Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Google Communications Government Network Networking Open Source Privacy Security Software The Internet Youtube Your Rights Online

The New Censorship: 'How Did Google Become The Internet's Censor and Master Manipulator?' (usnews.com) 246

An anonymous reader writes: Robert Epstein from U.S. News and World Report writes an article describing how Google has become the internet's censor and master manipulator. He writes about the company's nine different blacklists that impact our lives: autocomplete blacklist, Google Maps blacklist, YouTube blacklist, Google account blacklist, Google News blacklist, Google AdWords blacklist, Google AdSense blacklist, search engine blacklist, and quarantine list. The autocomplete blacklist filters out select phrases like profanities and other controversial terms like "torrent," "bisexual" and "penis." It can also be used to protect or discredit political candidates. For example, at the moment autocomplete shows you "Ted" (for former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz) when you type "lying," but it will not show you "Hillary" when you type "crooked." While Google Maps photographs your home for everyone to see, Google maintains a list of properties it either blacks out or blurs out in its images depending on the property, e.g. military installations or wealthy residences. Epstein makes the case that while YouTube allows users to flag videos, Google employees seem far more apt to ban politically conservative videos than liberal ones. As for the Google account blacklist, you may lose access to a number of Google's products, which are all bundled into one account as of a couple of years ago, if you violate Google's terms of service agreement because Google reserves the right to "stop providing Services to you ... at any time." Google is the largest news aggregator in the world via Google News. Epstein writes, "Selective blacklisting of news sources is a powerful way of promoting a political, religious or moral agenda, with no one the wiser." Google can easily put a business out of business if a Google executive decides your business or industry doesn't meet its moral standards and revokes a business' access to Google AdWords, which makes up 70 percent of Google's $80 billion in annual revenue. Recently, Google blacklisted an entire industry -- companies providing high-interest "payday" loans. If your website has been approved by AdWords, Google's search engine is what ultimately determines the success of your business as its algorithms can be tweaked and search rankings can be manipulated, which may ruin businesses. Epstein makes an interesting case for how Google has become the internet's censor and master manipulator. Given Google's online dominance, do you think Google should be regulated like a public utility?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The New Censorship: 'How Did Google Become The Internet's Censor and Master Manipulator?'

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:10PM (#52369849)

    He seems to have it out for Google ever since they detected malware on his website. All of his articles since then have been Google bashing.

    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:16PM (#52369903) Journal

      There's never any historical context to these bitch sessions against Google. Prior to services like Yahoo and Google, searching the Internet could be a very difficult and frustrating experience. The idea that somehow Google is some sort of blacklist is absurd, because prior to Google, there were a lot more sites that were not easy to find. I remember the early days with services like Altavista and Webcrawler, which, while better than nothing, were not very good at all. Hell, I remember in the pre-web days when Archie and Veronica were the best you had for searching.

      The Internet does not need Google. Anyways is free to set up their own search engines.

      • Autocomplete blacklist?

        So, he's complaining that if you want to search for "Crooked Hillary," you have to type the whole phrase, it won't complete it for you?

        Oh, your aching fingers, evil google making you have to type another seven whole characters. I am so sorry you have to do all that extra work.

        By the way, it's not really news. Here's Boing-boing in 2010: http://boingboing.net/2010/09/... [boingboing.net] (pointing to a list at 2600.com: http://www.2600.com/googleblac... [2600.com] )

        • Its more the fact that if you type "Hillary In" you get "Hillary India" which google's own trends show NOBODY is actually looking for whereas you type the same phrase into yahoo or Bing? You get Hillary Indictment which actually IS trending according to Google's own trends, which is what the autocomplete is SUPPOSEDLY based on..

          Oh and just FYI the former CEO of Google is on the advisory committee of HRC and making something like half a million a quarter for his services. If you think a guy whose political views are well known and who is actually working for one side isn't gonna tilt things in his favor? I have a bridge you might be interested in.

          • by bane2571 ( 1024309 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @10:49PM (#52371537)
            I get the following autocomplete results for "Hillary in":
            Hillary Indictment
            Hillary Indictment Odds
            Hillary Instagram
            Hillary Interview
            Is it possible you've previously searched for Hillary India and it is replaying your search?
          • by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @11:12PM (#52371629) Homepage

            First, if you want to search "Hillary indictment" but you're so lazy that you complain if Google doesn't finish typing after you have typed the first nine letters of the search, you're seriously lazy.

