Talk:Censorship by Google

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Google (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Freedom of speech (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Simple English stub[edit]

I've just created it. Template:Enwp based

Racial Hypersensitivity[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Censorship by Google [edit]

Information.svg 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.[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

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

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)

Google Adsense - April 2014 (NARAL)[edit]

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)

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

Name redacted[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)