Michelle Malkin: Inside the world of Google censors
Inside the world of Google censors
Several weeks ago, I spoke with GWU law professor Jeffrey Rosen about my curious experiences with YouTube’s mystery censors. Longtime readers will remember the For the past two years, my attempts to re-upload the were blocked. Other users were able to upload it, but it was blocked from my personal channel. Lo and behold, after Rosen inquired about it, the video is now available again.
As of Nov. 16, 2008, the clip was still banned. Here’s the screenshot (for full-size):
As of Nov. 30, 2008, it has magically , with the option “Embedding disabled by request” — which, um, I did not choose.
Curiouser and curiouser. Wonders never cease!
Here’s the relevant part of in the NYT, but make sure to and read Rosen’s entire piece for a penetrating look at GooTube’s inner chamber of content censors and their global impact:
Last May, Senator Joseph Lieberman’s staff contacted Google and demanded that the company remove from YouTube dozens of what he described as jihadist videos. (Around the same time, Google was under pressure from “Operation YouTube Smackdown,” a grass-roots Web campaign by conservative bloggers and advocates to flag videos and ask YouTube to remove them.) After viewing the videos one by one, Wong and her colleagues removed some of the videos but refused to remove those that they decided didn’t violate YouTube guidelines. Lieberman wasn’t satisfied. In an angry follow-up letter to Eric Schmidt, the C.E.O. of Google, Lieberman demanded that all content he characterized as being “produced by Islamist terrorist organizations” be immediately removed from YouTube as a matter of corporate judgment — even videos that didn’t feature hate speech or violent content or violate U.S. law. Wong and her colleagues responded by saying, “YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view.” In September, Google and YouTube announced new guidelines prohibiting videos “intended to incite violence.”
In addition to Lieberman, another outspoken critic of supposed liberal bias at YouTube and Google is Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist and blogger. Malkin became something of a cause célèbre among YouTube critics in 2006, when she created a two-minute movie called “First, They Came” in the wake of the violent response to the Danish anti-Muhammad cartoons. After showing pictures of the victims of jihadist violence (like the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh) and signs declaring “Behead Those Who Insult Islam,” the video asks, “Who’s next?” and displays the dates of terrorist attacks in America, London, Madrid and Bali.
Nearly seven months after she posted the video, Malkin told me she was “flabbergasted” to receive an e-mail message from YouTube saying the video had been removed for its “inappropriate content.” When Malkin asked why the video was removed, she received no response, and when she posted a video appealing to YouTube to reinstate it, that video, too, was deleted with what she calls the . Malkin remains dissatisfied with YouTube’s response. “I’m completely flummoxed about what their standards are,” she said. “The standards need to be clear, they need to be consistent and they need to be more responsive.”
I watched the “First, They Came” video, which struck me as powerful political commentary that contains neither hate speech nor graphic violence, and I asked why it was taken down. According to a YouTube spokesman, the takedown was a routine one that hadn’t been reviewed by higher-ups. The spokesman said he couldn’t comment on particular cases, but he forwarded a link to Malkin’s current YouTube channel, noting that it contains 55 anti-jihadist videos similar to “First, They Came,” none of which have been taken down. (“First, They Came” can now be found on Malkin’s YouTube channel, too.)
The removal of Malkin’s video may have been an innocent mistake. But it serves as a reminder that one person’s principled political protest is another person’s hate speech, and distinguishing between the two in hard cases is a lot to ask of a low-level YouTube reviewer. In addition, the publicity that attended the removal of Malkin’s video only underscores the fact that in the vast majority of cases in which material is taken down, the decision to do so is never explained or contested. The video goes down, and that’s the end of it.
One of our is still blocked from YouTube and falsely labeled
Here’s the screenshot as of 11/30/08 12am:
is also blocked with the same false label.
***
On a related GooTube note, the court case of proud mom Stephanie Lenz, who has been threatened by rock star Prince and Universal Music Group for posting a to Let’s Go Crazy” in her kitchen, is proceeding. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (which helped me another baseless UMG takedown attempt over my ) took up Lenz’s cause. All the latest is .
***
Flashback:
Flashback:
You must be to post a comment.
Inside the world of Google censors
Several weeks ago, I spoke with GWU law professor Jeffrey Rosen about my curious experiences with YouTube’s mystery censors. Longtime readers will remember the For the past two years, my attempts to re-upload the were blocked. Other users were able to upload it, but it was blocked from my personal channel. Lo and behold, after Rosen inquired about it, the video is now available again.
As of Nov. 16, 2008, the clip was still banned. Here’s the screenshot (for full-size):
As of Nov. 30, 2008, it has magically , with the option “Embedding disabled by request” — which, um, I did not choose.
Curiouser and curiouser. Wonders never cease!
Here’s the relevant part of in the NYT, but make sure to and read Rosen’s entire piece for a penetrating look at GooTube’s inner chamber of content censors and their global impact:
Last May, Senator Joseph Lieberman’s staff contacted Google and demanded that the company remove from YouTube dozens of what he described as jihadist videos. (Around the same time, Google was under pressure from “Operation YouTube Smackdown,” a grass-roots Web campaign by conservative bloggers and advocates to flag videos and ask YouTube to remove them.) After viewing the videos one by one, Wong and her colleagues removed some of the videos but refused to remove those that they decided didn’t violate YouTube guidelines. Lieberman wasn’t satisfied. In an angry follow-up letter to Eric Schmidt, the C.E.O. of Google, Lieberman demanded that all content he characterized as being “produced by Islamist terrorist organizations” be immediately removed from YouTube as a matter of corporate judgment — even videos that didn’t feature hate speech or violent content or violate U.S. law. Wong and her colleagues responded by saying, “YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view.” In September, Google and YouTube announced new guidelines prohibiting videos “intended to incite violence.”
In addition to Lieberman, another outspoken critic of supposed liberal bias at YouTube and Google is Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist and blogger. Malkin became something of a cause célèbre among YouTube critics in 2006, when she created a two-minute movie called “First, They Came” in the wake of the violent response to the Danish anti-Muhammad cartoons. After showing pictures of the victims of jihadist violence (like the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh) and signs declaring “Behead Those Who Insult Islam,” the video asks, “Who’s next?” and displays the dates of terrorist attacks in America, London, Madrid and Bali.
Nearly seven months after she posted the video, Malkin told me she was “flabbergasted” to receive an e-mail message from YouTube saying the video had been removed for its “inappropriate content.” When Malkin asked why the video was removed, she received no response, and when she posted a video appealing to YouTube to reinstate it, that video, too, was deleted with what she calls the . Malkin remains dissatisfied with YouTube’s response. “I’m completely flummoxed about what their standards are,” she said. “The standards need to be clear, they need to be consistent and they need to be more responsive.”