            Second, when I type "Hillary in" to the google search box, its first suggested autocompletion is "Hillary indictment" and the second is "Hillary indictment news". So, your google seems to be different than mine.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by hairyfeet ( 841228 )

            ROFL keep drinking that koolaid SJWs, but I can provide citations [youtube.com] showing the manipulation, the fact google's own trends does NOT support what their autocomplete is coming up with, oh and the fact that the CEO is getting paid by HRC, specifically he is owner of "the groundwork" which is a company whose goal is to put HRC in the white house.

            Gee search results aren't backed up by their own trending data AND the CEO is part of a company to elect the person the results are being skewed for? Nope don't see not

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Conspiracy theory much? Google filters a lot of words from auto-correct. Various crimes, the names of porn stars, all sorts of stuff. It's just removed from auto-complete, so that Google doesn't suggest things that would be inappropriate or slanderous.

              In comparison when I search for Aonal wallets on Amazon it suggests "anal" and offers me some Just Glide Anal Lubricant 50ml. I'm not upset or anything, but I might be embarrassed if I asked my Amazon Echo for an Aonal wallet and it tried to sell me anal lube,

            • by ShaunC ( 203807 ) on Thursday June 23, 2016 @01:01PM (#52374771)

              Google is very happy to suggest "Hillary indictment" [imgur.com] to me, with generally right-wing sites among the top results.

            • This is my problem with people who use "SJW" incorrectly. If you use it to disparage anybody you disagree with, it loses all meaning. What's the point of using letters as a slur if a) it refers to something that isn't actually offensive, and b) you use it for things that have nothing to do with women or gays or racial minorities? What does pointing out facts regarding a google search have to do with fighting for social justice?

              It reminds me of the good old days when Rush coined the term feminazi. What does

          • by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Thursday June 23, 2016 @07:09AM (#52372817)

            > If you think a guy whose political views are well known and who is actually working for one side isn't gonna tilt things in his favor? I have a bridge you might be interested in.

            And if a private citizen wants to use his private business to push his personal political views then that is entirely his right. You didn't think citizens united would only work for republicans did you ? Did you think really think only the Koch brothers would try to buy elections for candidates that suit their personal business and political desires ?
            Republicans turned the USA into a complete plutocracy, they don't get to now complain because occasionally a rich guy likes a democrat too - they made this bed now they gotta lie in it.

            Ironically - this is far less insidious than what republicans do. Republican supporting rich guys use dark money and bribes. If the worst thing the democrat-supporters do is to slant their own businesses public operations in favor of the candidate and work for the campaigns - then it's still FAR less corrupt.

            Democrat voters have been demanding that money be removed from politics, that campaign contributions be severely curtailed (or better yet - outright banned) for decades. They've been clamoring against things like superpacs. Warning that the USA would turned into an oligarchy where the rich chose the powerful if these trends were not stopped.
            They were ignored. Their own party politicians stopped fighting and went to feed at the same trough and the republican voters called them horrible people who want to censor political speech (because one dollar one vote is soooo democratic right ?).

            Now you complain ? Because of what, arguably, is the only ACCEPTABLE way a rich person can influence politics ? Seriously I have only three words to say to that: fuck you all.

          • Really? Because mine pops up with indictment right away. Don't be such a conspiracy theorist. I would like to point out that there are several disparaging things about Trump that don't show up either. If you type "does trump have tiny" it does NOT autocomplete "hands." Clearly this is a conspiracy against Marco Rubio. I mean really, anybody who says crap like that needs to realize how stupid and whiny they sound. If you type "trump frau" it does not add the "d" at the end. If you type "trump is hitle" it do

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Prior to services like Yahoo and Google, searching the Internet could be a very difficult and frustrating experience.

        Oh bullshit. This is what DNS was for. People use Google as DNS now. People type domain names into the google search box all the time. Then there is the facebookernet. Google and facebook, that's it now, no need for DNS really.

        'How Did Google Become The Internet's Censor and Master Manipulator?'

        Because you were all sucked in by the name. There were plenty of perfectly good search engines befo

      • In an abstract way, this is true. Practically though, no one can effectively compete with Google.

