Banned by Google
Your cyberworld at war
Thursday, February 23, 2006 by Evorg | Discussion: Internet
As of 23 February 2006, SpaceWar.com is banned by Google Inc.
SpaceWar.com is a respected news site covering military related space activities for the international aerospace community. SpaceWar.com is part of the SpaceDaily.com domain, along with TerraDaily, MarsDaily, SpaceMart, SinoDaily, and SpaceTravel which is owned by Space. TV Corp. Contributing news feeds come from AFP, UPI, and SPX.
The reasons for the ban by Google Inc. are unclear. No communication by Google prior to the ban was given to Space, TV Corp. Google has not responded to requests for comments. Space. TV Corp is talking with legal advisors from the United States and Australia where the Web sites are based. Space. TV Corp views the ban as a violation of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
It will be interesting to see the response from Google, and to be fair I’d like to hear why Google imposed the ban. However, I've always felt that trying to control legal content on the internet is a dangerous precedent to set. So I'm more inclined to think that there are other reasons for the ban than content. It's just a little surprising that a respected news site was banned by Google.
SpaceWar.com is a respected news site covering military related space activities for the international aerospace community. SpaceWar.com is part of the SpaceDaily.com domain, along with TerraDaily, MarsDaily, SpaceMart, SinoDaily, and SpaceTravel which is owned by Space. TV Corp. Contributing news feeds come from AFP, UPI, and SPX.
The reasons for the ban by Google Inc. are unclear. No communication by Google prior to the ban was given to Space, TV Corp. Google has not responded to requests for comments. Space. TV Corp is talking with legal advisors from the United States and Australia where the Web sites are based. Space. TV Corp views the ban as a violation of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
It will be interesting to see the response from Google, and to be fair I’d like to hear why Google imposed the ban. However, I've always felt that trying to control legal content on the internet is a dangerous precedent to set. So I'm more inclined to think that there are other reasons for the ban than content. It's just a little surprising that a respected news site was banned by Google.
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Mel D
Reply #2 Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:57 PM
Reply #2 Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:57 PM
I quit using Google when they banned freedom off their list in China, and started recording info on everyone who uses their search features on their own servers. I use any of several other search engines.
Adamness
Reply #3 Friday, February 24, 2006 1:11 AM
Reply #3 Friday, February 24, 2006 1:11 AM
If you really want to get worried, check out this link. Link
If you're in America, you probably cannot watch the video. It was censored by someone. I'm guess it was by someone in the government. I believe the message we get is the same one the Chinese people get when visiting a website through Google that isn't allowed.
The video is a IED (Improvised Explosive Device) that didn't go off, and is being set off by Americans to dispose of it. Why we aren't allowed to watch it, I don't know...
If you're in America, you probably cannot watch the video. It was censored by someone. I'm guess it was by someone in the government. I believe the message we get is the same one the Chinese people get when visiting a website through Google that isn't allowed.
The video is a IED (Improvised Explosive Device) that didn't go off, and is being set off by Americans to dispose of it. Why we aren't allowed to watch it, I don't know...
Evorg
Reply #4 Friday, February 24, 2006 2:27 AM
Reply #4 Friday, February 24, 2006 2:27 AM
Well Jafo, originally I used the word Trepidation, and then decided to tone it down a little bit. 
Mel D, I agree with you I also don’t use Google for searches
Adamness, Uploaders have the option of choosing which countries they want having access to their videos. This particular video was blocked for viewing in the USA by the person who uploaded it. I think this exclusionary practice raises other questions and concerns tho
Mel D, I agree with you I also don’t use Google for searches
Adamness, Uploaders have the option of choosing which countries they want having access to their videos. This particular video was blocked for viewing in the USA by the person who uploaded it. I think this exclusionary practice raises other questions and concerns tho
indigonecro
Reply #5 Friday, February 24, 2006 3:07 AM
Reply #5 Friday, February 24, 2006 3:07 AM
On a somewhat un-related note. Who believes the "Free Masons" are behind different things like this. Always wanted to ask that but until now no good topics came up..?
Jafo
Reply #6 Friday, February 24, 2006 6:22 AM
Reply #6 Friday, February 24, 2006 6:22 AM
| Who believes the "Free Masons" are behind different things like this. |
Probably the same twits who think the Jews are behind 'things' as well.
They just need a stiff kick up the bum to welcome them to reality.
Google is money-first, moral integrity second, that's all....and since they are 'playing' with data/information gathering/dissemination they are 'playing' with truth and reality, no matter what particular entity/corporation/government is pulling those strings...
Island Dog
Reply #7 Friday, February 24, 2006 8:36 AM
Reply #7 Friday, February 24, 2006 8:36 AM
| If you're in America, you probably cannot watch the video. It was censored by someone. I'm guess it was by someone in the government. I believe the message we get is the same one the Chinese people get when visiting a website through Google that isn't allowed. |
Watch out for those black helicopters.
Adamness
Reply #8 Friday, February 24, 2006 11:57 AM
The only thing more dangerous than censorship is self-censorship.