I watched the “First, They Came” video, which struck me as powerful political commentary that contains neither hate speech nor graphic violence, and I asked why it was taken down. According to a YouTube spokesman, the takedown was a routine one that hadn’t been reviewed by higher-ups. The spokesman said he couldn’t comment on particular cases, but he forwarded a link to Malkin’s current YouTube channel, noting that it contains 55 anti-jihadist videos similar to “First, They Came,” none of which have been taken down. (“First, They Came” can now be found on Malkin’s YouTube channel, too.)
The removal of Malkin’s video may have been an innocent mistake. But it serves as a reminder that one person’s principled political protest is another person’s hate speech, and distinguishing between the two in hard cases is a lot to ask of a low-level YouTube reviewer. In addition, the publicity that attended the removal of Malkin’s video only underscores the fact that in the vast majority of cases in which material is taken down, the decision to do so is never explained or contested. The video goes down, and that’s the end of it.
One of our is still blocked from YouTube and falsely labeled
Here’s the screenshot as of 11/30/08 12am:
is also blocked with the same false label.
***
On a related GooTube note, the court case of proud mom Stephanie Lenz, who has been threatened by rock star Prince and Universal Music Group for posting a to Let’s Go Crazy” in her kitchen, is proceeding. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (which helped me another baseless UMG takedown attempt over my ) took up Lenz’s cause. All the latest is .
***
Flashback:
Flashback:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com’s community of registered readers. Please don’t assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
-
1On November 29th, 2008 at 11:13 pm, Mookie said:
Hey Michelle, speaking of Akon, he’s one of the featured artists on Verizon Wireless this month.
-
2On November 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pm, WarEagle82 said:
Well, I know I have said it before but “if leftists didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.”
I am afraid I do know what these people are thinking and it appears to be pretty scary!
-
3On November 29th, 2008 at 11:33 pm, richardbo said:
They’re here. We gave it to them. I don’t know who “they” or “them” is, but whoever can take control has the means to censor at will. This has grown insidiously, perhaps not as a weapon, but surely as a tool. Without openness and public oversight there can be absolute control. Oh well, I hope you all can read this. R
-
4On November 30th, 2008 at 12:26 am, AlohaGuy said:
Wong and her colleagues responded by saying, “YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view.”
Wong of course misses the irony of having a Chinese name and heritage, while defending YouTube (and Google) - even though Google helps censor content in China. For money, not ideology.
Earth to Wong…
-
5On November 30th, 2008 at 1:18 am, Republicanvet said:
Malkin became something of a cause célèbre among YouTube critics in 2006, when she created a two-minute movie called “First, They Came” in the wake of the violent response to the Danish anti-Muhammad cartoons.
I didn’t know the cartoons were necessarily “anti-Muhammad”.
-
6On November 30th, 2008 at 1:52 am, redpeach said:
Fascinating article. Not real surprising that a bunch of Google 20-somethings are deciding what stays and what goes…but very scary since most Googlers received their education at the finest of our left-wing universities.
It’s almost cute how Wu thinks people trust Google. He needs to get a little farther away from the Googleplex. I work in hi-tech and “Don’t be Evil” is a constant punchline. Do they really expect people to believe that they don’t use their algorithm to their advantage? Spend a few days delving into the complexities of search engines and pay-per-click advertising and you’ll quickly discover Google is a racket and the power of those 20-somethings is vast.
-
7On November 30th, 2008 at 2:09 am, jamesgreenidge said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 1:52 am, redpeach said:
Fascinating article. Not real surprising that a bunch of Google 20-somethings are deciding what stays and what goes…but very scary since most Googlers received their education at the finest of our left-wing universities.
I concur, but my maddening question for years is where are all the Google/Yahoo alternatives that conservatives and fair-minded people can use?
James Greenidge
Queens NYWhy’s the USA always the heavy in ’50s sci-fi films like “When The Earth Stood Still”? Why didn’t the saucer land in Red Square instead of the White House? They had baddie nukes too!
-
8On November 30th, 2008 at 2:33 am, PrestoPundit - Greg Ransom said:
PrestoPundit has been delisted from the main Google search since Feb. of 2008 right in the heat of the primary fight — to search from my widely circulated article on the socialism of Obama’s Harvard trained father you have to search through Yahoo or MSN.
Every effort to get re-listed by Google has been ignored.
Funny thing is that someone has been paying Google to provide a link to the blog posting as one of its sponsored links when people do an “Obama” search.
-
9On November 30th, 2008 at 2:44 am, torabora said:
Google DOES NOT DEFEND ANY HUMAN BEINGS RIGHTS. Google defends Google. It is indistinguishable from the robber barons in its projections of naked power. They are fast becoming what T.Roosevelt disparagingly referred to as a trust….and trusts need busted.
I really don’t think it will be long before it only allows registered Democratic voters, and Communists, communists, and socialists to access its services. I was surprised they ever did otherwise.
-
10On November 30th, 2008 at 3:27 am, Freddy said:
It has been several years since ’simple’ searching has been available from any of the ‘major’ search engines. I have been wondering how long it will be before someone else starts a nice honest search engine w/o the influences of the advertisers or the motives to collect information simply to expand their business.
Too bad that ‘cuil’ site went strait to the advertising model.
-
11On November 30th, 2008 at 5:35 am, Thunderbird 1 said:
Funny this should come up this week, Michelle. two days before Thanksgiving, I got choked up (again) telling my 9 yr old about Pres Bush’s surreptitious 2003 Thanksgiving trip to visit our troops in Iraq and how it was one of my favorite memories of his presidency. I promised him we’d look it up on YouTube later. I tried many variations on “Bush/2003/Thanksgiving/Iraq” and got nothing! Bupkis! Nada! from any of the press coverage, network newscasts (including the then-indignant Mark whats-his-name, CBS News, who was left in the dust at the Crawford Ranch muttering something about “pie”), even White house pool coverage. But there were a bunch of links to screeds, criticisms and venting about Bush. Hmmm. By the way, if anyone can direct me to actual coverage of the event elsewhere, I’d still like to show my son. Thanks.
-
12On November 30th, 2008 at 5:42 am, Thunderbird 1 said:
Looked him up: Mark Knoller.
Laura Ingraham played the clip that had him huffing about how even White House correspondents(!) hadn’t been briefed about the secret trip, but had instead been given copies of the Crawford ranch Thanksgiving menu, which included “turkey with all the trimmings and three kinds of pie…”
-
13On November 30th, 2008 at 6:42 am, zorro said:
The fight to defend our Freedoms is never ending. Some power hungry fool will always try to become “the decider”.
-
14On November 30th, 2008 at 7:02 am, rowsdower said:
I concur, but my maddening question for years is where are all the Google/Yahoo alternatives that conservatives and fair-minded people can use?
James Greenidge
Queens NYHere’s an alternative:
It ’scrapes’ Google’s search results.You get the same returns but Google doesn’t get credit for the hits and there’s no ad links on which Google thrives. -
15On November 30th, 2008 at 7:59 am, iamsaved said:
And the liberals get indignant at the thought of our government listening in on foreign based cell phone calls that may come from terrorists?
We have a lot more to worry about from groups like Google delving into our private lives from data they extract than we do from the Feds.
