Sean: With regard to the intrusive explanation, try this search on Google: > > http://www.google.com/search?q=Jew <http://www.google.com/search?q=Jew> > > You will see the following explanation at the top of the search: > > "We're disturbed about these results as well. Please read our note here."
LeaNder: I don't get a note/explanation on top of the search if I follow your link. I do not get explanations on top if I google "Jew" on Google Germany. The only difference is that over here two (2 see note on the bottom of the page) links are censored maybe its Jew Watch http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=jew&btnG=Suche&meta= <http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=jew&btnG=Suche&meta=> Instead we have a link analyzing the Jew Watch issue: Jew Watch, Google and Search Engine optimization (see link below) high up on the Google.de Search. The explanation came up link no. 4 and the the investigation of the issue on link no 9. Is it still there?? http://sethf.com/anticensorware/google/jew-watch.p <http://sethf.com/anticensorware/google/jew-watch.p> > Sean: Then read the explanation here: > > http://www.google.com/explanation.html <http://www.google.com/explanation.html> > > Question: is Google a universal search engine or is it an ethnocentric search engine? Why does no other ethnic or religious group receive this kind of special treatment from Google? Do Sergey Brin and Larry Page have a special interest in this issue? Is this why Google weirdly tried to censor material on Google Video proving that the BBC announced the collapse of WTC7 a half hour before it actually fell? LeaNder: On first sight it seems the reasons were neither our German/European laws, nor Larry Page's sensitivity but it was triggered by a Steven Weinstock <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5186012.html> [Weinstock = grapevine] I can see the problem with an exception to the rule that opens the road for larger censorship ... As a German I would prefer a different subject at the core of the whole censorship debate . Can you understand??? > Sean: Notice the URL for the "explanation": clearly it's the only "breaking of the frame" of its type on Google search. It's THE explanation, the only one. LeaNder: Its a very special part of Western history. But yes, I agree that it is somehow irritating that demands for censorship mainly seem to lead back to this core lately. But I haven't paid enough attention to the subject. And attention it would deserve. So this may be a superficial impression, too. Can censorship ever be the solution? Will it lead to an ever expanding framework of censorships from this core? ... I don't know. > Sean: Also note that the explanation cites the ADL as an authority. That's interesting, dear Google: the ADL has a proven track record of engaging in large-scale illegal spying on Americans, and is widely (and reasonably) suspected of coordinating its activities with Mossad. You can look it up on Google. LeaNder: OK: when you mentioned the story about ADL first, I couldn't imagine for a second that anybody but an antisemite would ever write something like this. I admittedly was surprised, when I discovered some of the things you mentioned were correct. But I wouldn't know how to evaluate them. Spying on Americans, yes but I simply do not know enough about the case, or the Mark Rich story, or anything else? ... You did forward to your Google Reader a strong criticism of Foxman by a ADL Chicago chapter member not long ago? You see I pay attention to the issue ... And I have to admit that a survey by ADL on European antisemitism once made me slightly angry. It had a very peculiar design considering the state of art in this field. It were only about 10 questions, basically the most common antisemitic prejudices were tested. But then, there seem to be people that honestly believe these things. Who would know better than a German?. Sean: Google needs to be as pure as the driven snow on these matters because of the enormous power it wields, and because of the potential for the abuse of that power. It needs to create the impression of absolute impartiality with regard to controversial political issues. It has already failed in this regard and displayed an evident bias. That is the kind of mistake one never really recovers from -- the seeds of suspicion have been planted by Google itself. LeaNder: Ideally, yes. Ideally google should apply a set of algorithms and than leave the search alone. But ideally there shouldn't be antisemitism either. Unfortunately it exists. > > > LeaNder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - > Google also (and weirdly) provides intrusive editorial commentary on searches which ruffle the feathers of a certain lobby. > > > > I don't quite understand what this means? Could you give an example? > > Personally I simply ignore it when another mail suddenly disappears,thinking I must have clicked the wrong online or desktop button. My longer experience is that working under stress produces these things almost automatically. And my biggest problem is that I usually try to do several things at once. This means I do not always pay the close atttentions every single would deserve. Not that I would not like to have a program that would let me check what exactly happened in hindsight. ... > > That said; I do not know the the people and how they function, so maybe they deserve the benefit of doubt. BUT this is admittedly a story were I wonder if certain basical "pre judgements" are necessary to lean to the other side. ... > > There is a certain air of spectaculum about the whole thing that makes me wonder if it closer to reality or fiction. Although to complicate things: sometimes fiction turns into reality and reality into fiction. > > Tthus I write this with all due respect to your hesitant: "Maybe, maybe..." >
