police in the event of a violation of local law. Claiming otherwise is just protecting criminals. What could possibly convince you that a criminal has the right to anonymity, but his victim doesn't have the right to justice? You're basically saying that anything which doesn't harm another person physically shouldn't be a crime at all. No worries, I'll just hack your bank account and steal your money then, sound good? I didn't harm you physically so I did nothing wrong. And it would be a violation of my sacrosanct right to internet anonymity for you to try and have me brought to justice.

That's the point. UK laws work under precedent, so today they fine a guy for making fun of some thugs' death, tomorrow they will start fining or even jailing people for saying bad things about the government.

Today they jail a criminal, tomorrow they'll start demanding that each family send a flask containing the blood of their firstborn child with their tax returns each year for use in their Satanic rituals.

No but seriously though, you have a point. The next logical step after protecting people from online abuse is clearly a North Korea style dictatorship. Protecting the rights of citizens, it's truly Orwellian. I only wish I lived in America, where trolls roam free and unoppressed by draconian censorship, and everyone lives in harmony, except for the white people gunning down unarmed minorities, minorities staging guerilla attacks on police, Islamists massacring gays, and the whole Donald Trump thing. Because that's nothing to worry about. It's obviously Britain, safe, prosperous and massacre-free since 2005, that is the quasi-third world powder keg sliding inexorably into Fascism.

[Dr. Croccer]

Small fun fact: Private companies are by definition incapable of censorship because censorship is defined by the meddling of a state actor into press outlets.

Wrong. Censorship refers to the act of censoring by anyone, private or otherwise. The vast majority of dictionary definitions make no mention of the actor of censorship, but simply define the nature of it. Which is accurate, as it's well-established that even individuals can choose to self-censor their own content regardless of any actual external prompting.

I think people are confusing 'censorship' with 'free speech', as the latter is often specifically defined in terms of safety from government retaliation. But that's because the vast majority of free speech definitions are expounded by national constitutions, which are obviously meant to establish the limits of government power. The most authorative definition on 'free speech' remains the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of which states:

''Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. ''

Once again, no reference to who or what might 'interfere'. Which seems entirely reasonable to me; the existence of individual rights shouldn't change based on whoever decides to infringe upon them.

In any case, this kind of censorship of free speech is unacceptable in my opinion. Regulation of speech on private sites and social media which choose to do so is acceptable, but to deprive people by definition from the ability to access isolated platforms which specifically aim to keep speech as free as possible by censoring their content from even being viewed is absurd and dictatorial. The worst thing is that it isn't even the worst of Google's actions. Their 'Youtube Heroes' program encourages users to denounce anything that is 'offensive', which obviously is far more vague and dangerous to free speech than simply filtering obscenities.

I don't agree with the notion that a company should be able to regulate what is or is not acceptable speech on one if the largest forms of human communication and information, simply because they happened to stategically monopolize its primary platforms. If private law somehow supports this despite directly going against the definitions of 'censorship' and 'free speech' laid above, then it's clear that those laws are just as ill-suited to the ever evolving nature of the Internet as the dinosaur business models of copyright law. They should be changed to accept reality, rather than try to mold it to fit their needs and trample on basic human rights in the process.

[Heathen Hammer]

The USA has limited free speech, the same as the UK does. The UK just has slightly more limits than our transatlantic cousins do. If you think the USA has freedom of speech, try shouting 'allahu akbar' in JFK airport, or 'black power, kill whitey' as a black man during a traffic stop, and see how much good your 1st amendment does you. In fact it would be better to do that in the UK, since here in Ye Olde Englande we don't give our police guns, since we value the right not to be murdered by our own government above the right to have the freedom to be an . It's one of our quaint old world customs: we recognise that freedom is a privilege and is not worth more than life. You'd think that conservative Americans would agree with that since they're all pro-lifers, but apparently not. Americans say: give me liberty or give me death. And your government says: Whatever you say pal. But just to warn you, we're all out of liberty.

With that logic, you can say that North Korea, Belarus and China are also democratic, they just have slightly more limits then other democratic countries do.

I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Reddit should cooperate fully with local police in the event of a violation of local law. Claiming otherwise is just protecting criminals. What could possibly convince you that a criminal has the right to anonymity, but his victim doesn't have the right to justice? You're basically saying that anything which doesn't harm another person physically shouldn't be a crime at all. No worries, I'll just hack your bank account and steal your money then, sound good? I didn't harm you physically so I did nothing wrong. And it would be a violation of my sacrosanct right to internet anonymity for you to try and have me brought to justice.

But he never committed a crime (from perspective of a free society), so cooperating with oppressive government is, in fact, an act of injustice towards the guy who was arrested, since he was the real victim, while the government was a criminal for violating his freedom of speech.

Today they jail a criminal, tomorrow they'll start demanding that each family send a flask containing the blood of their firstborn child with their tax returns each year for use in their Satanic rituals.

No but seriously though, you have a point. The next logical step after protecting people from online abuse is clearly a North Korea style dictatorship. Protecting the rights of citizens, it's truly Orwellian. I only wish I lived in America, where trolls roam free and unoppressed by draconian censorship, and everyone lives in harmony, except for the white people gunning down unarmed minorities, minorities staging guerilla attacks on police, Islamists massacring gays, and the whole Donald Trump thing. Because that's nothing to worry about. It's obviously Britain, safe, prosperous and massacre-free since 2005, that is the quasi-third world powder keg sliding inexorably into Fascism.

It has nothing to do with protecting rights of citizens, you just seem fine with limiting basic freedoms because so far such violations aren't going against your subjective political views. For example, I wouldn't support government censoring SJWs, BLM, islamists or HRC supporters, even thou I disagree with them, since I view their right to express their opinion as fundamental right that everyone should have.

[Condottiere 40K]

There's self censorship, imposed for any number of reasons.

In regimes where it's unclear as to how far self expression is tolerated, sometimes deliberately, authors, artists and internet posters follow the maxim of better safe than sorry.

[nein]

dirty Marxist googles

[Sir Adrian]

This is why I use DuckDuckGo