Reply #8 Friday, February 24, 2006 11:57 AM
| Google has done this with other sites too, mainly anything they've deemed to be containing 'hate speech', including ethnic humor, historical articles about the KKK and other white seperatist groups, (except those presented by the ADL or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or other 'Hate Watch' types of organizations,) even some of the extremist right-to-life groups cannot be located via google. |
The only thing more dangerous than censorship is self-censorship.
starkers
Reply #9 Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:14 AM
Reply #9 Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:14 AM
The sooner the majority realises that Google is a self-serving entity, a law unto and answerable only to itself, the better.
So it offers a couple of handy little services to attract users....but at what cost? And what's covertly going on behind the scenes that honest and decent people would/could not condone?
It's fairly common knowledge that Google has huge databanks of user searches/histories and the like....it's what they do with it, that's the scary question??????
So it offers a couple of handy little services to attract users....but at what cost? And what's covertly going on behind the scenes that honest and decent people would/could not condone?
It's fairly common knowledge that Google has huge databanks of user searches/histories and the like....it's what they do with it, that's the scary question??????
kingbee
Reply #10 Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:38 AM
for the time being, they aren't handing it over to der fatherland security department.
or so everyone would have you believe.
Reply #10 Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:38 AM
| it's what they do with it, that's the scary question?????? |
for the time being, they aren't handing it over to der fatherland security department.
or so everyone would have you believe.
starkers
Reply #11 Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:18 AM
The key words here...."for the time being"
Question is, how much longer before they do, or for some politician to introduce a Bill to enforce it? Seems pointless to have all that user data and no actual use for it, so if not 'Uncle Sam' or other 'big brother', who else are they selling it too? Put it this way, I've noticed a huge reduction of advertising spam in my in-box since ceasing to use Google as my default search engine.
Reply #11 Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:18 AM
for the time being, they aren't handing it over to der fatherland security department. |
The key words here...."for the time being"
Question is, how much longer before they do, or for some politician to introduce a Bill to enforce it? Seems pointless to have all that user data and no actual use for it, so if not 'Uncle Sam' or other 'big brother', who else are they selling it too? Put it this way, I've noticed a huge reduction of advertising spam in my in-box since ceasing to use Google as my default search engine.
cal0140
Reply #14 Monday, February 27, 2006 9:38 PM
Reply #14 Monday, February 27, 2006 9:38 PM
warning, incredibly obvious statement following...
no kidding... last time i checked, all for-profit companies were self-serving, and rightly so. companies are founded to make money, and that's what google has done. would you own a company and act outside of your financial interests?
| ... Google is a self-serving entity, a law unto and answerable only to itself... |
no kidding... last time i checked, all for-profit companies were self-serving, and rightly so. companies are founded to make money, and that's what google has done. would you own a company and act outside of your financial interests?
Larry Kuperman
Reply #15 Monday, February 27, 2006 10:09 PM
Reply #15 Monday, February 27, 2006 10:09 PM
cal0140, have you ever read Google's motto? I don't want to be accused of taking this out of context, so please see the link at the end of this comment:
"Our informal corporate motto is "Don't be evil." We Googlers generally relate those words to the way we serve our users – as well we should. But being "a different kind of company" means more than the products we make and the business we're building; it means making sure that our core values inform our conduct in all aspects of our lives as Google employees.
The Google Code of Conduct is the code by which we put those values into practice. This document is meant for public consumption, but its most important audience is within our own walls. This code isn't merely a set of rules for specific circumstances but an intentionally expansive statement of principles meant to inform all our actions; we expect all our employees, temporary workers, consultants, contractors, officers and directors to study these principles and do their best to apply them to any and all circumstances which may arise.
The core message is simple: Being Googlers means striving toward the highest possible standard of ethical business conduct. This is a matter as much practical as ethical; we hire great people who work hard to build great products, but our most important asset by far is our reputation as a company that warrants our users' faith and trust. That trust is the foundation upon which our success and prosperity rests, and it must be re-earned every day, in every way, by every one of us."
See Link
Further "b. Honesty Our communications with our users should be appropriately clear and truthful. Our reputation as a company our users can trust is among our most valuable assets, and it is up to all of us to make sure that we nourish that reputation."
Several publicized actions by Google violate the spirit of this standard of ethics. Working with the Chinese government to quash dissidents, censorship of sites, the questionable deal with AOL, etc. are not in keeping with their own standards.
If Google wants their motto to be "We're in it for the money" that is shorter and more to the point.
"Our informal corporate motto is "Don't be evil." We Googlers generally relate those words to the way we serve our users – as well we should. But being "a different kind of company" means more than the products we make and the business we're building; it means making sure that our core values inform our conduct in all aspects of our lives as Google employees.
The Google Code of Conduct is the code by which we put those values into practice. This document is meant for public consumption, but its most important audience is within our own walls. This code isn't merely a set of rules for specific circumstances but an intentionally expansive statement of principles meant to inform all our actions; we expect all our employees, temporary workers, consultants, contractors, officers and directors to study these principles and do their best to apply them to any and all circumstances which may arise.
