Comments on: I Disagree, Google http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=i_disagree_google Thoughts on the intersection of search, media, technology, and more. Thu, 23 May 2013 12:55:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Tslipnbang http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-27203 Tslipnbang Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:48:00 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-27203 Bullshit! Remain free and autonomous US! Bullshit! Remain free and autonomous US!

]]> By: about-information.info http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8620 about-information.info Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:51:50 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8620 <p>Both.</p> Both.

]]> By: Rodrigo http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8619 Rodrigo Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:28:15 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8619 <p>They're manipulating information through ads or in the searches?</p> They’re manipulating information through ads or in the searches?

]]> By: shawn http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8618 shawn Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:19:29 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8618 <p>John,</p> <p>I'm pleased to have you as a new friend on my Facebook page. I look forward to networking with you in the near future online...:-)</p> <p><br /> Shawn Drewry</p> <p></p> <p><a href="http://www.Drewryonline.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.Drewryonline.net</a><br /> </p> John,

I’m pleased to have you as a new friend on my Facebook page. I look forward to networking with you in the near future online…:-)

Shawn Drewry

http://www.Drewryonline.net

]]> By: LeeRich http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8617 LeeRich Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:27:07 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8617 <p>Absolutely, Google shouldn't be acting as a gatekeeper for this or any other type of information. It seems incredibly hypocritical for Google to act as a beacon of Internet openness yet try to restrict political speech and decide what the voters should think is important</p> Absolutely, Google shouldn’t be acting as a gatekeeper for this or any other type of information. It seems incredibly hypocritical for Google to act as a beacon of Internet openness yet try to restrict political speech and decide what the voters should think is important

]]> By: JG http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8616 JG Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:46:17 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8616 <p><i>So, "Crime rates are up under Police Commissioner Gordon" is okay, but "Police Commissioner Gordon had an affair" is not.</i></p> <p>Can't we all just get along? I suggest the following compromise:</p> <p>"<i>Affair rates are up under Police Commissioner Gordon</i>". </p> <p>See? It's not personal. It just says that, since Commissioner Gordon took office, more people are having affairs. Or at least one more person is having an affair. Reader draw your own conclusions.</p> <p>[/snark] :-)<br /> </p> So, “Crime rates are up under Police Commissioner Gordon” is okay, but “Police Commissioner Gordon had an affair” is not.

Can’t we all just get along? I suggest the following compromise:

“Affair rates are up under Police Commissioner Gordon“.

See? It’s not personal. It just says that, since Commissioner Gordon took office, more people are having affairs. Or at least one more person is having an affair. Reader draw your own conclusions.

[/snark] :-)

]]> By: Jake http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8615 Jake Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:22:51 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8615 <p>GOOG is definitely on dicey ground here, to say the least.</p> <p>I agree that one's personal life should be kept out of politics, but only to a point. And I'll admit, that's a problem (of logic on my part).</p> <p>When a person drives over the speed limit and gets caught doing so they are indeed untrustworthy: holding a license implicitly means you will follow the rules of the road. Dishonesty to the laws of the road does not, however, imply a propensity to be dishonest when it comes to upholding the constitution any more than honesty to your spouse insures honesty when it comes to upholding the constitution.</p> <p>Unfortunately, the greatest country in the world blew (sorry, couldn't resist) our impeachment card over a personal matter and we've been screwed every since.</p> <p>I'm in favor of goog standing up for decorum where the politicians and the media refuse to do so. </p> GOOG is definitely on dicey ground here, to say the least.

I agree that one’s personal life should be kept out of politics, but only to a point. And I’ll admit, that’s a problem (of logic on my part).

When a person drives over the speed limit and gets caught doing so they are indeed untrustworthy: holding a license implicitly means you will follow the rules of the road. Dishonesty to the laws of the road does not, however, imply a propensity to be dishonest when it comes to upholding the constitution any more than honesty to your spouse insures honesty when it comes to upholding the constitution.

Unfortunately, the greatest country in the world blew (sorry, couldn’t resist) our impeachment card over a personal matter and we’ve been screwed every since.

I’m in favor of goog standing up for decorum where the politicians and the media refuse to do so.

]]> By: Trogdor http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8614 Trogdor Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:01:26 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8614 <p>(sorry, I hosed the URL in the previous comment ... try <a href="http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2007/02/long-time-no-blog.html" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2007/02/long-time-no-blog.html" rel="nofollow">http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2007/02/long-time-no-blog.html</a> )</p> (sorry, I hosed the URL in the previous comment … try http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2007/02/long-time-no-blog.html )

]]> By: Trogdor http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8613 Trogdor Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:00:30 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8613 <p>This causes a chilling effect on discourse, and is an attack on free speech. Countless times I've seen people spread true facts about a politician, only to be blamed by that politician for making a character attack. </p> <p>Frankly, political speech is *exactly* what the 1st amendment was trying to protect, since it's what the politicians would obviously love to be able to control. </p> <p>Her Royal Highness (would-be queen Rodham) is well-known for calling it a character attack, when people bring up her own (inconvenient) quotes later on. </p> <p>I think Google is mistaken in this policy, because at some point, it comes down to a human editor to figure out if something is an attack or not, and as we've seen from the censorship on YouTube (i.e. Nick Gisburne's video about the Quran *), Google algorithms don't always respond fairly when there's enough complaints - whether something is breaking the rules or not. </p> <p>* (in case you'd forgotten about that incident, it happens to be the last thing the Xooglers posted about: <a href="http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2007/02/long-time-no-blog.html)" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2007/02/long-time-no-blog.html)" rel="nofollow">http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2007/02/long-time-no-blog.html)</a></p> This causes a chilling effect on discourse, and is an attack on free speech. Countless times I’ve seen people spread true facts about a politician, only to be blamed by that politician for making a character attack.

Frankly, political speech is *exactly* what the 1st amendment was trying to protect, since it’s what the politicians would obviously love to be able to control.

Her Royal Highness (would-be queen Rodham) is well-known for calling it a character attack, when people bring up her own (inconvenient) quotes later on.

I think Google is mistaken in this policy, because at some point, it comes down to a human editor to figure out if something is an attack or not, and as we’ve seen from the censorship on YouTube (i.e. Nick Gisburne’s video about the Quran *), Google algorithms don’t always respond fairly when there’s enough complaints – whether something is breaking the rules or not.

* (in case you’d forgotten about that incident, it happens to be the last thing the Xooglers posted about: http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2007/02/long-time-no-blog.html)

]]> By: Bertil http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8612 Bertil Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:55:31 +0000 http://battellemedia.com/archives/2008/01/i_disagree_google.php#comment-8612 <p>Someone can make an ad saying: “Commissioner Gordon is not trustworthy.” and link to a site where his affair is detailed, along less juicy stuff. I don't think Free Speech applies to ad: it applies to conversations & journals, not sponsored media—but I should check with a legal scholar. </p> Someone can make an ad saying: “Commissioner Gordon is not trustworthy.” and link to a site where his affair is detailed, along less juicy stuff. I don’t think Free Speech applies to ad: it applies to conversations & journals, not sponsored media—but I should check with a legal scholar.

]]>