And there’s talk of Google hosting electronic medical records online?
-
16On November 30th, 2008 at 9:15 am, happyscrapper said:
The power of selective censorship in the hands of the far left sites Google and You Tube is indeed frightening. If ever there was an urgent need for good, honest competitors in this field, now is the time. Or are these sites now so powerful that no one can compete?
-
17On November 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
In September, Google and YouTube announced new guidelines prohibiting videos “intended to incite violence.”
Now there is a phrase and standard I thought I knew and understood-either it or I have changed dramatically in the last number of years. I first became aware of Michelle Malkin from the uproar over her book “In Defense of Internment: The World War II Round-Up and What It Means For America’s War on Terror“. Our local bookstore had to keep it behind the counter as the Wing-bats were defacing it. So I bought a copy and read it-and here I am. Wing-bats do claim it “intended to incite violence”. Eldridge Cleaver’s - Soul on Ice was not behind the counter but on the shelf. FIRST JIHAD: Khartoum, and the Dawn of Militant Islam: Daniel Allen Butler has been banned from some reading lists as “intended to incite violence” but The Autobiography of Malcolm X does not.
New Speak is everywhere. And Senator Joseph Lieberman defends the abortion Holocaust-the hypocrite. Why that man is so beloved by some Conservatives is beyond me. He is supposedly strong on National Defense but the Nation he wishes to defend does not impress me.
Quote the Bible-try Leviticus or Paul’s Letters- or build a Nativity scene and we are guilty of hate speech and incitement to violence. Invade a Church service or violate Holy Communion and you are making a political statement. Odd times these.
Perhaps the Feinstein-Shumer Fairness Doctrine will force Google-YouTube to include our postings? Or I ask again:
—
Is NOW the time for the Second American Revolution? -
18On November 30th, 2008 at 9:24 am, zorro said:
By the way, isn’t the term “hate speech” and invention of the Klinton regime? The definition of said speech is completely subjective. But, I guess that was purpose, to be able to stifle Freedom of Speech subjectively.
-
19On November 30th, 2008 at 9:26 am, zorro said:
The above should read:
By the way, isn’t the term “hate speech” and an invention of the Klinton regime?
-
20On November 30th, 2008 at 9:26 am, said:
On November 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pm, WarEagle82 said:
Well, I know I have said it before but “if leftists didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.”I like it!!! Can I steal it?
-
21On November 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
We just found out our friends daughter and son-in-law are missing from the Taj Hotel in Mumbai.They are Medical Missionaries and were on the way home. They were only attending a function at the hotel, not staying.
-
22On November 30th, 2008 at 9:32 am, FamilyMan said:
I vaguely remember Obama talking about a broadband czar. That makes me feel all cozy inside/sarc
Do any of you folks remember such a statement? -
23On November 30th, 2008 at 9:33 am, lgm said:
Let’s have a fairness doctrine for youtube. If they use the public internet, they should fairly represent the views of the public.
-
24On November 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am, said:
Google needs a competitor. Competition does wonders to combat totalitarians.
Rowsdower - I LIKE that ! I bookmarked it and will use that going forward.
-
25On November 30th, 2008 at 9:42 am, AmericanPatriot said:
Google is not your friend.
I have no doubt that Google will assist a Police State when the SHTF.
-
26On November 30th, 2008 at 9:44 am, FamilyMan said:
LGM
That was another pathetic attempt.
GEES! -
27On November 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am, happyscrapper said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
We just found out our friends daughter and son-in-law are missing from the Taj Hotel in Mumbai.They are Medical Missionaries and were on the way home. They were only attending a function at the hotel, not staying.I am so sorry to hear that and I will pray for their safety!
-
28On November 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am, tarpon said:
Learning for the Communist Chinese, we are.
-
29On November 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am, tarpon said:
Learning for the Communist Chinese, we are.
Just think of all the fools who assisted Hitler, Mao, Castro and Stalin and then ended up in the Death Camps and Gulags. Having a Tiger by the Tail might be a cute song but it is a deadly avocation.
The history of the 20th Century is dripping with the blood shed by Governments “making the world a better place”. The 21st Century is not looking any better. William Ayres wants 25 million dead. -
30On November 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am, pgtips said:
Let’s have a fairness doctrine for youtube. If they use the public internet, they should fairly represent the views of the public.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You fail. Horribly.
-
31On November 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am, DBNinKY said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 9:33 am, lgm said:
Let’s have a fairness doctrine for youtube.
Better yet: let’s allow MM and others to inform the public about YouTube’s left-leaning bias-/failure to present both sides ( the ‘Fair & Balanced’ approach), so potential visitors to that site are politically forewarned; in essence, let’s get the facts out and allow the market to decide.
-
32On November 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am, Boomer said:
Too bad the creators of U-Tube sold out to Google. It seems every time a good idea hits the cyber world the big boys that got into the business first throw an obscene amount of money at them to gain control of that segment of the industry. Too bad we no longer have any men in power cut from the same cloth as Teddy Roosevelt to break up this growing monopoly that appears more than willing to censor the Freedom of Speech. According to the fascist of the left isn’t decent patriotic?
This company gleefully sides with our enemies showing Jihadist acts of murder and terror, but censors the brave few willing to educate and expose the threat Western civilization faces at the hands of these medieval savages. A company with this type of business model needs to fail. Thanks again Michelle for continuing to expose the censorship of our real enemies.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE (mo-lone lah-veh) Translation: “Come and Take Them!”
-
33On November 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am, Paul-Cincy said:
Some thoughts:
Visuals are very evocative (think Playboy) and touch people emotionally.
Liberals will complain to YouTube more because they’re more likely than conservatives to censor what they don’t like or disagree with.
Google is liberal, and liberals tend to cater to complaints even when they have little basis, as to them a complaint indicates someone’s feelings were hurt. This is their method, rather than to follow specific banning principles or guidelines. In short, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”.
Google’s implementation of their motto “do no evil” comes closer to “do nothing that’s politically incorrect” or “don’t hurt anyone’s feelings”.
Did I mention Google is liberal?
Throw that all into the mix, and you have a strong bias against conservatives.
Michelle took time to put together a heartfelt video and puts it up on YouTube and it gets banned. There’s something about being banned or censored on the internet that stings! It does!
-
34On November 30th, 2008 at 10:53 am, pueblo1032 said:
This is just a reminder that ISLAMO TERRORISM is still in OUR WORLD, that’s yours and mine… The only area that received less comment during the ELECTION than “TERRORISM”, was ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION… As we all learned before WW II, ignoring a problem does not make it go away… Matter of fact, when you finally do acknowledge it, it is bigger then it was before… The events in MUMBAI this week should be a wake up call to the world… INDIA claims PAKISTAN is responsible for the raid… PAKISTAN denies this… Yes, maybe PAKISTAN did not send the RAIDERS into INDIA… Not directly responsible, but how about MORALLY??? Did PAKISTAN look the other way, as THE RAIDERS trained in the mountains and foothills of PAKISTAN??? Sound familiar??? AL QUEDA in AFGHANISTAN before 9/11???
