Talk:Censorship by Google/Archive 1

Archive 1

Advertising censorship

There is a section about google stopping a pro-life organization from running ad's against abortion. What the editor failed to add was that they eventually resolved the dispute and Google let them run it. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5827418&page=1 I would add this myself but I don't know how to add citations, there are a couple hundred news articles about it though.

/ I find it hard to believe the person who originally added this section didn't know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.199.42 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Google in China

It says Google.cn blocks searches on things like Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. But when I go to Google.cn and put Tiananmen in the search the Wikipedia article comes right up. Does this mean you have to be in China for it to be blocked? So it'd be the country, not Google blocking it? This should be clarified 63.26.206.216 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)eric

You are completely correct. It is not Google that censors these things, Google just allows the nation of China to implement it's firewall. So either there will be NO Google in China, and therefore no way for the people of China to have any sort of better access to information, or Google stays. The implication by Google haters needs to be fixed for accuracy. 203.59.213.54 (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

I think this is something that has changed over time. When the Tiananmen censorship was first implemented, even non-cn users were getting a filtered result on google.cn, and once you had searched for an explicitly banned term, subsequent searches were restricted to a narrow range of sites within China, regardless of search terms. I suspect they've changed the filter to only happen for cn users to prevent non-cn users from gaming it (to get the list of filtered terms, for example), but don't have any refs to back that up. It's hard to say who is doing the filtering now, but google.cn was certainly globally filtered at some point in the past. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 06:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Other internet censorship articles

There's quite a bit of other articles dealing with censorship, and internet censorship, on wikipedia (Censorship, Internet censorship, Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China). Perhaps we should look at several of these articles and either merge some of them, or make sure that they all somewhat agree with each other. Dr. Cash 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"External links"...

I'm no friend of Islam, Google, America or Christianity, but should Wikipedia really be linking to what is effectively a hate site when the page's only significant use seems to be a non-descriptive list of alternatives? Its purpose is to defame Google, which goes against Wikipedia policy. It has nothing directly to do with the topic of this article. I'm getting rid of it. elvenscout742 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous title?

Shouldn't the title of this page be changed to something like "Censorship by Google" since the current title could mean this or Censorship of Google? If no one has any objections, I'll make this change myself.--Daveswagon 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page.--Daveswagon 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Other forms of censorship by Google?

This seems to be a very important topic that deserves rather more serious consideration and coverage. Google is getting something of a stranglehold on the access to the information available on the Internet--if Google doesn't index it, the information may as well not exist. Just off the top of my head, here are two examples:

Google does NOT index this article (or ranks it very low, which is effectively the same thing as ignoring it). I actually found the article via a metasearch engine that included Google and some other search engines, but the results that Google ranked highly focused on Google's official policy of opposing censorship. One of the competing "minor" search engines even included this article as the #1 hit. (The search key was "fighting google censorship".)

Google can selectively block people from using their Groups. Given that Google is now probably the primary supporter of access to the old newsgroups, this is a very powerful form of censorship. This is an absolute process, apparently permanent, and with no channel for appeal or discussion. Shanen (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Another comparison, "google censorship" does return this page on Google--but as the #2 hit, while the other search engines return this page as the #1 hit. I feel like this topic involves the part of the article about censorship related to Google's corporate policies, but there was nothing in the article that seems to relate to that part of the introduction, and I didn't know where it could be considered.Shanen (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Maintain objectivity, please

This line "Thus to agree to Chinese censorship was a violation of its own founding principles.[2]" is biased. Perhaps it should be deleted. It is not Wikipedia's position to make a definite judgement of whether or not Google actually violates its principles. Also, the same paragraph contains some silly capitalization errors.

First of all, please sign your comments with four tildes. I can't see the relevance of your argument... it is WPs position to draw logical conclusions or to state proven facts. If censorship goes against Google's principles then it's allowed to state this. No bias there. 84.56.46.47 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Slightly Confused

"A simple test...dot-com index differential: site:.com Other top level domains can be compared similarly (.org, .cn, etc.). Searches for essential html tags, such as <html> returns the difference for all domains."

Sure it works but I don't actually know what you're talking about, so it's not simple! Any chance of a rewrite for nubs?

Well, the test-search for .com revealed that google.com has 60,000,000 sites less than google.de (google.com: "Results 1 - 10 of about 6,810,000,000 for site:.com", google.de: "Ergebnisse 1 - 10 von ungefähr 6.870.000.000 für site:.com"). but shouldn't google.de be the censoring one? This test is worthless. 80.219.250.92 11:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Uruknet

Is the removal of Uruknet worth singular mention here? I recall other sources also being removed from GoogleNews - is this one particularly noteworthy to single out? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are millions of sites not indexed by "google news". I vote for it to be removed or cite some more proof of censorship. As it is its nothing but a spam link Bl4h 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with both of the above, and since it's been this long without any other opinions I'm just going to drop it. --Zootm 15:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Livelink

A user has added a {{helpme}} tag under the 'websites' section of the article, asking "what is the tag which says this is strongly disputed"
Unfortunately that user does not have an account - and so is not easily contactable - but I will make an attempt.

The section claims: "Google blocks the websites of competitors to its Youtube subsidiary from its results sets like liveleak.com"
and the citation is Google search for Liveleak website does not return link to it.

I am uncertain why this is disputed. I would add that if the user is to dispute this section at all, he/she must add a comment somewhere on the talk page outlining his/her dispute. I will watch this article and give it a day or two - if no rationale has been provided I will remove the dispute.

It is worth mentioning that the citation seems legit to me at first inspection.

Rfwoolf 13:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RFwoolf, the link is to search result showing that livelink is indeed not indexed. This says nothing about the claim that google "blocks" competition, you-tube like sites Bl4h 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks forthe help, I added the tag because there is no evidence that google is blocking liveleak for the reasons stated. They host terrorist propaganda (video from the mujahedeen in iraq) so it might be a different reason, not because it's a youtube competitor. 76.17.115.199 14:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Its nonsense and shouldn't be there. It may be true, but there are many reasons sites get banned and this one is pushing a lot of rules. The owner of LiveLeak even posted a video [1] saying they hired a "3rd party" company to do SEO work for them, which eventually led to the delisting of their alternate domain "liveleak.org". If you know anything about google there is a fine line between " friendly optimization" and "manipulation of search results" and they are quick to delist websites for it. Also, google is a business, and ADWORDS is where they make their money. Companies dont like having their ads associated with beheadings and terrorist topics, believe it or not :] What is true is that liveleak.com is definitly banned or flagged. Now wether thats due to CENSORSHIP or BUSINESS is uncertain. On a side note, the link listed in the article for liveleak is bad usage. If you want to check to see how many pages are indexed under a domain, you type SITE:domain (site:liveleak.com). Not search for the term "liveleak" as the link in this article does. It shouldn't even be here Bl4h 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't hear any mention of SEO work, in the video the owner states that someone was brought in to verify everything was present and correct. As for pushing rules, what rules exactly?

• The line is worded to suggest that the blocking of you-tube sites is common. LiveLeak is only an example of this great claim, yet theres nothing to suggest that liveleak itself was blocked due to competition. The burdon of citation is not on me, its on whoever added this line or anyone who wants to stand by it. As it is, its nothing but a spam link to liveleak. I think it could at least be worded better. Perhaps explain the story behind liveleaks bannage or include other examples of you-tube like sites that are banned Bl4h 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. There is no proof that the site was censored by Google nor any claims by the site that they have been censored.

Are you serious? A Google search for LiveLeak isn't proof enough for you? There is nothing factually incorrect about stating that Google does not list LiveLeak in its search results. Get a clue!

