I would of course make no assertion about the ADL or any other subject that
wasn't true. :) I research and double fact check before I assert anything, as
a matter of pride and ego. That the ADL engaged in large-scale illegal spying
on Americans is a matter of the mainstream public record -- Google it.
There is evidence to suggest that the ADL is working to build a large-scale
surveillance network in tandem with local police departments, JINSA, SPLC, DHS,
Mossad, free-lance sayanim and other parties to be targeted at "anti-Semites"
-- that is, anyone who disagrees with the ADL, the Israel lobby or the Israeli
government. Would some members of Google cooperate with this project? Well,
that's the question on the table. I think probably. Actually, I think
definitely, without a doubt, based on encounters with the kind of personality
type that feels impelled to get involved in such things from motives of
ethno-religious patriotism and zealotry. There is a distinct cult dynamic at
work here which leads to extreme forms of behavior, sometimes crossing the line
into criminal behavior conducted with the utmost self-righteousness and
conviction of divine mission. This is the kind of fanaticism which propelled
the Bush 43 administration into the Iraq War and produced the
atrocities at Abu Ghraib.
LeaNder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sean: With regard to the intrusive explanation, try this search on Google:
>
> 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=
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
>
Sean: Then read the explanation here:
>
> 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
[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..."
>