-
35On November 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am, said:
I’ve had my own ongoing battle with YouTube and have been actively campaigning to have good people of the right boycott this bunch of anti-American punks who own Google/YouTube.
I have been a member of YouTube Smackdown - going after these jihadist videos wherever found and flagging them as being in odds with Googles own terms of service. Limited success - some sites being flagged dozens of times before anything is done. On the other hand, I decided to test just how unbiased Google was by uploading a video I have of terrorists gunning down - from behind - Iraqi civilians in cold blood and repeatedly shooting them when they are down.
The video was up ONE DAY before I was notified that it “violated YouTubes community guidelines” and was deleted, and my account was suspended. Strangely, the video received multiple comments from viewers applauding the fact I posted it to show what animals these terrorists were, and NOT ONE complaint comment. Still … gone.
I then reposted it again under a slightly less graphic name and this time it lasted 2 days before being deleted and my account itself deleted. No discussion, no appeals, no nothing - I’m out of there.
Yeah - seems fair. Screw Google-YouTube. Use Ask.com or dogpile.com and boycott google!
-
36On November 30th, 2008 at 11:35 am, said:
By the way, Michelle - I have downloaded “First, they came” and will post it on my blog along with hosting the video itself on my server.
May I humbly suggest that every blogger who reads Michelle’s great blog do the same?
If the left won’t do it = the RIGHT will.
-
37On November 30th, 2008 at 12:01 pm, theporch said:
FYI– Atlas Shrugs has been completed removed from Google’s search engine. Another example of discrimination. BTW The Google CEO is an Obama supporter and friend and is expecting returns on his investment with “The One”.
-
38On November 30th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 9:33 am, lgm said:
Let’s have a fairness doctrine for youtube. If they use the public internet, they should fairly represent the views of the public.Ever wonder why I crown him, “The Idiot”?
Now you know.
-
39On November 30th, 2008 at 12:29 pm, Digshot said:
Michelle Malkin moderates the user-submitted content on this website, doesn’t she? Why can’t YouTube do the same?
-
40On November 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pm, MrOlympia said:
iamsaved said: We have a lot more to worry about from groups like Google delving into our private lives from data they extract than we do from the Feds.
And there’s talk of Google hosting electronic medical records online?
Does anybody think if Obama asks Google for information he can use against political opponents that they wouldn’t serve it to him on a golden platter?
-
41On November 30th, 2008 at 12:43 pm, said:
Michelle Malkin moderates the user-submitted content on this website, doesn’t she? Why can’t YouTube do the same?
Sure she does. She allowed your idiot remark, as well as lgm’s and other nutroots.
“Why can’t YouTube do the same.”
-
42On November 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, said:
Want more on how your privacy is being invaded by Google? Go to Google maps and enter your address, then click “Street View”. If you live in a decently sized place, your house and property, vehicles, etc are right there. Until I demanded it be removed, mine even showed the license plate on one of my vehicles.
All by the same people who protest the governments evesdropping on phone calls to/from terrorist countries.
-
43On November 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm, said:
Michelle’s video “First they came…” is now posted on my blog.
-
44On November 30th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, AlohaGuy said:
Let’s have a fairness doctrine for youtube. If they use the public internet, they should fairly represent the views of the public.
We have a fairness doctrine for speech. It’s called the First Amendment.
-
45On November 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, AlohaGuy said:
All by the same people who protest the governments evesdropping on phone calls to/from terrorist countries.
Well they don’t actually care - Bush was doing it, they hate Bush, therefore they hate it. Whatever it is. “Bush eats Cheerios.” “Down with Cheerios! Why don’t we have a fair breakfast doctrine?” “Gitmo Cheerios violates human rights” and so on…
-
46On November 30th, 2008 at 12:53 pm, Jamson64 said:
AlohaGuy said :
“We have a fairness doctrine for speech. It’s called the First Amendment”
You think the Constitution matters?
-
47On November 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm, FruNobulux said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, Bruce said:
Want more on how your privacy is being invaded by Google? Go to Google maps and enter your address, then click “Street View”. If you live in a decently sized place, your house and property, vehicles, etc are right there. Until I demanded it be removed, mine even showed the license plate on one of my vehicles.
Google shows the wrong house for my address. I’m not inclined to correct them.
Make no mistake, Google is distinctly left-leaning. You may want to consider your search results, and your use of Gmail, in that light. And always try not to leave too much of a trail on the web!
-
48On November 30th, 2008 at 1:33 pm, FruNobulux said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 12:01 pm, theporch said:
FYI– Atlas Shrugs has been completed removed from Google’s search engine. Another example of discrimination. BTW The Google CEO is an Obama supporter and friend and is expecting returns on his investment with “The One”.
I just searched for “Atlas Shrugged” at Google, and got almost a million hits. Is “Atlas Shrugs” something different?
-
49On November 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm, ammo john said:
I don’t Google. At all.
And, who’s Prince?
-
50On November 30th, 2008 at 3:42 pm, said:
FruNobulux, you can get hits on Google if you search for either Atlas Shrugs or Pamela Geller, the woman who runs the blog. The problem is certain articles she had written which were critical of Barack Obama have been banned from the Google search engines. Here’s the specific on her being blacklisted.
-
51On November 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pm, gailygirl said:
I have a couple of friends, who post videos on YouTube, who have had videos deleted. Both are conservative. I know that there are Saul Alinski drones who go through videos and complain about them. This a tactic to censor conservatives and other points of veiw. I have no doubt that the fairness censorship doctrine will come up to be renewed. After that there will be internet censorship aka communist chinese.
-
52On November 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm, opusrex said:
Google is tied to George Soros’s empire.
for a bit of irony, here’s a video on Youtube about it.
Proud member of the Smackdown Corps.
-
53On November 30th, 2008 at 4:16 pm, jlibertarian said:
Don’t be naive in thinking your freedom is protected here in America. There is a long history of communist subversion at the highest level of government. All strains of socialism are communism where the aim is to control every aspect of the individual by disavowing the rights of the individual. True liberty acknowledges and protects the individual rights. They are sacred. Socialism fundamentally denies the individual, aiming towards collectivist and statist goals. Look at recent history. The number of people murdered and abused in socialist countries is staggering compared with the number of people killed in declared wars. The fact is that socialism ultimately leads to control - economic, intellectual, verbal, social, moral and physical. Don’t be fooled by the lofty and phony promises of “do-gooders” and “progressives” who promise “change”. Call me negative, but I came from a socialist country and I see that America is almost there.
-
54On November 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
We just found out our friends daughter and son-in-law are missing from the Taj Hotel in Mumbai.They are Medical Missionaries and were on the way home. They were only attending a function at the hotel, not staying.They are well. When she filled out a contact card with the US Consulate she was quite shaken I suppose and listed her parents old number and address-the house where she grew up. From what I understand Americans and other Westerners are having some difficulty getting calls out and getting Airlines out, but these two young people are now in Bangkok waiting for a flight home.