Well if the point of it is to state that liveleak isnt in google then we can just delete it. Thousands of sites are not listed and/or banned from google for various reasons. I personally have sites that are not listed. This article is about google censorship, you get a clue. Also try and sign your remarks so we can tell whos who Bl4h 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Until such a time as the story is validated I think it should be removed (Especially is the site themselves aren't claiming they have been censored). Right now it seems more a vague possibility than anything else.

Just to cite some today references: according to this post, cited also by [2], it seems that livleak.com has a Robots exclusion file which blocked indexing. This was also cited by this article (in italian), where it is reported that Google confirmed this. Of course, an official announcement from somebody would be welcomed to finally solve this issue. Katanzag 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Liveleak is now listed in google[3]. Liveleak contacted google and got a hold of them, and they fixed whatever the problem was. Bl4h 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraq stoning video

A user or users keeps adding a paragraph to the "Web search" section about the supposed removal of the Iraq stoning videos by Google. Not only has this paragraph never cited a source for this so-called censorship, but it also has nothing to do with Google's web search function. I added a paragraph under the "YouTube" heading about YouTube's Terms of Service and video removal (assuming this is what the above users meant to reference), but this was removed and the original paragraph reinserted. Please. We can not list every single video that YouTube has denied or removed, and I see no reason why the stoning video is more notable than other such videos. I'm at my three revert limit, so I ask that other users please revert these changes if and when they occur again.--Daveswagon 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointless section...

I have deleted the following sentences in the China section:

A simple test can be performed to quantify the number of pages which google.cn censors as compared to those listed in google.com. Search using this string to compare the approximate dot-com index differential:

site:.com

Other top level domains can be compared similarly (.org, .cn, etc.). Searches for essential html tags, such as <html> returns the difference for all domains.

The reason is that there is no difference as far as I can tell when actually search site:.com from both google.cn and google.ca

Do feel free to try it out by yourself and see the results. 24.89.245.62 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Small edit

censored websites that provided critical information about Scientology

I'm removing the word "critical." Seems a little too POV. Cap'n Walker 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tank Man

I just looked up "tank man" on google.cn, and the famous picture is all over it. Maybe I am missing something, but shouldn't that be censored? [4]

I believe the censorship occurs when searching for "Tiananmen". The odds of a native Chinese searching for "tank man" without knowing what it means are pretty low.--Daveswagon 00:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried "tiananmen". The picture was there too. [5] Smedlorificus 07:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

---searching in English on Google.cn may bring up sensitive results, but often these are still blocked when you try to access them. Searching in Chinese will yield nothing. ALSO google.cn is SSTILL blocked. The lifting of censorship was brief by Google. They lifted censorship, but the government is now censoring results. No decision has been made on whether Google is leaving China or whether the government will ban them for breaking internet laws. I just searched for 坦克人 tank man in chinese on google.cn. It just timed out. This only happens on the mainland.123.120.167.171 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

is this an example of Google censorship?

I've noticed that phrases containing the word "suicide" do not appear in the search suggestions on Google Toolbar. Would this be an example of censorship by Google? --Ixfd64 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Google Toolbar, but I'm inclined to say "no".--Daveswagon 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Miku Hatsune

There is no confirmation of this delisting. There is no confirmation of a rumor of the delisting, even. Please add some, or I will have to remove it. Anaholic 15:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Threads on 2ch regarding that topic has gone over 50 threads.

Also, several news-sites such as ITmedia, GIGAZINE or Impress reported disappearing of these words from Google and Yahoo despite other search engines comes up with loads of results, although news-sites mostly aren't convinced about it being deliberate.

I find it hard to call it "There is no confirmation of a rumor of the delisting". -58.0.212.76 06:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

my engish is bad.so i also write same opinion in japanese. i think we dont need article...just go live.com and google.co.jp and type"初音ミク"and do IMAGE search. you can see result in YOUR EYE.and you dont need to wait article that someone you dont know well　write about.this is just happening now. 英語は下手なので日本語で併記しておきます。 私が思うにこの件について第3者の検証は必要ないと思います。 この不自然な結果は現在進行形で起こっているのでgoogle.co.jpとlive.comにいって自分で"初音ミク"と打ち込んで イメージ検索してみればいいのではないでしょうか。 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.84.1.48 (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is sure that "Hatsune Miku" is censored. But in the beginnning the source is not written and baseless guesses like "Dentsu asked Google to drop Hatsune Miku" were written. you should write only information which has a certain source.

(Japanese)「初音ミク」が検閲されていることは確かですが、最初はソースが書かれておらず、「電通がGoogleに初音ミクを落とすように頼んだ」のような根拠のない推測が書かれてました。確かなソースがある情報だけを書くべきです。 --Sayama87 13:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should abstain from the deletion by subjectivity. We should argue.Ezezmog 07:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and the source should be cited precisely. Here's NOT 2ch. Be an angel and go back to 2ch if you have little incentive for conforming to Wikipedia policies.--Int main(void) 10:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

こちらウィキペディア対策班。２ちゃんねるの応援要請を受けてかけつけた。長期間、ここで議論できる保障はないが、英語なら任せてくれ。俺が理論的、かつ冷静的に状況を説明する。日本語版の記事のノートでの支援を頼む。だが、熱くなりすぎて項目をあぼーんさせるなよ。中立性と客観性が第一だ。項目を削除したがっている連中もいることを忘れるな。相手に項目の削除の口実を与えるな。機会があったら、日本テレビの午後の思いっきりテレビでmixiランキング特集で「初音ミク」がランクインされたことが放送されたことについて執筆を頼む。以上。 Dear, IP Address 58.0.212.76, there are plenty of topics on Wikipedia that are not officially confirmed. There has been plenty of conspiracy theories, such as the case of 9.11 tragedy covered by Wikipedia. Your judgement may also be challenging various topics on Wikipedia that has portions covering conspiracy theories. Regarding this case of possible censorship, there has already been various news source in Japanese that has questioned the suspicious outputs of google. There has been reports which some has tested concluding search results from .com domain using proxies and search results from .jp domain differing on this keyword. I may post the online news in Japanese, but I wonder if it is worth posting it since some people may not be able to read Japanese. (http://www.itmedia.co.jp/news/articles/0710/22/news088.html) --221.188.79.16 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... First, ITmedia's article just said that google image search doesn't show Miku Hatsune images. It is not clear that this problem caused by the censorship. Second, this reference, just said that MSN Live search was used more than Google search on October 3 2007. The website does not refer to the causing, and, in first place, I can question whether the website is a reliable source. Third, on the subject of the statement ""google" meant the search in Japan. After the event, "google" came to mean the censorship in Japan", this is a hopeless case. It is not true. The source should be cited clearly and precisely.--Int main(void) 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Int main(void), you have probably not read the article from IT MEdia News entirely, and your point of view is likely biased on this. The source mentioned balanced views, and one expert with knowleged in the field mentioned about the "crawling", questioning that crawling alone was the factor (outdated data index is unlikely for such well known search engine), and said as one possibility, that the keyword may have been set as a "NG Word" for some reason, meaning "filtered". The article points to the well known online forum (BBS) in Japan, and discussions within the forum. Within the forum, the possibility of censorship is mentioned frequently. If you do not understand the background and lack experience in the field, I think you should refrain from joining the discussion for lack of knowledge. You have very likely failed to read the entire article, and have challenged the nature of Wikipedia of its neutrality with likely bias. Wikipedians do not tolerate with such bias. Return 0;.--222.148.89.232 06:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I read the article entirely, so removed or commented out some improper edits. The article doesn't state that "In Japan, Google censored illegal-business-practice accusation". It is so clear. Concerning the topic of threads on 2ch, I think that it isn't worth for referring on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not journalism and not gossip items.--int main(void) 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Japan

Int main(void), why you removed this?

->In Japan, Google censored illegal-business-practice accusation. Moreover, Google protected the company which committed systematic rape.