        There is not much difference in the effective power Google has compared to AT&T prior to being broken up. Both AT&T (then) and Google (now) use intense vertical integration, bundling of various services at below a-la-carte market prices, and large R&D efforts to maintain dominance. While people (such as Sprint) were free to compete with AT&T prior to 1982, the (legal) fact is that there was no

    • by homey of my owney ( 975234 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:17PM (#52369915)
      Be that as it may... How did it happen? We let them.
      • Actually, I think the more honest answer would be: We asked them.

        "We" is collective, of course. It doesn't necessarily mean you or me, but someone asked them. Google is constantly under pressure from various groups/individuals to remove/filter/hide things, and it actually costs Google far more to go out of their way to filter them than it does for it to simply show you what its crawlers found.

        Some of these are completely harmless, like the auto-complete filtering. If you want to type "penis", you'll still g

    • This is perhaps the most spammy link slashdot has ever put out. Just random drivle from a tabloid. What does Bat Boy think about Google? What do the Martian Overlords think? Just turn the page, it will be there.

  • They didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:11PM (#52369859)

    Google is simply buckling under the social, political and commercial pressures - it's completely external. I'm sure Google doesn't *want* to spend dollars having to dig through text to find things that someone finds offensive but we demanded it and they delivered it. Don't shoot the messenger.

    This reads as "You did what I asked? YOU IDIOT!!"

    • Re:They didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:14PM (#52369881)

      We hate us for Our freedoms.

    • Re:They didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:40PM (#52370119)

      This could NOT be more wrong! It is well known companies and company heads all have social agendas!

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Is that really a surprise to anyone? I mean, they have a constant lobbyist presence and have kept one for years now. They've even been taking a position on the 'free trade' bills lately. How can anyone say they're simply neutral, apolitical observers?

    • BS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:23PM (#52370401)

      It gets really tiresome seeing people attempt to claim that all these massive corporations and immensely wealthy people are just powerless to do anything and can't be held responsible for their own actions. Google does what they do for the same reason other powerful companies do, which is nefarious and immoral at best. It should take you all of about 10 seconds of studying the CISPA web campaign to realize that these companies have immense power on politics because masses of people can tune into the message. "Hillary want's us to censor" would have probably ended up in a Sanders candidacy, but Google knows where the power and money should be for them (read Sergey and Larry) to get the best bang for their buck.

      Reality is that people don't get rich and powerful by being stupid. We can however say that the opposite is true, so the poor and ignorant will remain so. It's really really easy to get the ignorant to remain that way too.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sure. For politically charged subjects there are powerful influences behind them and lots of closed-door conversations. It's rarely easy to find the interested parties in any particular action. Heck, the funding of presidential campaigns is shrouded in mystery. Who are the donors and what do they expect to gain from any particular candidate?

        On the other end of the spectrum and "babies are tasty" type web searches it's less clear how Google gains anything by preventing these searches. It's more likely this i

        • by s.petry ( 762400 )

          Google also gains nothing from hiding satellite imagery for military sites, although this is a very sensible thing to do and I'm sure most people would agree.

          I really don't think you thought that through, because they do get things. Money is a form of power, but there are many other kinds of power. If you really can't think of why Google would not do something for cash, you really are not trying.

          The best played fallacy to the ignorant is the ole appeal to emotion, namely intellect and ego. "All the smart people think" is a great gag, and works extremely well. Spend 10 minutes reading comments here, or Reddit, or Twitter, or any other message site, and it's p

  • How? Easy! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:13PM (#52369873)

    Everyone decided that censorship was OK when it wasn't the government doing it, so nobody tried to stop Google.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:17PM (#52369911)

    Stop enriching Google already. Stop sending them the contents of all your emails, stop giving them info about everything you search for, block their tracking shit that's all over the web, use alternate map services, don't send them your real time location throughout the day, etc.

    If enough people don't want Google knowing every fucking shred of personal info about them, and having increasing control over their view of the world, then stop using them and Google withers and dies.

    If you're going to keep using Google services? Fine, but then do please STFU when down the road you don't like the world you created.