-
55On November 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm, sandyb said:
The news about Google needs to go viral.
I, for one, am going to let everyone know who’s running it and skewing it the way they want it to go.I suspect Fox & Friends will have Michelle on tomorrow, since most of the “news” these days is stuff Michelle finds out!
Glenn Beck’s show starts 1/19 at 5 p.m. on FOX. I suspect he’ll be all over this and that Michelle will be a frequent guest. Yahoo!
-
56On November 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm, dan708 said:
It looks like it would take nothing less than a lawsuit by MM to find out who keeps censoring her videos. And the libs keep whining about Bush trashing the Constitution?!
-
57On November 30th, 2008 at 5:25 pm, jangar said:
Social engineering and political propaganda at its finest…GOOGLE!!
-
58On November 30th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, happy2behere said:
Notice how the usual lib commentators on this site all come down on the side of censorship? Interesting.
-
59On November 30th, 2008 at 6:35 pm, rightisright said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 7:02 am, rowsdower said: Here’s an alternative:
thanx I tried it…no more gagged(google of course) for me.
easier to read listings and no interfering ads -
60On November 30th, 2008 at 7:30 pm, jwm said:
The New York Times had an excellent article today about Google and their lawyers who censor their site and you tube. The article also discusses Michelle Malkin’s struggles with them as well.
-
61On November 30th, 2008 at 7:47 pm, said:
On November 30th, 2008 at 7:30 pm, jwm said:
The New York Times had an excellent article today about Google and their lawyers who censor their site and you tube. The article also discusses Michelle Malkin’s struggles with them as well.jwm you are confusing us with words that normally can’t be used in the same sentence; like “New York Times” and “excellent”. I’ll have to take your word on the article since I don’t read the “Times” (and don’t have any plans to). I guess this proves the old adage: “Even a blind Frog finds an acorn now and then” He just doesn’t know what to do with it once he finds it!( I know it’s supposed to be a Hog!!! Just take a moment and picture it in your mind!)
-
62On November 30th, 2008 at 8:32 pm, dadmin said:
In September, Google and YouTube announced new guidelines prohibiting videos “intended to incite violence.”
“Intent to incite violence” is broad. Violence is not just physical; it can be emotional or verbal. Merely disagreeing with Obama’s socialist policies can be construed as incitement to violence. The Gaggle censors are playing word games in a world where tolerance is peddled as man’s greatest virtue. And when applied to evil, virtue itself will become the next victim.
-
63On November 30th, 2008 at 9:45 pm, dadinseattle said:
Those familiar with the game MONOPOLY may be interested to know that Google owns the equivalent of all the properties from Virginia Avenue (purple) through Boardwalk , three of four railroads, and one of the two utilities.
The remainder share the cheap properties!
The outcome of the game is pretty clear!
By default you may say that not only do they control “free parking” and “go directly to jail“, they also have within their power the say as to whom may pass “Go”!
“Chance cards” can be reshuffled in the order they prefer, which is a politically left employee base(by far),
to benefit the “Community Chest“!Standby for threats of anti-trust legislation by the power hungry leftists in Congress to leverage even more selective censorship out of the company for purely political reasons just like the “Fairness Doctrine” threats!
-
64On November 30th, 2008 at 10:26 pm, said:
The New York Times had an excellent article today about Google and their lawyers who censor their site and you tube. The article also discusses Michelle Malkin’s struggles with them as well.
Er, I’m just curious: Do you actually read my posts before you comment on them? Because the NYTimes piece is the focus of my post.
-
65On November 30th, 2008 at 11:32 pm, said:
Use another video sharing web site like and another search engine like . (Or whatever other services float your boat.)
At least the Redmond-based software giant actually does provide a truly diverse political viewpoint in the workforce there.
DISCLAIMER: I know because I work there. My part-time gig is as a USAF Reserve maintenance officer, hence the “Major” O.
We also do cool stuff that never makes the news like a Salute to Our Troops where wounded soldiers (from Walter Reed) and their families were treated to an “taste of New York City.” (Free Zunes, parties, clothing, etc., etc.)
I know, because I was there!
-
66On December 1st, 2008 at 2:25 am, dadinseattle said:
At least the Redmond-based software giant actually does provide a truly diverse political viewpoint in the workforce there.
Major O,
I know a conservative who also works there and a diverse workforce would not describe the political makeup there, but rather the cultural makeup, politically a conservative is in the very small minority and several people I know will second that!If you are denying that censorship is happening with a decidedly liberal slant you may be wrong. Given how the left screams bloody murder about every imagined affront on their views, and actual examples have been shown here against conservatives, I believe the bias in censoring is real and the political views of the employees has much to do with it.
Thanks for you service to our country though.
-
67On December 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am, said:
I remember not too long ago, Gummgle eh, er… Gobble, uuhmm, Google refused a request from Justice, (and I think went so far as to ignore a sue-peen-a [sorry, phonetic spelling]), for a list of kiddie-porners. This was sometime ago, but as I remember it, they claimed “right to privacy”, “freedom from censorship” & “freedom to information” as their reasons for destroying the server traffic data. This data showed who searched for, accessed, and traded (via Gobble’s servers) kiddie-porn. All the Lefties, in hushed & reverent tones, waving their Roe fetishes, waxed vomitus on that Most Sacred Right To Self-gratification Via a Minor …er, (sorry! long night…) Hide Child Abuse Privacy And Against Censorship. But, that the children might be unwilling was certainly something to frown at.
Two months later Gobble proudly proclaims a move into Red China. At 1st, they forgot to mention turning over records birddogging dissenters online activities… it simply wasn’t newsworthy, dontchaknow! Then, an oily spokeswoman admits it, but sees nothing wrong between the two incidents. Its simply that the Chi-Com culture has different standards!
There aren’t enough words in all the world’s languages to describe the smallness of a Lefty’s spirit…
-
68On December 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm, jeffshultz said:
Blip.tv - much better video quality.
-
69On December 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pm, said:
Major O,
I know a conservative who also works there and a diverse workforce would not describe the political makeup there, but rather the cultural makeup, politically a conservative is in the very small minority and several people I know will second that!Not trying to be combatative, but I beg to differ from your friend. I’ve worked at MSFT for 8 years full-time, in 2 divisions. I was a manager for 2 years. I’m also on the board of two of the internal outreach groups. In sum, I know whereof I speak and I can tell you that while the conservative view may be the minority view (we are a stone’s throw Seattle, after all), it is not suppressed among the folks that work there.
If you are denying that censorship is happening with a decidedly liberal slant you may be wrong. Given how the left screams bloody murder about every imagined affront on their views, and actual examples have been shown here against conservatives, I believe the bias in censoring is real and the political views of the employees has much to do with it.
I think you may be misunderstanding me. I’m not denying any Liberal bias at Google. In fact, I’m stating that Google’s bias is overwhelming (some 90% of their workforce is decidedly left leaning) and it shows in their treatment of conservatives, like Mrs. Malkin.