This leads to this left prose now, and it is the beginning of an IPA[6] authorization project.

->Toshihiro Yoshimoto, the owner of the censored page, published What is Google-hachibu(censorship by Google)? and now he is developing the software to discover censorship by Google. However, those who regard Google as questionable were minority groups in Japan.

It shows that concern for the censorship of Google is a national level that a Japanese independent administrative agency accepted this business. It is very clear! You must not remove it! 202.225.235.52 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear that IPA funds the project to develop a software to discover delisted websites by Google due to legal issue and/or technical issue, but that isn't necessarily mean that IPA supports the opinion that Google has been censoring in Japan. So I didn't comment out the statement about the IPA project and commented out others from POV. However, I think that we can write to the article that "Toshihiro Yoshimoto, the owner of the delisted website 悪徳商法マニアックス (Akutoku Shōhō Maniacs, lit. Illegal-business-practice maniacs), claims that Google has been censoring in Japan." What do you think about my opinion?--int main(void) 07:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it's directly related to the Japanese aspect, but Google apparently has a policy to ban public complaints about Japanese spammers. The spam itself is obviously coming from the Japanese yakuza (gangsters who focus on loan shark services and prostitution, but no drugs), so that often means someone is being bribed or threatened to play along. I haven't checked in detail, but Google certainly seems to be crawling some of the websites in question. It's the complaints ABOUT the websites (and the spam for the websites) that Google is censoring. Shanen (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Google-censorship.png

Image:Google-censorship.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in Germany and France

> There is no direct way to check whether a search has been affected in this way.

This is not true! At least the German and the French version show a message at the very bottom of the result page and a link to chillingeffects.org, which explains the reasons:

"In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 8 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."

Try it for yourself: Warning! This link points to search results featuring nazi-content!!!

I think the article should reflect this, and I will update it in a few days. --Autoplombe (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

YouTube censorship

I'm thinking of adding this to the article, but I thought I'd post it here first in case anyone is able to flesh it out a bit:

Apart from blocking users, YouTube is selectively ignoring certain videos in its compilation of "most viewed" statistics. For example, this comedy video featuring "Achmed the dead terrorist" has been viewed over 22.3 million times, but does not appear anywhere in the list of "all-time most viewed" videos, where the top-ranking video has achieved only 21.8 million views. Other similar occurrences are documented in this video.

-- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sites critical of Islam

I think it's important to consider whether the sites were merely "criticising Islam", i.e. in this case expressing a hateful opinion, or whether they were in fact publishing (arguable) factual inaccuracies, which goes way beyond mere criticism. The section should be re-worded to reflect the fact that the opinions expressed by the sites were not necessarily in themselves the reason for censorship. Etaerc (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The effect of image filtering on one website

I added this section because I could find nothing about how Google filtering works. Such filters raise or lower the bar of censorship. This section casts light on how Google works and the effect it can have on websites that find themselves deemed to be carrying explicit images. The section was deleted without any form of explanation; I reinstated it. This is an element of the topic worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magforum (talk • contribs) 11:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I explained in the edit summary that it was original research. That is, a contributor came to their own conclusion and added that conclusion to the article. Instead, we generally only include material that can cite a reliable source - a article from a reputable newspaper on censorship by google would be fine. Andjam (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Censorship by Yahoo!

Why is there no page about Yahoo!'s censorship? Just wondering. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

More Google Censorship!

I just did a search on "Obama: WRONG Change for Children" where the page with all words appearing appeared 8th on the list and the ones appearing ahead of this item had only two or three words and were articles from newspapers that they apparently wanted to highlight about how Obama represents "change". Now that we see companies like Google and YouTube are slowly using their technology to try to influence people for political gain as has been the case for some time in the major media, who can we trust? This is the company that supposedly hates censorship!!!. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.113.251 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

EvilRank

Ah-hem. The official name of the Google Censorship technology is "EvilRank"

China doesn't mind?

I have added a 'citation needed' tag to the statement "Most Chinese Internet users did not express their feelings about Google's choice". Were most chinese internet users aware of the changes? Were they allowed a safe way to express their feelings? Were they asked?

Fishiface (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire sentiment as it is an unverifiable claim. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bhumibol feet king vids?

What about Youtube removing videos by force that make fun of Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand? I noticed alot of people calling censorship on that one, so...75.72.92.166 (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Is google still banning xenu.net?

When I run the search provided in the citation http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Axenu.net+scientology, the sites seems to come up just fine without any removal or disclaimers. Are the claims made in this section of the article still accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.43.118 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Xenu.net is a website. You can readily search anti-Scientology things on Google, including Xenu.net pages, anytime. They are there. Stop confusing Scientologists deliberately SPAMMING Google hits in order to lower such sites out of immediate view. 203.59.213.54 (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Google took down all links to xenu in 2002 (as per the refs, and multiple news agencies), but they appear to be back up now. They also removed all links under this DMCA complaint, which are still blocked. The refs and wording definitely need work, but it's probably best not to remove the whole USA section without discussion. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 06:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the DMCA takedown notice for xenu can be found here. The links in that notice are not accessible through Google. They have obviously narrowed the ban from the whole site (as originally requested) to just the infringing pages. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 06:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Finkelstein