    • Stop sending them the contents of all your emails

      I dumped GMail for Kolab [kolabnow.com], and am quite satisfied with that. Costs $3 per month for a privacy-friendly webmail based in Switzerland.

      block their tracking shit that's all over the web

      Using Disconnect [mozilla.org], Self-destructing Cookies [mozilla.org], and UBlock Origin [mozilla.org] seems to get rid of most of the crap on the web without breaking anything.

      use alternate map services

      There's the OpenStreetMap project: check out this [openstreetmap.org] online and this [osmand.net] for mobile.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      Even if all the people in IT would stop using Google, it would not make a difference, because persons are smart and people are stupid.

  • Sadly, it's true (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:18PM (#52369927)

    I noticed the "google censor" effect just the other day when I went searching for some info on a piece of software that is probably considered to be "evil" because it helps aid the circumvention of copyright.

    This is a *very* popular bit of software but oddly enough, Google's search returned almost no results.

    Censorship?

    I think it's pretty obvious.

    • And you decided to censor yourself why? Tell us about this "popular program that Google is afraid to tell us about". Geez that sounded like an awesome click bait link.
      • by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:59PM (#52370257)

        He didn't censor himself!

        Google intercepted his post and censored it for him! That's what the article is all about, and the proof is RIGHT THERE! Right THERE!

        Or a randumb guy on the internet is trying to make himself look cool and edgy by looking for things Google doesn't want people to know about.

        • If only they could actually find something missing from the search results, then the complaints would be so much more troubling. ;)

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by farble1670 ( 803356 )

      Censorship?

      I think it's pretty obvious.

      If you are looking for a white knight to fight your copyright battles, don't look to the corporations.

      Of course they manipulate their results because if they don't get GET SUED for facilitating copyright infringement. The courts tend not to make a distinction when it comes to a tool that's primarily or mainly used to facilitate copyright infringement and one that is only used for it. That's not Google's fault. They are just doing what a corporation does: maximizing profits. In this case that means not distu

      • Yet, strangely enough, Google allows its YouTube service to only tacitly deal with copyright infringements through that service.

        This is why Swift, McCartney and a bunch of other recording artists are pushing for a change to the DMCA that would prevent YouTube from effectively leveraging their music for profit without adequate compensation:

        http://fortune.com/2016/06/20/taylor-swift-youtube/

        Google only censors that which does not stand to make it a profit.

        What I find interesting is that when you file a copyri

        • It is not up to YouTube to police your copyrights. The ad-revenue goes to the content owner — the uploader, until proven otherwise. Feel free to sue them for it.

          It was a neat trick whenever the recording industry got the FBI to investigate copyright claims. I understand it's a lot of work to try to insist that a certain set of bits are yours. I even understand that there are valid economic reasons why we try to pretend non-scarce goods are scarce. Trying to alter the law to force private third parties

        • Do no evil?

          Let me repeat myself:
          Google isn't an idea, a person, a set of rules, a way of living, a philosophy, or anything else. Get over it. "Do no evil" is nothing more than a marketing slogan.

          AGAIN, Google maximizes profits. If that means failing to police YouTube copyright infringements to the absolute max, of course they'll do it. You seem outraged over YouTube's hypocrisy. Well, yeah? There's no Mr. Google making moral decisions. There are just divisions maximizing profits. Moral consistency isn't an attribute o

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:22PM (#52369951)

    Ever thought the no-fly list that you cannot see and cannot change is a bunch of bullshit?

    Well right now a number of house members in the U.S. are having a sit-in to try and base gun control around that same list.

    May as well integrate the YouTube block-list while you're at it I guess.

  • How can this happen! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
    People are lazy. Google is the low hanging fruit everyone picks. Therefore Google has the power, power corrupts, central point of failure, etc.
  • I just tested some of those "controversial" words and while "peni" doesn't even get me "penis", "torren" does get me several torrent-related things (but not "torrent" itself), and "bise" gives "bisexual" and a bunch of phrases containing that word right away.