On the other hand, MSFT, I contend, has a reputation for being way left in their practices that is somewhat undeserved. The company does many things for causes (particularly support of the military) that are not popularly reported on. -
70On December 1st, 2008 at 1:30 pm, dadinseattle said:
Sorry Major O,
As both Microsoft and Google have facilities in our area all over the place, I thought you were referring to employment at Google. My mistake.Both are giant corporations that do many things under the radar both selfishly and selflessly.
So I guess we are on the same page.
However, the potential for absolutely squashing political speech is ginormous with both these companies, and with the political mindset employed at both it is happening to a degree.
I would contend that the free market revenue stream is the biggest check against them going too far overboard with the selective censorship for now.
You must be to post a comment
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com’s community of registered readers. Please don’t assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
Hey Michelle, speaking of Akon, he’s one of the featured artists on Verizon Wireless this month.
Well, I know I have said it before but “if leftists didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.”
I am afraid I do know what these people are thinking and it appears to be pretty scary!
They’re here. We gave it to them. I don’t know who “they” or “them” is, but whoever can take control has the means to censor at will. This has grown insidiously, perhaps not as a weapon, but surely as a tool. Without openness and public oversight there can be absolute control. Oh well, I hope you all can read this. R
Wong of course misses the irony of having a Chinese name and heritage, while defending YouTube (and Google) - even though Google helps censor content in China. For money, not ideology.
Earth to Wong…
I didn’t know the cartoons were necessarily “anti-Muhammad”.
Fascinating article. Not real surprising that a bunch of Google 20-somethings are deciding what stays and what goes…but very scary since most Googlers received their education at the finest of our left-wing universities.
It’s almost cute how Wu thinks people trust Google. He needs to get a little farther away from the Googleplex. I work in hi-tech and “Don’t be Evil” is a constant punchline. Do they really expect people to believe that they don’t use their algorithm to their advantage? Spend a few days delving into the complexities of search engines and pay-per-click advertising and you’ll quickly discover Google is a racket and the power of those 20-somethings is vast.
I concur, but my maddening question for years is where are all the Google/Yahoo alternatives that conservatives and fair-minded people can use?
James Greenidge
Queens NY
Why’s the USA always the heavy in ’50s sci-fi films like “When The Earth Stood Still”? Why didn’t the saucer land in Red Square instead of the White House? They had baddie nukes too!
PrestoPundit has been delisted from the main Google search since Feb. of 2008 right in the heat of the primary fight — to search from my widely circulated article on the socialism of Obama’s Harvard trained father you have to search through Yahoo or MSN.
Every effort to get re-listed by Google has been ignored.
Funny thing is that someone has been paying Google to provide a link to the blog posting as one of its sponsored links when people do an “Obama” search.
Google DOES NOT DEFEND ANY HUMAN BEINGS RIGHTS. Google defends Google. It is indistinguishable from the robber barons in its projections of naked power. They are fast becoming what T.Roosevelt disparagingly referred to as a trust….and trusts need busted.
I really don’t think it will be long before it only allows registered Democratic voters, and Communists, communists, and socialists to access its services. I was surprised they ever did otherwise.
It has been several years since ’simple’ searching has been available from any of the ‘major’ search engines. I have been wondering how long it will be before someone else starts a nice honest search engine w/o the influences of the advertisers or the motives to collect information simply to expand their business.
Too bad that ‘cuil’ site went strait to the advertising model.
Funny this should come up this week, Michelle. two days before Thanksgiving, I got choked up (again) telling my 9 yr old about Pres Bush’s surreptitious 2003 Thanksgiving trip to visit our troops in Iraq and how it was one of my favorite memories of his presidency. I promised him we’d look it up on YouTube later. I tried many variations on “Bush/2003/Thanksgiving/Iraq” and got nothing! Bupkis! Nada! from any of the press coverage, network newscasts (including the then-indignant Mark whats-his-name, CBS News, who was left in the dust at the Crawford Ranch muttering something about “pie”), even White house pool coverage. But there were a bunch of links to screeds, criticisms and venting about Bush. Hmmm. By the way, if anyone can direct me to actual coverage of the event elsewhere, I’d still like to show my son. Thanks.
Looked him up: Mark Knoller.
Laura Ingraham played the clip that had him huffing about how even White House correspondents(!) hadn’t been briefed about the secret trip, but had instead been given copies of the Crawford ranch Thanksgiving menu, which included “turkey with all the trimmings and three kinds of pie…”
The fight to defend our Freedoms is never ending. Some power hungry fool will always try to become “the decider”.
Here’s an alternative:
It ’scrapes’ Google’s search results.You get the same returns but Google doesn’t get credit for the hits and there’s no ad links on which Google thrives.
And the liberals get indignant at the thought of our government listening in on foreign based cell phone calls that may come from terrorists?
We have a lot more to worry about from groups like Google delving into our private lives from data they extract than we do from the Feds.
And there’s talk of Google hosting electronic medical records online?
The power of selective censorship in the hands of the far left sites Google and You Tube is indeed frightening. If ever there was an urgent need for good, honest competitors in this field, now is the time. Or are these sites now so powerful that no one can compete?
Now there is a phrase and standard I thought I knew and understood-either it or I have changed dramatically in the last number of years. I first became aware of Michelle Malkin from the uproar over her book “In Defense of Internment: The World War II Round-Up and What It Means For America’s War on Terror“. Our local bookstore had to keep it behind the counter as the Wing-bats were defacing it. So I bought a copy and read it-and here I am. Wing-bats do claim it “intended to incite violence”. Eldridge Cleaver’s - Soul on Ice was not behind the counter but on the shelf. FIRST JIHAD: Khartoum, and the Dawn of Militant Islam: Daniel Allen Butler has been banned from some reading lists as “intended to incite violence” but The Autobiography of Malcolm X does not.
New Speak is everywhere. And Senator Joseph Lieberman defends the abortion Holocaust-the hypocrite. Why that man is so beloved by some Conservatives is beyond me. He is supposedly strong on National Defense but the Nation he wishes to defend does not impress me.
Quote the Bible-try Leviticus or Paul’s Letters- or build a Nativity scene and we are guilty of hate speech and incitement to violence. Invade a Church service or violate Holy Communion and you are making a political statement. Odd times these.
Perhaps the Feinstein-Shumer Fairness Doctrine will force Google-YouTube to include our postings? Or I ask again:
—
Is NOW the time for the Second American Revolution?
By the way, isn’t the term “hate speech” and invention of the Klinton regime? The definition of said speech is completely subjective. But, I guess that was purpose, to be able to stifle Freedom of Speech subjectively.
The above should read:
By the way, isn’t the term “hate speech” and an invention of the Klinton regime?
I like it!!! Can I steal it?
We just found out our friends daughter and son-in-law are missing from the Taj Hotel in Mumbai.They are Medical Missionaries and were on the way home. They were only attending a function at the hotel, not staying.