I don't want to join an edit war, but this proposed edit,[7] does not have any reliable source, and consists largely of original analysis / opinion. The claim that there are no google links to Norman Finkelstein's blog site is sourced only from a letter an individual wrote to a partisan journalist's blog. On the other hand, you can check for yourself and at present this seems to be true. The other statements (that this appears to be true, that the site is a "previously top-rated result", that this is a matter of Google "explicitly endorsing political censorship in the US", that it is the first example of such, and that "Google China has used similar policies for some time") are all uncited. Per WP:BRD, WP:V, and WP:RS proposed content like this that is challenged should remain out of the article until and unless there is a consensus. Can anyone justify why the material should be on Wikipedia by finding a reliable source? Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Something very odd is going on here. My last edit, in which I simply state what everyone can verify, and provide a reliable source, is being systematically cancelled, by one administrator on demonstrably wrong grounds, and now by a newby, since my edit merely states what Philip Weiss notes on his website. There is no mention of censorship. A fact, verifiable in 10 seconds by anyone, is recorded and sourced. The explanations given are not grounded in policy, or even in reading the last edit I made. What therefore is going on?Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is Philip Weiss not a reliable source? (Published by The New York Observer, The Nation, The American Conservative, National Review, Washington Monthly, New York Times Magazine, Esquire, Harper's Magazine, and Jewish World Review, and author of American Taboo: A Murder In The Peace Corps). He is a very well know reporter, published in a dozen respectable newspapers and mags? All journalists are partisan. He has as much profile as many others regularly quoted for their opinions. I do not quote his opinion, I quote a fact both he and his correspondent remark on, which anyone can verify, without saying whether this is censorship or not. Like Weiss and many others, I check NK's site every week, and for the couple of years it always came up first. It doesn't as of two days ago. That is noted, and sourced.I have no responsibility for the rest of the text. Elide what is unsourced, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS and WP:OR. The source is not Philip Weiss. It is a letter by a reader to the Philip Weiss blog. The Philip Weiss site itself is not reliable either because it is a self-published blog. Reliability is not a matter of stating site owner's credentials - in this case a partisan journalist / editorialist publishing in his area of partisanship. It is a matter of accountability, editorial oversight, etc. Further, posting a google result "which anyone can verify" is clearly WP:OR, and the use of google search results as sources is specifically frowned on around here. If this matter is as obvious as you think, and if it is truly something notable enough that we should mention it in an article about google, surely a reliable nonpartisan secondary source will see fit to write about it in a way that is verifiable. Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the comment 'Agreed', meaning Philip Weiss checked the information supplied to him by his correspondent, which is what reporters and journalists of standing customarily do as part of their professional life. I did not post a 'google result' which any one can verify. I posted Weiss and his correspondent confirming a fact, and added anyone can verify it. There is absolutely no original research involved in my edit on Weiss and his correspondent's remarks. It is certainly notable that a scholar of distinction subject to a denial of tenure on dubious grounds now suddenly disappears from google. Why that should happen will no doubt be analysed in the following days. The stringency applied here is curious, since you, I, and every other editor here will have, with scruple checked the fact, and found it to be independently verifiable, outside of the source. This is not usually demanded, or required, or often even possible. But when one can in 10 seconds prove this is so, anyone can prove it, then commonsense should prevail. To insist against commonsense by hauling in a waggon-train of policy that is there to stop non-obious, unlikely, spurious or poor matter from being dragged into wiki is not, I suggest, an efficient way of going about things. I could be patient, and wait till the Finkelstein technies analyse what is going on, and post it on his site. By the same token, others here could be less impatient, and use their commonsense to allow an innocuous and sourced fact to stand, until the same reports come in. Sometimes policywonking can blind one to the obvious. I hope this does not occur here.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardingless of the reliability of the source, how is the statement "Google appears to lack results in its search machine for Norman Finkelstein's previously top-rated result normanfinkelstein.com" encyclopedic? Google "appears" to lack a result? We need a much stronger verifiable claim of this for it to be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Short of that, it is speculation, heavy in innuendo. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I read Weiss' "agreed" comment. We have two unreliable sources - a letter, and a journalist blogger's approval of the letter. The heft of the resume of a person self-publishing a blog is immaterial, it's still a self published partisan publication. In the field of Arab/Israeli politics in particular there are plenty of people with PhDs and tenure, who publish dueling columns and blogs where they say all kinds of disparaging and contradictory things about each other. The number of reasons why google searches are unreliable is legion, and thoroughly discussed elsewhere. Per WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, etc., poorly sourced material that is challenged as unverifiable stays out, and it is the responsibility of editors proposing to add it to establish sourcing and consensus. If we take this from the realm of policy to reality, what is obvious? It's eyebrow raising that Finkelstein's blog does not seem to appear in google search results and I'm curious to know exactly why. The reason is far from obvious. Attributing this to google censorship for political purposes is utter speculation. Even the source does not do that, the letter writer and Weiss simply note the fact. They're surely raising their eyebrows along with the rest of us. Whatever the explanation is, if it's not a technical glitch or mistake the reality is probably a lot more interesting than any speculation. If there is anything to it some respectable journalist in the world will get to the bottom of it and write about it in a neutral nonpartisan source. Or else they'll try and not be able to get to the bottom of it. In the meanwhile we have nothing to go on before the facts are in. Wikidemon (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

i agree with wikidemon. this blog is not a third party, reliable source. even if this reporter were to be the most honest and reliable (insert famous newspaper) reporter in the history of the universe, i don't see how his personal blog should automatically be treated as a reliable source. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You're both overreading with the hermeneutics of suspicion. There is no disparagement in noting a fact, calling for comment, reviewing that fact, and saying 'Agreed'. This is patently ridiculous, as is the constant insistence that the edit is about 'censorship'. The edit strictly confines itself to noting that a notable journalist checked a fact and confirmed it was a fact. Policy should never wikilawyer the obvious out of existence, as it is being used to do here. So, you are commenting, both, on your suspicions about an edit, not on the verifiable content of the edit. One can do this in wiki: it is one reason why form-worship trumps content, and makes these articles largely unreadable. Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to call it "sticking to policy", and let's please stay with that. I'll be blunt here. I'm not certain the observation is true, significant, noteworthy, or relevant to the article. There is no reliable source for it. There is a reason WP:RS is the way it is, and nothing about this factoid justifies relaxing the rules. This does not look like a close case to me - it is not suitable for the encyclopedia without sufficient sourcing. Wikidemon (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with policy. Discretion is used everywhere. My tech-canny nephew refers me now to 'The Dark Side of Google' which I will now read. Perhaps before thinking about 'The Dark Side of Wiki'.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Discretion and policy both argue against adding information based on blogs and analysis of google searches. Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Noting: in his previous edit (10 lines above), Wikidemon introduces ... significant, noteworthy, or relevant to the article as his criteria, apart from being true. They are new to this thread. I suggest these new ones are of limits to this discussion. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that "http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/robots.txt" is a redirect to ""http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/robots.txt/" (note trailing slash), which is an error. Try putting the robots.txt url into this robots.txt checker, and you will get the message "ERROR: Redirect detected. Please insert the actual file URL". Google may have interpreted this as an opt-out. This looks like a webmaster botch. --John Nagle (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not with Yahoo. -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Or Lycos for that matter. Probably also others. It does look like a webmaster error to me, but I suppose it's possible that someone who loathes NF might have hacked the site. In the absence of good sourcing, this accusation can't remain in the article. NSH001 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how the crawler interprets botched "robots.txt" files. Google has a technical discussion of this.[8] They err in the direction of "opt out" if something goes wrong reading "robots.txt". Other crawlers may not. --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2009

Now NF is top again with Google. Can you check whether the URLs have chainged? -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

With me they still give disallow's. No webmaster thing then?-DePiep (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Curious, it looks to me as though Google have tweaked their crawler, since the robots.txt error is still there on NF's site. Anyway, it's good to see NF's site back where it belongs. NSH001 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Curious maybe, Clearly for sure: at Google's only. Excluding NF-webmaster-thing, and Yahoo-does-this-different-thing. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say what changed. There are a number of things a webmaster can do via Google webmaster tools if a site drops out of Google. The site is apparently created by some piece of software which grinds through a Wordpress blog and cranks out a static web site. There's no webmaster contact. If you read "searchenginewatch.com" or "webmasterworld.com", you discover that stuff like this happens all the time, and it's routinely dealt with. --John Nagle (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, no conclusions so far then. -DePiep (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have reverted an attempt to insert this again in this article,[9] Internet censorship in the United States,[10] and Norman Finkelstein.[11] To avoid carrying on an edit war I will not revert further for now, but if the reversions continue on the article pages I will seek help from Wikipedia administrators to maintain stability. Please, don't make more drama out of this than necessary, do not insult other editors, and do not accuse Wikipedia editors of "censorship". We can discuss this here - it obviously does not have consensus for inclusion at this point but we can talk about it. Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

...vandalism? I think?

There's a small blurb starting with "On June 13", and there's a sentence in it that leads me to believe that it is vandalism...but the citation and the fact that, despite the anti-semitic comment, it is slightly on topic kind of sway me away from that thought...

The point of this post is should that section go away? Fruckert (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Climategate

I'm removing most of the section about Climategate, which currently reads; "More recently, Google has been censoring search suggestions skeptical of climate change, i.e. "Climategate" is forbidden, but "climate change" is ok. Also both "climategate" and "climate gate" search results went from over 12 million to around 6 million results for both. "climate gate" should always yield more than "climategate" as teh Google search algorithm should find all sites containing "climategate" and sites containing both "climate" and "gate", but "climate gate" yields less results than "climategate". This is pointed to as undeniable evidence of tampering since the results are violating the rules of their own search algorithm."

The paragraph is not only incorrect ("climategate" currently returns over 13,000,000 results), but also lacks a citation proving that Google's algorithm "should" return more results for "climate gate" than for "climategate." 199.111.183.124 (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed quite a lot of material like this that seems to be original research. The section on Japan also seemed to be derived solely from a claim by a site owner who has been delisted by Google. --TS 09:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'm putting a lot of it back because you are engaging in exactly the same censorship that we are talking about under the cover of exactness, when you could have simply removed the specifically unverifiable or changing numbers.--193.35.132.151 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can verify that "climategate" is no longer showing up in Google Suggest under the search bar. It was there earlier today. Seems suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.132.236 (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship "by" Google?

