Talk:Censorship by Google

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Censorship by Google:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:


Simple English stub[edit]

I've just created it. Template:Enwp based

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)

@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[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Montenegro seems to be censored again[edit]

"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[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Lolicon Term Censorship[edit]

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[edit]

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.

--Neutralitytalk 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." Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)