I vaguely remember Obama talking about a broadband czar. That makes me feel all cozy inside/sarc
Do any of you folks remember such a statement?
Let’s have a fairness doctrine for youtube. If they use the public internet, they should fairly represent the views of the public.
Google needs a competitor. Competition does wonders to combat totalitarians.
Rowsdower - I LIKE that ! I bookmarked it and will use that going forward.
Google is not your friend.
I have no doubt that Google will assist a Police State when the SHTF.
LGM
That was another pathetic attempt.
GEES!
I am so sorry to hear that and I will pray for their safety!
Learning for the Communist Chinese, we are.
Just think of all the fools who assisted Hitler, Mao, Castro and Stalin and then ended up in the Death Camps and Gulags. Having a Tiger by the Tail might be a cute song but it is a deadly avocation.
The history of the 20th Century is dripping with the blood shed by Governments “making the world a better place”. The 21st Century is not looking any better. William Ayres wants 25 million dead.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You fail. Horribly.
On November 30th, 2008 at 9:33 am, lgm said:
Better yet: let’s allow MM and others to inform the public about YouTube’s left-leaning bias-/failure to present both sides ( the ‘Fair & Balanced’ approach), so potential visitors to that site are politically forewarned; in essence, let’s get the facts out and allow the market to decide.
Too bad the creators of U-Tube sold out to Google. It seems every time a good idea hits the cyber world the big boys that got into the business first throw an obscene amount of money at them to gain control of that segment of the industry. Too bad we no longer have any men in power cut from the same cloth as Teddy Roosevelt to break up this growing monopoly that appears more than willing to censor the Freedom of Speech. According to the fascist of the left isn’t decent patriotic?
This company gleefully sides with our enemies showing Jihadist acts of murder and terror, but censors the brave few willing to educate and expose the threat Western civilization faces at the hands of these medieval savages. A company with this type of business model needs to fail. Thanks again Michelle for continuing to expose the censorship of our real enemies.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE (mo-lone lah-veh) Translation: “Come and Take Them!”
Some thoughts:
Visuals are very evocative (think Playboy) and touch people emotionally.
Liberals will complain to YouTube more because they’re more likely than conservatives to censor what they don’t like or disagree with.
Google is liberal, and liberals tend to cater to complaints even when they have little basis, as to them a complaint indicates someone’s feelings were hurt. This is their method, rather than to follow specific banning principles or guidelines. In short, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”.
Google’s implementation of their motto “do no evil” comes closer to “do nothing that’s politically incorrect” or “don’t hurt anyone’s feelings”.
Did I mention Google is liberal?
Throw that all into the mix, and you have a strong bias against conservatives.
Michelle took time to put together a heartfelt video and puts it up on YouTube and it gets banned. There’s something about being banned or censored on the internet that stings! It does!
This is just a reminder that ISLAMO TERRORISM is still in OUR WORLD, that’s yours and mine… The only area that received less comment during the ELECTION than “TERRORISM”, was ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION… As we all learned before WW II, ignoring a problem does not make it go away… Matter of fact, when you finally do acknowledge it, it is bigger then it was before… The events in MUMBAI this week should be a wake up call to the world… INDIA claims PAKISTAN is responsible for the raid… PAKISTAN denies this… Yes, maybe PAKISTAN did not send the RAIDERS into INDIA… Not directly responsible, but how about MORALLY??? Did PAKISTAN look the other way, as THE RAIDERS trained in the mountains and foothills of PAKISTAN??? Sound familiar??? AL QUEDA in AFGHANISTAN before 9/11???
I’ve had my own ongoing battle with YouTube and have been actively campaigning to have good people of the right boycott this bunch of anti-American punks who own Google/YouTube.
I have been a member of YouTube Smackdown - going after these jihadist videos wherever found and flagging them as being in odds with Googles own terms of service. Limited success - some sites being flagged dozens of times before anything is done. On the other hand, I decided to test just how unbiased Google was by uploading a video I have of terrorists gunning down - from behind - Iraqi civilians in cold blood and repeatedly shooting them when they are down.
The video was up ONE DAY before I was notified that it “violated YouTubes community guidelines” and was deleted, and my account was suspended. Strangely, the video received multiple comments from viewers applauding the fact I posted it to show what animals these terrorists were, and NOT ONE complaint comment. Still … gone.
I then reposted it again under a slightly less graphic name and this time it lasted 2 days before being deleted and my account itself deleted. No discussion, no appeals, no nothing - I’m out of there.
Yeah - seems fair. Screw Google-YouTube. Use Ask.com or dogpile.com and boycott google!
By the way, Michelle - I have downloaded “First, they came” and will post it on my blog along with hosting the video itself on my server.
May I humbly suggest that every blogger who reads Michelle’s great blog do the same?
If the left won’t do it = the RIGHT will.
FYI– Atlas Shrugs has been completed removed from Google’s search engine. Another example of discrimination. BTW The Google CEO is an Obama supporter and friend and is expecting returns on his investment with “The One”.
Ever wonder why I crown him, “The Idiot”?
Now you know.
Michelle Malkin moderates the user-submitted content on this website, doesn’t she? Why can’t YouTube do the same?
Does anybody think if Obama asks Google for information he can use against political opponents that they wouldn’t serve it to him on a golden platter?
Sure she does. She allowed your idiot remark, as well as lgm’s and other nutroots.
“Why can’t YouTube do the same.”
Want more on how your privacy is being invaded by Google? Go to Google maps and enter your address, then click “Street View”. If you live in a decently sized place, your house and property, vehicles, etc are right there. Until I demanded it be removed, mine even showed the license plate on one of my vehicles.
All by the same people who protest the governments evesdropping on phone calls to/from terrorist countries.
Michelle’s video “First they came…” is now posted on my blog.
We have a fairness doctrine for speech. It’s called the First Amendment.
Well they don’t actually care - Bush was doing it, they hate Bush, therefore they hate it. Whatever it is. “Bush eats Cheerios.” “Down with Cheerios! Why don’t we have a fair breakfast doctrine?” “Gitmo Cheerios violates human rights” and so on…
AlohaGuy said :
You think the Constitution matters?
Google shows the wrong house for my address. I’m not inclined to correct them.
Make no mistake, Google is distinctly left-leaning. You may want to consider your search results, and your use of Gmail, in that light. And always try not to leave too much of a trail on the web!
I just searched for “Atlas Shrugged” at Google, and got almost a million hits. Is “Atlas Shrugs” something different?
I don’t Google. At all.
And, who’s Prince?
FruNobulux, you can get hits on Google if you search for either Atlas Shrugs or Pamela Geller, the woman who runs the blog. The problem is certain articles she had written which were critical of Barack Obama have been banned from the Google search engines. Here’s the specific on her being blacklisted.
I have a couple of friends, who post videos on YouTube, who have had videos deleted. Both are conservative. I know that there are Saul Alinski drones who go through videos and complain about them. This a tactic to censor conservatives and other points of veiw. I have no doubt that the fairness censorship doctrine will come up to be renewed. After that there will be internet censorship aka communist chinese.