Should the title of the article be changed to censorship "of" Google? The lead talks about the company obeying laws. It seems to me the article should talk about censorship initiated and carried out by the company itself or at its discretion or the title should be changed to reflect the broader subject matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve Sailer's blog, reliable?

Steve Sailer's blog has been offered as a source in this article. Keep or deny?

• Pro: Sailer is notable enough to have a Wiki page; he's a commentator in other mainstream news (besides vdare.com)
• Con: It's a blog; his writing is is highly pov; "buchanan" is notable in that context
• Misc: You don't need a source for the claim... anyone can type buchanan into google and see what happens 71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Buchanan is no longer an unperson. Check it and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Google pulls AdSense from non-complying websites.

Google has disabled AdSense to manga related websites that link to Child Pornography as well as removing sites from Google's search index.

• http://www.icaruscomics.com/wp_web/?p=4900
• http://l7world.com/2010/04/google-sponsors-child-pornography.html --BoP 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Racial Hypersensitivity

Regarding "search suggestions" that appear when you begin typing a search in Google:

I noticed if you type "Why are Black people" that lots of suggestions came up, most of which are embarrassing to Black people. Suggestions also appear for any other race, or nationality you might type. However, recently, Google removed those suggestions from the "Why are Black people" search. It is clearly self-censorship, but only where Black people are involved. I feel this should be mentioned.

The suggestions still appear if you type "Why DO Black people," but I am sure they will censor that soon, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddgwynn (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Censorship by Google

An article that you have been involved in editing, Censorship by Google , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The recent changes to SafeSearch should be mentioned in this article.

Earlier this year, Google extended its new SafeSearch restrictions to non-English speaking countries. Previously, these new restrictions had only affected Google's English search results. Jarble (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Google censor anything but Pro-Israeli propaganda?

I have been, frankly, unable to even remotely come up with any sites within even the first few pages of Google search that aren't blatant Israeli propaganda links when trying to Google Palestinian issues. Even Googling the exact phrases from articles I know to exist comes up with the actual article many lines down and the above links containing no real relation to what I Googled (even using "around the phrase") but instead Israeli propaganda sites.

Even more mysterious is that Googling questions regarding this issue or even how to filter it produces absolutely no related links other than blatant Israeli propaganda pages. This is clearly beyond a glitch or search algorithm issue, this is clear censorship of anything that puts Israeli crimes and tactics to light. 124.168.241.91 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Harlequin

Has this been written up or discussed in a reliable third party source? If so, let us know where and something based on that can be added to the article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Google Adsense - April 2014 (NARAL)

I have a thought for anyone reading this who would like to possibly improve the article, as I do not have access to the original information or a wiki account myself.

The statement "In April 2014, though Google accepts ads from the largest lobbying group for abortions, NARAL, they have banned ads from crisis pregnancy centers.[5]", is I believe inaccurate.

For starters, the citation is a site called "LifeNews.com", which is a biased "pro life" group.

Also, there is actually a known problem where pro life groups post ads hoping to catch women who are thinking about abortion. The pro lifers pretend to be pregnancy crisis counselors and other services often looked up by women considering abortion. Then the pro life groups provide those women with information meant to discourage abortions. This eventually caused google to classify such ads as deceptive, and remove them for policy violation... so ... the crisis pregnancy centers line in this wiki entry is totally misleading.

Sorry I don't have better sources, but here's one which discusses the "crisis pregnancy center" deceptive ads: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/ads-from-prolife-groups-removed-by-google-over-deceptive-claims-30245527.html ... also note that NARAL is an actual legit organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.136.52.128 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Changes were made several days ago that, hopefully, address this. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Name redacted

Is it worth adding in a list of topics and people that have been left off by Google. So people can go and find out this information, without having to subscribe to a news service like Factiva? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.116 (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. I think including a few examples might be OK, but I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to try and maintain a complete list. Among other things, keeping such a list up-to-date will be too hard. And in the longer run the right to be forgotten in EU countries won't just be an issue for Google and so the "Censorship by Google" article probably isn't the best place for such lists. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not. Naming non-notable people in this way is the plainest violation of the community's BLP policy, which applies to living persons named on any Wikipedia page. See my note on the list of people who have petitioned for the right to be forgotten and the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have petitioned for the right to be forgotten. In addition we have the issue that in fact it's not known who makes these take down applications. Moreover there is no such things as "right to be forgotten" in EU law (the proposed new directive proposes a "right to erasure"). The recent EU ruling Costeja did not determine such a right, and there are a number of grounds on which applicants can request take-down from search engines such as Google now that Costeja has determined search engines are date controllers within the meaning of the directive. Nor does the information linked necessarily need be prejudicial to the applicant. For example the applicant could have been the victim of a sexual assault named in criminal proceedings. Or a victim of so-called revenge pornography. The IP might profitably look at WP:NOTNEWS RR 2014 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC censored by Google

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28851366 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is already mentioned as part of a long list about pages removed by Google due to the 'right to be forgotten' at the end of the sub-section on the European Union. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Confederate Flag

Googling "confederate flag" under Google Shopping shows absolutely zero results, while googling "flag confederate" or other synonymous terms does. This appears to be worldwide. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia etiquette, so someone else should add this info to the article.2.86.19.19 (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just adding it like that would be original research, we can add it if we have reliable sources to back up the claim of censorship. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Censorship by Google

Cyberbot II has detected links on Censorship by Google which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/larry-page-unblock-the-word-bisexual

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Change.org is referenced in a paragraph that describes a petition to remove Google's blacklisting of keywords. The link seems appropriate in this context, so I think it should whitelisted here. Jarble (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Censorship by Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060515015927/http://www.factnet.org:80/Scientology/Google_Scientology.html to http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/Google_Scientology.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091014170024/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/10/odds-and-ends-557.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/10/odds-and-ends-557.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Montenegro

The autocompletion of "Montenegro" on searches works now (20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)), and probably has for years; I've added that update. Mistaken autocompletion/ autocorrection is common on many terms, apparently depending on what has been searched for in the past, and is not particular to "Montenegro"; I've removed that sentence. Thnidu (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Looting, cronyism, shock therapy, and the oligarchs (Russia) post fall-of-the-wall

1st edit: I'll keep the first version of this below. At the time I thought the name "Napoleoni" in the Advanced Search phrase box should have led into more, but perhaps I had been away from the issue too long and was forgetting too many key words. This search I did last night seems to open up to the saga quite a bit. But I haven't been through many pages of the search, or many of the url/sites. https://www.google.com/search?as_q=oligarchs+traffiking&as_epq=shadow+economy&as_oq=Jeffrey+Sachs+shock+therapy+neoliberal+&as_eq=winters&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Original draft: Might be me, but there seems to be a bit of a black out. Even when putting "Claire Sterling" in the Advanced Search phrase box, hardly anything turns up (discovered by watching her single Youtube [80s] she wasn't as un- [politically] biased as I had hoped). Putting "Loretta Napoleoni" in the phrase box doesn't do anything eitherApuleius3 (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Apuleius3 (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2014 (UT

1st edit: Today (the day of the edited-opening para up there at the top) is Thur April 3 and it's 5:30 PM EST in the US. 70.160.46.113 (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Apuleius3: Searches work better if you spell the search terms right. You left out the "c" in "trafficking". --Thnidu (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Censorship by Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130403130255/http://dogdvd.com/video/APP1.wmv to http://dogdvd.com/video/APP1.wmv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Montenegro seems to be censored again

