Why Did ProtonMail Vanish from Google Search Results? (2016)

Post by barry-cotter » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 2:15 PM UTC

benmmurphy wrote: post #123

StreamBright wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christina Hoff Sommers, Dave Rubin, Prager University, all of their content is delisted and demonetized on Youtube. Non of them is illegal content.

I don't think google is to blame for this. This is being driven by what google (rightly) thinks advertisers want and advertisers are worried about their brands being associated with this content. Google is just reflecting the values that a lot of people in society hold. Most people aren't comfortable with people expressing opinions different from what they hold and so this is where we end up.

Post by teddyh » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #127

coldtea wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what exactly is your solution? What law do you put in place, precisely? Forced (inter-)nationalization of Google under the control of the UN. > Google has to provide consumers with whatever information they want, whenever they want it, free of charge? Pretty much yes. Charges should be bared by the Global Federation of Essential Services.

I can't even put into words how shockingly bad this "idea" is.

Post by jrs95 » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 2:21 PM UTC

f_allwein wrote: post #70

StreamBright wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean violate the political stance of Google or any other arbitrary properties they got. You can go and compare search results across Duckduckgo, Bing and Google to get a full picture how much the search results are censored. When people talk about "net neutrality" I always wonder why isn't there outrage against this, because it is definitely not neutral. Same goes to many Google services, most notably Youtube. ht…

No, this is an entirely separate process. The wikipedia link you shared relates to content that is illegal in a country, so consequently Google does not show it. E.g. in my home country (Germany), this includes some types of Nazi propaganda. I would assume all other search engines follow the same rules.

Post by freeflight » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 2:22 PM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #122

StreamBright wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in your country can you look stuff up about China and Tiananmen Square? Well you can't in China. This is censorship coming from the state. Now go on Youtube and look for PagerU videos. I understand that conservative views are not popular in Google but filtering legitimate content is just bad. https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1406441&st... What about Dave Rubin? Does he fall into the same category…

It's important to realize that Google censorship to appease a foreign government sometimes affects search results in all countries, including the U.S. For example, search results worldwide are partly determined by Google's decision to avoid offending the government of Pakistan with content that may be critical of some aspects of Islam: https://lee-phillips.org/youtube/

Post by mcgarnagle » Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 2:25 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #126

coldtea wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like you have a right to appear in Google's search results... It should be, though. It's not 1776. A website like Google is more than a company, it's a public service with immense power of manipulation and influence over countless industries. The law shouldn't be written like we live in the stone age.

Strawman garbage aside, Google is a private company (in the sense that it is not owned by the government), and you objectively do not have any right to appear in their search results. If you can make an argument to the contrary that doesn't revolve around "it's not 1776!" I'd love to hear it, but I seriously doubt that it would be in line with any US law. I don't think there's anything "stone age" about not requiring…