The core message is simple: Being Googlers means striving toward the highest possible standard of ethical business conduct. This is a matter as much practical as ethical; we hire great people who work hard to build great products, but our most important asset by far is our reputation as a company that warrants our users' faith and trust. That trust is the foundation upon which our success and prosperity rests, and it must be re-earned every day, in every way, by every one of us."
See Link
Further "b. Honesty Our communications with our users should be appropriately clear and truthful. Our reputation as a company our users can trust is among our most valuable assets, and it is up to all of us to make sure that we nourish that reputation."
Several publicized actions by Google violate the spirit of this standard of ethics. Working with the Chinese government to quash dissidents, censorship of sites, the questionable deal with AOL, etc. are not in keeping with their own standards.
If Google wants their motto to be "We're in it for the money" that is shorter and more to the point.
Adamness
Reply #16 Monday, February 27, 2006 10:22 PM
Reply #16 Monday, February 27, 2006 10:22 PM
Google reminds me of that company Homer went to work for in 'The Simpsons.' I forget most of the specifics, but the company treated it's employees great, and before the attempt to take over the world, and the siege by the government, they were just a good company.
Art imitates life, or life imitates art?
...The Simpsons can be considered art, right?
Art imitates life, or life imitates art?
...The Simpsons can be considered art, right?
starkers
Reply #17 Monday, February 27, 2006 11:23 PM
Profit making was not necssarily my point, as all companies must profit or perish. My point relates more to the integrity of Google, which to me, is suspect at best.
I would not be the only one questioning this, either. Several here in the forums have expressed concerns regarding Googles use of advertising in Gmail, not to mention its under the radar tactics that MS/Apple would get publicly crucified for.
Google's entry into China, bowing to their censorship restrictions is more than suggestive that 'IT' would sacrifice truth and honesty for a buck from anywhere and everywhere....and that makes for a dangerous company when profit motivation far exceeds ethics and reputable business dealings.
Reply #17 Monday, February 27, 2006 11:23 PM
| no kidding... last time i checked, all for-profit companies were self-serving, and rightly so. companies are founded to make money, and that's what google has done. would you own a company and act outside of your financial interests? |
Profit making was not necssarily my point, as all companies must profit or perish. My point relates more to the integrity of Google, which to me, is suspect at best.
I would not be the only one questioning this, either. Several here in the forums have expressed concerns regarding Googles use of advertising in Gmail, not to mention its under the radar tactics that MS/Apple would get publicly crucified for.
Google's entry into China, bowing to their censorship restrictions is more than suggestive that 'IT' would sacrifice truth and honesty for a buck from anywhere and everywhere....and that makes for a dangerous company when profit motivation far exceeds ethics and reputable business dealings.
joetheblow
Reply #18 Monday, February 27, 2006 11:33 PM
Reply #18 Monday, February 27, 2006 11:33 PM
Yeah... it would seem that Google is loosing some of its flare. The China thing causes some problems and they didn't exactly argue that somehow going in is better than nothing at all very well (personally, I am the type to say that you have to be INVOLVED in order to change so I guess I would have dealt with China too if I was Google in order to spead information even if much of it is silenced).
I do think in the end having big search companies with a possibility of using their influence to change how things are done is better than say a local company borne of China who would have no such thought process.
So I have to give some credit to Google for going in, but it is still suspect until they show what influence they will push for in the future. I am well aware of the irony of Google not giving the US goverment information while giving China anything its wants.
I do think in the end having big search companies with a possibility of using their influence to change how things are done is better than say a local company borne of China who would have no such thought process.
So I have to give some credit to Google for going in, but it is still suspect until they show what influence they will push for in the future. I am well aware of the irony of Google not giving the US goverment information while giving China anything its wants.
Iben
Reply #19 Monday, February 27, 2006 11:36 PM
Reply #19 Monday, February 27, 2006 11:36 PM
~
Next they will be banning wallpaper.
Oh,
that has already been taken care of.
~
Next they will be banning wallpaper.
Oh,
that has already been taken care of.
~
Jafo
Reply #20 Monday, February 27, 2006 11:56 PM
Reply #20 Monday, February 27, 2006 11:56 PM
If all Google was doing was selling cars to a huge market and making a crap-load of money in the process then bully for them...it's the Great Capitalist Ethos, afterall.
The trouble is they are in the business of profitting from INFORMATION...and shed nary-a-tear when they decided to agree to adjusting that INFORMATION to suit the altered-reality of a government out of step with the West's feeble notion of What-Is-Right.
So....
Information is "altered" through selective filtering......to what end?
Some noble ethos?
No.
To get a toe-hold into the biggest country/market/sucker-for-advertising that there is on the planet.
And they are JUST soo clever .....Gmail ...the willingness of the gullible to GLADLY accept profiling/spam/data-intrusion-for-the-benefit-of-advertisers.
Google couldn't even SPELL 'Nobul Profession' or 'Effix'....
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:56 PM
Why?....didn't get me even raising an eyebrow....not after their unsightly haste to bend any 'rule' to seek the Chinese 'buck'...