"Search suggestions" says Montenegro has been unbanned, but I can't search the term on Google anymore. Can anyone else confirm this?--Eurotool (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• • I agree, Montenegro it is still banned word. Shame on Google. (Ironically, words Niger and Nigeria work fine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.125.229 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Censorship by Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130095413/http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2004/05/17/google-somewhat-lifts-oceana-ad-ban to http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2004/05/17/google-somewhat-lifts-oceana-ad-ban
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515015927/http://www.factnet.org:80/Scientology/Google_Scientology.html to http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/Google_Scientology.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Censorship by Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150314220758/http://groveatlantic.com/ to http://www.groveatlantic.com/#page=isbn9780802142979

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Lolicon Term Censorship

Google's censorship on the "lolicon" term dates back to 18 April 2010 and still wasn't properly addressed in this article, and now with the removal of the part of the article that talked about the issue regarding the "loli" term and Tumblr, a content that was on the article for years, by an user called ViperSnake151, who claimed to had done so due to tag violations, I tried to undo this change, but user Neutrality undid it claiming that it didn't have the necessary references, at the moment it is indeed very difficult to find relevant references to a ban on a word by google search and the removed content of the article used a link to a google search as a reference to show that it was being censored; aside from that, the ban on the exact term "lolicon" was never addressed here and suffers from the same problem of lack of references as the now removed content, it is plausible to assume that it is necessary to address this censorship by google in this article, even with the difficulty that it is to find references regarding this subject, I would like to discuss that matter here with the people interested in this topic, and not only the formerly mentioned users. -Cilinhosan1 (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Proceeded on adding the content, placed below Google Search, more content to add and planning on header level 3 - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources / improper self-published sources / WP:SYNTH

Cilinhosan1,

The text that you're trying to add doesn't comply with our policies. Specifically:

• We strictly limit the use of self-published sources for contentious claims.
• Opinion articles are not citable for making any contentious characterizations or contested factual assertions in Wikipedia's own voice. Opinion articles can only be used if they are significant to the article topic (WP:WEIGHT) and properly attributed usually in-text. If a factual claim can only be found in opinion pieces, that is often a sign that it's total bullshit.
• We cannot use sources that don't explicitly or very clearly discuss "censorship" or censoring content. Trying to shoehorn in sources that don't discuss censorship in an article about censorship is original research, which is not permissible.

Re your edit, let me go through each of the cites from top to bottom and explain the problems.

• First section
  • WorldNetDaily - not a reliable source; this is a fringe/opinion source known for promoting conspiracy theories. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and search the archives.
  • EWeek - article does not use the word "censor" or "censorship" at all, so this is WP:SYNTH. Also, Google choosing to exclude fringe opinion websites from its News aggregator is not "censorship" as the term is commonly understood.
  • "NewMediaJournal" - primary, self-published source from 2006, making a self-serving claim. This fails WP:SELFPUB.
  • "American Thinker" - opinion website (and a low-quality one at that) - not citable for assertions of fact, does not support significance within article topic
  • U.S. News opinion column - again, an opinion column not citable for assertions of fact. Robert Epstein is a somewhat notable Google critic, but an opinion column absolutely can't be used for making these claims in Wikipedia's own voice

• Second section
  • Forbes "contributor" opinion blog - another opinion column - not a reliable. Forbes has a "massive" network of virtually self-selected opinion bloggers who can write almost whatever they want, see here and here ("There is no traditional editing of contributors' copy, at least not prior to publishing")
  • "The Blaze" - not a reliable source; opinion-based website. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and search the archives.
  • "WebProNews" - no indication that this is a reliable source. If you disagree, go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and get consensus for it.
  • "Search Engine Land" - article does not use the word "censor" or "censorship," so this is WP:SYNTH. In any case a private company deciding not to list weapons-related items for sale is not what "censorship" means.

• Third section
  • This is all self-published or unreliably sourced content. Until there is a third-party, reliable, secondary source, it doesn't belong here. Again, if you disagree, go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and get consensus for it.

• Fourth section
  • Washington Times - a low-quality source, but more importantly the article doesn't at any point say that any content was "censored" or refer to this as "censorship" - WP:SYNTH
  • Engadget - again, article doesn't at any point say that any content was "censored" or refer to this as "censorship" - WP:SYNTH. Google says issue was technical error as well.
  • The Verge - once more, article doesn't at any point say that any content was "censored" or refer to this as "censorship" - WP:SYNTH.
  • And, in any case, the entire story is bullshit, as this PolitFact write-up from June 2016 shows.

--Neutrality^talk 20:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to add content the way you've just mentioned, you are the one trying to remove part of the article's content that was already there for a long time, the only thing I added were resources to what you removed and part of the lolicon content that was already in the article for almost one week, I will then proceed with the discussion:

• First section:

I understand that you do not classify these sources as reliable, but do you think that it is the correct decision to remove content indentifying censorship by google that happened more than 10 years ago just for the fact that there weren't any mainstream news sites that covered what happened? I think that we should favor keeping the content and use these sources, as referred in WP:PRIMARY, appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue and deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense.

• Second section:

I agree with the classification of Forbes as unreliable; I disagree with TheBlaze as being classified as unreliable, since it can be seen on the archives of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that there isn't a reason to object it when it is just being used as a better source to support a statement; in this context WebProNews is a reliable source and as I disagree it is you who need to go to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, since I'm not the one adding this content, but it is you who are trying to remove it, you are the one who need to get consensus; what you're stating about Search Engine Land is completely ridiculous, just because the article use the word "bans" instead of "censors" doesn't mean that it cannot be used as a reliable source here. It isn't you who decide what is censorship or not, just because it is ok for a private company to start prohibiting the listing of weapon-related item for sales it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't censorship.

• Third section:

The content regarding the censorship of the site Little White Butterflies is essential and is directly related to the censorship of the term lolicon by google, and it even happened consecutively to the censorship of the term, in the exact same day, enhancing the article even more regarding the censorship of lolicon content. Regarding the validity of the sources, I cited Anime Gerad, Tsurupeta and the notices released by the censored site itself, Little White Butterflies; Anime Gerad is a news site about anime content, and analysing on a case-by-casis basis as recommended in WP:NEWSORG, this source can be considered reliable on this specific content, dealing with lolicon censorship, since it is in its area of expertise; Tsupereta is another site which used to report news related to anime content, albeit less reliable than Anime Gerad, it is also a relevant source regarding this specific content; The notices released by Little White Butterflies is an essential source and it is a reliable primary source since it is being cited to something about itself, and thus it is considered reliable. And, no, it belongs here, since reliable primary sources can be used, as seen in WP:PRIMARY.

• Fourth section:

I agree that the content regarding the fourth section should be removed, which relates the event on September 2012, and the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign.

-Cilinhosan1 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that we agree as to the fourth section. As to the rest:

(1) You ask: "it is the correct decision to remove content... just for the fact that there weren't any mainstream news sites that covered what happened?" Yes. That is exactly right. If we can't find reliable, secondary sources, we don't include it. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

(2) As to "WebProNews" I'm not seeing any indications of reliability - for example, articles are unsigned, I don't see editors listed, there is no indication that they have a professional journalistic staff, and I don't see other sources relying upon it. And yes, the fact that an article does not use the word "censorship" is important. The term is loaded, and we cannot just use it because we think it might apply.

(3) again, these sources aren't professional or journalistic in nature. Nor is there any reason to think that primary sources are "essential" here.

More generally: content related to Google News criteria should go in the article Google News. Content related to ad content rules should go to the articles AdWords and AdSense. These articles deal with thpse program's content guidelines, not "censorship." Neutrality^talk 00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) While you are resorting to essays to justify your opinion, mine is based on the WP:PRIMARY policy, which I believe is what we should rely on when these making decisions, and I believe that in this case we should keep it.

(2) As I said, you need to find consensus on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to classify WebProNews as unreliable here, and the TheBlaze source is reliable in this situation, and I think that using the word "ban" instead of "censor" to describe an act of censorship doesn't make the necessary amount of difference to classify a source as unreliable.