  • by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:24PM (#52369977)
    There are ten Google Blacklists. Epstein failed to mention, perhaps deliberately, the Kenyan birth certificate blacklist.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:27PM (#52370005)

    Google Play bans Bomb Gaza
    http://www.israelnationalnews.... [israelnationalnews.com]
    http://www.channel4.com/news/b... [channel4.com]

    Google bans Whack The Hamas
    http://jewishbusinessnews.com/... [jewishbusinessnews.com]

    Google Play bans Milo Tosser
    https://twitter.com/riffraffga... [twitter.com]

    Google Play permanently bans developer of "Hilliar Clinton" game
    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/... [breitbart.com]

  • I think Robert Epstein is giving Alphabet (Google) way too much credit in it's ability to "manipulate" people. It is a mega corporation that is only getting bigger. Economies of scale still apply and they're probably trying a lot harder to keep cutting edge rather then manipulating things.

    My experience has been that Google news provides the least biased news source. But as everyone here will know, you get your sources from several places to avoid any bias they might have.

    As for search sources whenever I tr

    • I think Robert Epstein is giving Alphabet (Google) way too much credit in it's ability to "manipulate" people.

      You're misunderstanding his point:

      Honest spammers like him were really proud of their SEO schemes, for it to backfire on them makes them really sad. They feel like their false happiness was stolen from them. They thought they could buy popularity at a discount, that instead of buying ads they could trick an ad company's computers into listing them at the top for free. But the ad company had more programmers than them. Waaaaa, waaaaa, waaaaa.

  • by Dorianny ( 1847922 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:35PM (#52370087) Journal
    Google provides a very popular, but not the only WWW indexing and search service. Personally i have moved on to DuckDuckGO because of their commitment to user privacy.
    • Google may as well be "the Internet" as far as most people are concerned. If your Web site isn't found by Google searches, you might as well not have a Web site. It all depends on whether you want to be found. 90% of people haven't even HEARD of DuckDuckGo.

  • Google blocking torrent searches: using 'filetype:torrent ' gives me more search results than any other search engine, and the DMCA bullshit is not by google. If a search result is blocked you can see at the bottom of the page exactly why. As for politics, it depends on the number of search results based on a query. In your mind 'ted cruz lying' may be equivalent to 'hillary clinton crook' but the results say otherwise. Also Google did not bow down to China's demands for censorship, depriving themselves of
    • Lying ted cruz was said in speeches and tweets by trump about 300 times, and each instance generated a dozen news stories at all the major publications including the same phrase 3 or 4 times along with thousands of disscussions. The result is the page rank for that phrase is massive, all because of Trump. There has been no such use of "crooked clinton" to generate such a comparable page rank.

      His complaint about this is a complaint about phrases being used in society and he's blaming google for what Trump po

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Try to buy ammo through Froogle. The first results won't be actual ammunition. Even becoming more specific (such as ".223 ammunition"), mostly only gives ammo boxes and belts. Live rounds have somehow been filtered (mostly, a few results seem to slip through). In the past, the results gave actual ammunition and not inert rounds and such.

  • Instead of funding a censorship oversight committee, lets fund an open (and/or state-approved) search (think NOAA for weather).
    Most weather forecasts are decoration atop NOAA forecasts.

  • Just now I was typing "How many elephants..." and the moment I hit the "d", it came up with exactly what I wanted, "...does it take to change a lightbulb", first response. You can't beat that.

    Unfortunately the joke sucked, so I won't bother...

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:03PM (#52370279)

    People have been attempting to control information and the social discourse since always. This is not new.

    And whether you like it or not for whatever your political reason... consider that corruption that serves your political interests TODAY can be turned against you tomorrow.

    Don't be that dumb. You either believe in democracy which requires an open exchange of information or you don't and we trend towards kings, aristos, and various other elites that will just control your life for you. And again... while you might like that idea now because you assume said aristos will hold your values... consider that they might not in the future. And at that point your opinion will be literally worthless.

    Stop it now while your vote counts. Or your hypocritical complaint later will be a joke.

  • by Muros ( 1167213 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:08PM (#52370321)

    When I search for something, I type in what I'm searching for. As for the rubbish in the article, here you go. [google.ie]

  • Dipshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chelloveck ( 14643 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:11PM (#52370335) Homepage

    but it will not show you "Hillary" when you type "crooked."

    Just to see how far this goes, I typed in "dipshit" and Google didn't autosuggest "Robert Epstein"! That's an omission that must be corrected!

    • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

      Donald Trump went through a bit of effort associating "Lying" with "Ted." No one else has gone through quite the same amount of effort making "crooked Hillary" a thing. It doesn't matter whether you actually believe she's crooked or not, the exact phrase (that's important) hasn't gotten nearly the exposure as "Lying Ted" did.