Google is tied to George Soros’s empire.
for a bit of irony, here’s a video on Youtube about it.
Proud member of the Smackdown Corps.
Don’t be naive in thinking your freedom is protected here in America. There is a long history of communist subversion at the highest level of government. All strains of socialism are communism where the aim is to control every aspect of the individual by disavowing the rights of the individual. True liberty acknowledges and protects the individual rights. They are sacred. Socialism fundamentally denies the individual, aiming towards collectivist and statist goals. Look at recent history. The number of people murdered and abused in socialist countries is staggering compared with the number of people killed in declared wars. The fact is that socialism ultimately leads to control - economic, intellectual, verbal, social, moral and physical. Don’t be fooled by the lofty and phony promises of “do-gooders” and “progressives” who promise “change”. Call me negative, but I came from a socialist country and I see that America is almost there.
They are well. When she filled out a contact card with the US Consulate she was quite shaken I suppose and listed her parents old number and address-the house where she grew up. From what I understand Americans and other Westerners are having some difficulty getting calls out and getting Airlines out, but these two young people are now in Bangkok waiting for a flight home.
The news about Google needs to go viral.
I, for one, am going to let everyone know who’s running it and skewing it the way they want it to go.
I suspect Fox & Friends will have Michelle on tomorrow, since most of the “news” these days is stuff Michelle finds out!
Glenn Beck’s show starts 1/19 at 5 p.m. on FOX. I suspect he’ll be all over this and that Michelle will be a frequent guest. Yahoo!
It looks like it would take nothing less than a lawsuit by MM to find out who keeps censoring her videos. And the libs keep whining about Bush trashing the Constitution?!
Social engineering and political propaganda at its finest…GOOGLE!!
Notice how the usual lib commentators on this site all come down on the side of censorship? Interesting.
thanx I tried it…no more gagged(google of course) for me.
easier to read listings and no interfering ads
The New York Times had an excellent article today about Google and their lawyers who censor their site and you tube. The article also discusses Michelle Malkin’s struggles with them as well.
jwm you are confusing us with words that normally can’t be used in the same sentence; like “New York Times” and “excellent”. I’ll have to take your word on the article since I don’t read the “Times” (and don’t have any plans to). I guess this proves the old adage: “Even a blind Frog finds an acorn now and then” He just doesn’t know what to do with it once he finds it!( I know it’s supposed to be a Hog!!! Just take a moment and picture it in your mind!)
“Intent to incite violence” is broad. Violence is not just physical; it can be emotional or verbal. Merely disagreeing with Obama’s socialist policies can be construed as incitement to violence. The Gaggle censors are playing word games in a world where tolerance is peddled as man’s greatest virtue. And when applied to evil, virtue itself will become the next victim.
Those familiar with the game MONOPOLY may be interested to know that Google owns the equivalent of all the properties from Virginia Avenue (purple) through Boardwalk , three of four railroads, and one of the two utilities.
The remainder share the cheap properties!
The outcome of the game is pretty clear!
By default you may say that not only do they control “free parking” and “go directly to jail“, they also have within their power the say as to whom may pass “Go”!
“Chance cards” can be reshuffled in the order they prefer, which is a politically left employee base(by far),
to benefit the “Community Chest“!
Standby for threats of anti-trust legislation by the power hungry leftists in Congress to leverage even more selective censorship out of the company for purely political reasons just like the “Fairness Doctrine” threats!
Er, I’m just curious: Do you actually read my posts before you comment on them? Because the NYTimes piece is the focus of my post.
Use another video sharing web site like and another search engine like . (Or whatever other services float your boat.)
At least the Redmond-based software giant actually does provide a truly diverse political viewpoint in the workforce there.
DISCLAIMER: I know because I work there. My part-time gig is as a USAF Reserve maintenance officer, hence the “Major” O.
We also do cool stuff that never makes the news like a Salute to Our Troops where wounded soldiers (from Walter Reed) and their families were treated to an “taste of New York City.” (Free Zunes, parties, clothing, etc., etc.)
I know, because I was there!
Major O,
I know a conservative who also works there and a diverse workforce would not describe the political makeup there, but rather the cultural makeup, politically a conservative is in the very small minority and several people I know will second that!
If you are denying that censorship is happening with a decidedly liberal slant you may be wrong. Given how the left screams bloody murder about every imagined affront on their views, and actual examples have been shown here against conservatives, I believe the bias in censoring is real and the political views of the employees has much to do with it.
Thanks for you service to our country though.
I remember not too long ago, Gummgle eh, er… Gobble, uuhmm, Google refused a request from Justice, (and I think went so far as to ignore a sue-peen-a [sorry, phonetic spelling]), for a list of kiddie-porners. This was sometime ago, but as I remember it, they claimed “right to privacy”, “freedom from censorship” & “freedom to information” as their reasons for destroying the server traffic data. This data showed who searched for, accessed, and traded (via Gobble’s servers) kiddie-porn. All the Lefties, in hushed & reverent tones, waving their Roe fetishes, waxed vomitus on that Most Sacred Right To Self-gratification Via a Minor …er, (sorry! long night…) Hide Child Abuse Privacy And Against Censorship. But, that the children might be unwilling was certainly something to frown at.
Two months later Gobble proudly proclaims a move into Red China. At 1st, they forgot to mention turning over records birddogging dissenters online activities… it simply wasn’t newsworthy, dontchaknow! Then, an oily spokeswoman admits it, but sees nothing wrong between the two incidents. Its simply that the Chi-Com culture has different standards!
There aren’t enough words in all the world’s languages to describe the smallness of a Lefty’s spirit…
Blip.tv - much better video quality.
Not trying to be combatative, but I beg to differ from your friend. I’ve worked at MSFT for 8 years full-time, in 2 divisions. I was a manager for 2 years. I’m also on the board of two of the internal outreach groups. In sum, I know whereof I speak and I can tell you that while the conservative view may be the minority view (we are a stone’s throw Seattle, after all), it is not suppressed among the folks that work there.
I think you may be misunderstanding me. I’m not denying any Liberal bias at Google. In fact, I’m stating that Google’s bias is overwhelming (some 90% of their workforce is decidedly left leaning) and it shows in their treatment of conservatives, like Mrs. Malkin.
On the other hand, MSFT, I contend, has a reputation for being way left in their practices that is somewhat undeserved. The company does many things for causes (particularly support of the military) that are not popularly reported on.
Sorry Major O,
As both Microsoft and Google have facilities in our area all over the place, I thought you were referring to employment at Google. My mistake.
Both are giant corporations that do many things under the radar both selfishly and selflessly.
So I guess we are on the same page.
However, the potential for absolutely squashing political speech is ginormous with both these companies, and with the political mindset employed at both it is happening to a degree.
I would contend that the free market revenue stream is the biggest check against them going too far overboard with the selective censorship for now.