(3) Again, these sources are valid here in this specific context, for the reasons I stated previously, also based the guideline WP:NEWSORG. They're essential here as it is closely related to the censorship of the term, as being a site that supported lolicon content, even happening on the same day that the term was censored, it is clearly the correct decision to keep the content.

More generally: any content related to censorship by Google should be here, be it Google Search, Google News, Google AdSense or Google Maps. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot of argument by assertion. I've explained in detail why the content is unacceptable. The baseline policies are WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT. This fails all three. Neutrality^talk 01:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with what you said, and I've already explained why, you failed to understand and I replied, I don't think that I'm the one doing argument by assertion here; what you're referring as "this" doesn't fail any policy, and I've already explained why. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

On the whole, I think this can be a very useful article. But, some comments to your comments:

• First Section – These really are poor sources, and they appear to be pushing a WP:POV with no attempt at balance. If you cannot find reliable secondary sources, ask yourself “Why”.
• Second Section – In addition to the poor sourcing, I’m not comfortable with the attribution of ‘censorship’ to Google Shopping. This seems to be more along the lines of a business decision. Just like your local grocery store, they probably don’t include sex toys either.
• Third Section – It’s conceivable that something happened to someone here. But, the citations give me no reason to believe anything. Some dead links, a self-claim of: “blocked on Google we are” with no explanation, an archived post somewhere. This can’t be the sourcing for encyclopedia content.

A couple of asides. First, there appears to be a general conservative WP:POV push here with discussions of anti-Islam, guns, abortion, and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps not purposely. Secondly, The article is titled “Censorship by Google”. In most readers’ minds, that means Google Search. I’m bothered by the conflation of Google Search, Google News, Android, AdSense, Google Maps, Google Shopping, and YouTube. Censorship in Google Search could be considered a legitimate issue. Much of the remaining may consist of business and technical decisions that might not merit an article on their own or the attribution of censorship. Objective3000 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000,

• First Section - Keeping this content on the article would not be pushing any WP:POV here, and deeming these sources as unreliable in this context is not correct.

• Second Section - "In addition to the poor sourcing", the only poor source here is the Forbes source, the other ones, WebProNews, TheBlaze and Search Engine Land are reliable sources here.

• Third Section - Your beliefs don't justify the classification of a source as reliable or not; "Some dead links" - there are only five links as sources to the removed content, and they being still alive or not doesn't classify them being as reliable or not as long as they are properly archived; "A self-claim ... with no explanation" - two of the links are primary sources explaining what happened, while the other three are articles on reliable sources on the matter clearly explaining what happened.

The only discussion here is Censorship by Google in a NPOV. Just because you're "bothered" by it doesn't mean that we should remove content from an article, as the argument "I just don't like" usually carries no weight whatsoever, as said in WP:TALKDONTREVERT. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You have translated my attempts at civility into “I don’t like it”. Given your responses at RSN and here, I tend to think this discussion isn’t likely to be productive. The removals were accompanied by valid reasons stated in detail. You will need to gain consensus before restoring the content. Objective3000 (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact that is not correct, as stated in WP:NOCON, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.", which means that the version of the article that should be kept is the one prior to the edits made by Neutrality, which is this one, but I think that we should remove what we all agree that should be removed, and only keep the things that we didn't agree. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

defect link: "hiddenfromgoogle.com" by afaqtariq is down for everyone

Please have a look at the link "hiddenfromgoogle.com" given at the end of the article. This website is not available anymore (if it hasn't been mirrored by someone). It would be helpful to find out since when this is the case, why this imho pretty important site has been taken off the web and if any other website has meanwhile taken care of this problem. The creation of an international fund for legal assistance (for NGOs and whistleblowers) would be one approach to deal with such censorship. Not only in my opinion there is no such thing as a right to forget, particularly not for people who try to abuse the legal system. 2003:74:CF25:4CAB:ACE6:EB47:5A25:A0B1 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC) greetings from Heidelberg, Germany

I am not sure what you mean here, but indeed, this website is 404 by now. Zezen (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Google censoring Google censorship

I tested searching "Google blacklist", "Google autocomplete blacklist" and "Google * +blacklist" with the "last year" data range. Nothing: Past year Sorted by relevance All results Clear About 7,080 results (0.64 seconds) A privacy reminder from Google Remind me later Review

No results found for Google autocomplete +blacklist. Results for Google autocomplete blacklist (without punctuation - Learn more):

Curiously, the newest relevant results come from 2010 only.

Check for yourself: http://archive.is/ATsT9 (try changing the date range!) Zezen (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Censorship by Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620060248/http://www.chillingeffects.org/keyword.cgi?KeywordID=2 to http://www.chillingeffects.org/keyword.cgi?KeywordID=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620060248/http://www.chillingeffects.org/keyword.cgi?KeywordID=2 to http://www.chillingeffects.org/keyword.cgi?KeywordID=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608175835/http://earth.google.com/katrina.html to http://earth.google.com/katrina.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Google cenzorship in Hacker News and other platforms?

Here is a Hacker News post "Poland's oldest university denies Google's right to patent Polish coding concept" which got to #1 in an hour, and another hour later it was suppressed to ~ #50: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15059159

Some its comments: "Why this news, posted 2 hours ago, slided from front page to 40th position in about 2 minutes? It's got 251 points, 52 comments which is way more than anything on the front page?"

"Same here, I saw it at the top, after I read the comments and refreshed the main page, it was gone I found it on the 46th spot."

"This post had 251 points in two hours. It was no 1 post for some time and now it was downgraded to 42ND position in the list. 2 hours after posting with 251points. How is it possible????"

"#3 168 points 7h IOCCC Flight Simulator #72 280 points 6h Poland's oldest university denies Google's right to patent Polish coding concept"

Is there a known connection between Hacker News and Google? Any other suggestions for Google censoring inside other platforms?188.146.101.103 (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A few missing instances of high profile censorship.

How the World Works was censored. A G-rated channel that makes educational content. Louder with Crowder was censored numerous times and almost all content is demonetized. They're a nationally syndicated program so meed all broadcasting standards of no profanity, and super low key content. The Red Elephants have had numerous videos quarantined. The most recent was actually reviewing racist content that YouTube has featured, promoted, or otherwise had forced to trending (they call it 'curating') and had no profanity or any offensive content besides the videos they were reviewing which were by YouTube corporate itself.

Also another famous case was the 'BLM Kidnapping' video was notoriously banned, even I uploaded a copy after hearing they were taking it down near instantly--yet leaving up child abuse material, and violent / gore content of murders by terrorists--to see if it was legit. The take down message was 'invalid or missing meta tags', which was not correct. But everyone else I spoke to reported the same. I suspected they were trying to censor BLM's association with the kidnapping, so I published screen shots of the youths who kidnapped the guy's Facebook page showing they were BLM activists, and footage of a professor of anthropology and culture addressing the evidence within the video alone. It went down in minutes. I'm politically neutral, so it was interesting with a channel -filled- with non-political content focused primarily on anti-censorship they'd still take it out instantly. It seems that when they do decide to censor things it is done arbitrarily with no forethought, consideration, or ability to appeal or discuss the matter. It's just a blanket totalitarian move to push a political agenda through censorship.

There's so many instances I literally cannot think of them. Yet for some reason literally ALL of the politically focused censorship YouTube has been conducting including the Adpocalypse and blanket demonetization (esp. during peak viewership, usually allowing remonetization so they can claim it wasn't intentional and blame it on 'the algorithm' yet guarantee no one can collect monetization during the period the content gets 98% of it's traffic. To be honest I am somewhat suspicious that this is being 'curated' (their word for censorship or manipulation of reality) by Google employees as it's really only brushing the surface. If there's any editors around who monitor or work on this article with moral integrity, I strongly urge you to look into YouTube's open censorship of people on political grounds. Their pushing of political agendas also leads to extensive censorship. It's not hidden, it's not hard to find. Apparently YouTube are shutting down 1 channel every minute for political reasons now. Agendabender (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a fair example of why Wikipedia's reputation is so sketchy.