    • OTOH, try an image search for Santorum.

      It doesn't work to have a small number of famous people on television repeat a thing. That doesn't make the internet care. You have to have lots of different people saying the thing on the internet for the internet to notice. Most of the talk on the internet about Trump is saying different things than Trump himself is saying.

      Though I am surprised about Robert Epstein, I guess there is just too broad an array of pejoratives to choose from for any of them to get a high r

  • Imagine if Google tech originated with Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook or the CIA.

    Google has been pressured by many powerful forces to modify their offerings, often to reduce Free Speech. They have resisted in many justified cases where some companies would cave. There is the worrisome relationship between Google and the State Department to consider, but overall they've been 'less evil' than almost any imaginable alternative.

  • by Chalnoth ( 1334923 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:20PM (#52370387)
    Back in 2012, Epstein's website got blocked by Google because it was hosting malware [nytimes.com]. He's hated Google ever since.
    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      2012? I hate them since they raped DejaNew.com and blocking porn from the images did not help.

  • You know, you can turn off safe search and get maps of all the bisexual penises you want. If it's not right there on Google, there are sites that cater to that sort of thing. Call me when Google is actually installed on all the routers and dropping offensive packets.

    • I checked a regular search and got "About 8,190,000 results" for "bisexual penises"

      Maps doesn't give any results for bisexual penis, but "bisexual" gives me the LGBT student services at the local University, and "penis" gives me a Japanese fertility temple. I'm very slightly disappointed that google didn't figure out "penis" and list the local adult shops. But "adult shop," which is what the sign outside will actually say, does list them all on maps. "adult arcade" lists the adult shops, and also an over-21

  • 'How Did Google Become The Internet's Censor and Master Manipulator?'

    Mostly through copyright claims, trademark claims, government pressure, lawsuits, and threats by activists.

  • Standard Oil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @08:21PM (#52370755)
    I'm not a fan of regulation, but it might be required in order to break the stranglehold one company gets on a particular industry. The example I always think of is John D. Rockefeller and his company, Standard Oil, which was ultimately broken up into smaller companies due to its absolute domination of the industry which it used to destroy competitors. Google may be in line for at least an investigation into whether it's gotten too big for market competition. Facebook as well.
    • Why should they be subject to regulations incurred by their size when no other company has in the last twenty years?

      Google got where they are by doing a good job--not through anti-competitive practices or corporate skullduggery. If Google somehow irrevocably deletes a significant portion of the internet and then calls it "a natural network correction" while taking home millions of page views, then maybe we can talk about regulating them. Until then what they have isn't a "stranglehold" it's a winning ap

  • I think the guy forgot to switch off "safe search". Clitoris works for me.

  • I don't understand what the issue is..... liberals will point out that the "free speech" enshrined in the Bill of Rights is a guarantee against THE GOVERNMENT censoring you.... conservatives SHOULD be down on their knees thanks the mighty god FREE MARKET for allowing a private company to do whatever they fucking want no matter how bad the ramifications.... and libertarians shouldn't even notice as they haven't invested any energy into any search engine, so they'll simply roam off and use another....

    So wha
  • I gave up on Google News years ago as it appeared quite the opposite: littered with right-wing dog whistle articles from Drudge, Newsmax, Brietbart, and similar dreck.
  • Suggests "Crooked Hillary" after typing in "Crooked". It shows "Lyin' Ted" if you include the apostrophe.
  • by ememisya ( 1548255 ) on Thursday June 23, 2016 @11:24AM (#52374037) Homepage
    I have always considered instant search to be completely and utterly useless.
    Negavites of Instant Search
    - Distracts you from what you are actually trying to type.
    - A partial "result" is not useful until you are done typing.
    - It can display subliminal bias (pull up death, fear, victim as you are searching 'Donald Trump's hat).
    - Often freezes your browser while pulling up your half typed results.
    - Undesired profanity (Try typing 'big black').
    Positives of Instant Search
    - Autocomplete feature on par with highend smartphones.
    - At times, displays multiple suggestions to save you time before you need to write the entire search query.

    I think the decision is clear.

1000 beers served at a Twins game = 1 Killibrew

Working...