I found my way to this article and did a ctrl-f browser search for the word "conservative" and it's nowhere to be found in the entire article. This is particularly ludicrous being as Google's leftist bias has been scrutinized lately, including the Prager U lawsuit among other incidents that have been in the news. Heck, even googling "google censorship" without quotes brings up a plethora of results specifically discussing criticism of Google for real or perceived anti-conservative practices including flat-out censorship.

Just one more example of how Wikipedia is polluted and diluted by the same kind of heavy-handed gatekeeping that's infected the search-tool industry, which used to be objective, clinical, and "non-fuzzy." How many viable, talented editors have you driven away since "East Anglia Consensual Climatic Research Facility Email Hacking Incident" or whatever ended up as the ridiculous obfuscating title for the Climategate affair?

I expect this talk entry will be deleted in keeping with Wikipedia's penchant for jealous one-sided "guardianship" and pseudo-lawyering. MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is developing an unfortunate reputation for political bias and sadly it's damaging the sites credibility. This has only gotten worse in recent years as Western politics has become more hostile.--Comnenus (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I did the same thing. Ctrl-f "right wing" or "conservative" and there is nothing. Stryker Genesis (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep, it's a damn shame this site is near worthless when it comes to politics due to the increasingly one-sided personal politics of the vast majority of editors/admins. (All worth it though to silence the icky conservatives)207.138.219.241 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

MacheathWasABadBadMan Guys, you are welcome to add any information you believe is relevant to this article, but following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, such as that the information needs to come from reliable sources. If you add info and for some reason it gets removed, be patient and work through the process, asking for a third-party opinion, opening a request for comment, seeking admin help, researching policies and guidelines. Just be patient. Wikipedia is not perfect and many times one's opinion doesn't prevail but other times it does. Thinker78 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Thinker78:, MacheathWasABadBadMan's edit was over a year ago. Don't know why you un-hatted this as there is nothing useful. O3000 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The editor had a legitimate concern that deserved to be addressed. It was improper to close the thread just to quiet criticism. Thinker78 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not fold this to quiet criticism. Please assume good faith. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I also did the same thing, came to wikipedia to find google's censorship of conservative slanted media. What about mass shooters' manifestos? You do not need a source to find clearly for any mass shooter's 'manifesto,' google will not show any results, you will need to turn to duckduckgo or bing. The information about abortion is also muddled with trivia. What about concrete instances of censorship, such as removal of a "pro-life music video" from youtube? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.121.184 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

9/11 Search suggestions censorship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"september 11 conspiracy" --> suggestions are "september 11 consequences","september 11 constellation"

"9/11 conspiracy" --> no suggestion

screenshots https://imgur.com/EXITJkf --İnkanyezi (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Good Censor

Is there a reason that "The Good Censor" Google leak is not mentioned even in passing in an article about Google censorship? Not even to refute claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7042:6000:B57E:F62C:316C:695F (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

YouTube Heroes

Greetings Experienced Wikipedians,

I am new to editing Wikipedia and your help and advice would be much appreciated. I have been assigned to this article for an Information Systems class I am taking which cooperates with Wiki Education. I have added a section about the YouTube Heroes incident, as requested on the article's talk page. I would appreciate any feedback on the verifiability of the sources used and whether the information provided is considered to be "original research."

Catwilsonaz (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m afraid I cannot find any reliable secondary sources WP:IRS that call this censorship. It was called that in user comments, which aren’t usable. Looks like a program that just didn’t work out and was dropped.

O3000 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC) [Migrated from article page Catwilsonaz (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)]

I'm not sure if this should be considered censorship either. The only reason I added the section to the article is because it was specifically requested on the talk page by [[12]]. One source I used is a secondary source summarizing the incident which I found to be reliable according to WP:IRS. However, I am not opposed to removing the section entirely because I'm not sure it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability and verifiability.

Catwilsonaz (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes

I removed this for several reasons. First, the cite takes you to an odd page. When I clicked on the video, I received a malware alert. Secondly, the page says it is an AP story. I found the AP story[13], and it doesn’t say what the Fox page said. It said nothing about Hamas complaining about the video. Thirdly, the actual AP story adds that at the time YT was being pressed to remove violent videos. YT did remove it stating it was inappropriate. After review, they restored it a few hours later labeling it inappropriate for minors. I don’t see how anyone can claim this is censorship. O3000 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

1st reference

Where in the first article used as reference does it support the first sentence? How can Google censor anything if what is removed by Google can be posted elsewhere as free speech? People are confusing moderation for censorship. Only authority may censor. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted contribution

Hi there,

Not a frequent and skilled Wiki editor (yet), but I just noticed that my edit was deleted by an account called Objective3000. I would like to oppose to this since I don't think his/her argument for removing my contribution is fair nor valid and can be applied to the entire sub section I contributed in.

I posted the following in the “Search suggestions” sub section of this page: “Around December 2016, following complaints of antisemitism, the search giant has removed autocomplete suggestions in its search engine. The reason for this was that if you typed the phrase “are Jews” into Google, the search engine suggested “ are Jews evil” as a potential question. ”

Can a senior editor help me out here? I believe the removal from Objective3000 was not correct nor just and therefore would like to see someone who is skilled enough to fix this conflict here.

Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousGianni (talk • contribs) 01:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The argument by Objective3000 was "Even if true, don't see how this is censorship. They're just tuning an extremely complex algorithm". I think that's correct. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything about removal of content. Just suggested content at the very top level -- auto-complete. You can still search on "are jews evil". It just doesn't suggest adding "evil" to "are jews". O3000 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

YouTube comments about crime stats by demographic is instantly deleted

Don't know what the citation would be for adding a section on this since I haven't seen a news report. But if you leave a comment comparing the disproportionate rate at which black people are killed by police to the rate at which violent crimes are committed by black people it is deleted within seconds. I think this should be added to the article since it potentially has significant ramifications in regard to the 2020 presidential election where police violence is a big issue, yet one side of the debate is instantly censored. People believe Facebook ads by Russia played a role in the 2016 election and I think this is a similar example of social media forcibly influencing political discourse. This is true on Last Week Tonight videos I'm not sure if it is true for the site as a whole, but other people have said it is. ElThomas (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

ElThomas, got a reliable independent source for that? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"Censorship" by "moderation"? Need to add section

In October 2018 Google CEO Sudar Pichai denied "censorship" but admitted “We don‘t censor, we have moderation policies which we apply equally,”. The [World Socialist Web Site] has asserted that it's articles are being down listed in search results and this amounts to censorship. I propose to add a section on this. FWIW Pinchai said "We have had compliance issues with the World Socialist Review [sic]"; there is no online publication by this name and the print publication of this name ceased in 2011. Tjej (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Please change "In September 2018, Google has removed" to "In September 2018, Google removed". I'm pretty sure that its a spelling error, but correct me if I'm wrong. 71.62.186.68 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. It would either be "In September 2018, Google removed..." or "As of September 2018, Google has removed..." In this case, since it appears to be talking about a single event rather than an ongoing event, the former seems correct. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Google and Voat

I am a bit surprised that I can't locate voat.co on Google at all, regardless of search terms, and even including site:voat.co. Is this domain specifically blocked by Google; has it been documented anywhere? 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:7D2D:6BB1:AF7F:AB70 (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

voat.co shut down its servers and most of the users went to poal.co 2003:E4:870F:E300:C05C:5D56:1BF4:EE91 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)