| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Racist Obama image shines light on Web searching | |
|
||
| Time: 13:08 EST/18:08 GMT | News Source: CNN | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
When a racist image of first lady Michelle Obama surfaced from the ugliest corners of the Internet last week to top Google's image search results, the episode shined a spotlight on the mysterious workings of search engines. Google placed an ad near the image, apologizing for its offensive nature. But the company resisted calls to scrub the image from its database, saying its role as a neutral tool for searching the Web means having to live with the results, whether it likes them or not. "We have a bias toward free expression," Google spokesman Scott Rubin told CNN. "That means that some ugly things will show up." Google handled almost two-thirds of all Internet searches in the United States in October, according to comScore, making the company the dominant player in the field. Like other search engines, Google relies on a complicated and largely secretive algorithm to decide which Web pages should pop up first based on a user's search terms. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 204 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:50:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/2/2009 2:26:04 PM |
| Google did the right thing for several reasons. First, offensive speech is the form most in need of protection under freedom of speech laws. Second, they censor this one image and that opens the floodgates to every nut petitioning them to delete something or other. Then there's the Safe Harbor provision of the wonderful DMCA which Google and other hosts rely on to stop all kinds of legal nonsense. |
| #2 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at 12/2/2009 2:50:26 PM |
| Too bad Google doesn't bias toward free expression in China. |
| #3 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 12/2/2009 4:31:04 PM |
|
Bob,
Shoot, you beat me to it. |
| #4 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 12/2/2009 5:09:41 PM |
|
#2 It's not as simple as that but I think you're more than aware of that!
Which is why every company that comes into China ends up complying with the Great Firewall. |
| #5 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 12/2/2009 6:10:10 PM |
|
Well do not MS and Yahoo do the same?
Companies are in business and in order to do that they "compromize". How do you think NSA is able to see what people are doing and saying besides, sometimes not really succesfully, breaking in submarine cables? They go to AT&T etc. and gain access.... |
| #6 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 12/3/2009 12:21:38 AM |
|
some things are so repugnant that it is not necessary to defend free expression by defending them in any way.
and while I am the most opposed person I know to President Obama's policies, this matter disgusted me and so crossed any acceptable line that regardless of party, or politics, demanded that such an image be taken down immediately. This isn’t expression in any political context. This was simply mean and as simply wrong and it offends as every possible level... which has less to do with race, any everything to do with attacking an innocent person that happens to be married to the current US President. Regardless of how I feel about the President's policies, I'd smash in the face, any man displaying this image, or any like it - while at the same time protecting any man that would in any way lampoon, or characterize the president himself - even ones I do agree with. That's the difference and why and how the protections apply. To Mrs. Obama I would say, we are sorry, Ma'am; and you know what, she'd probably smile and say it was no problem. If why this is so wrong and unworthy of protection is not clear, it sure should be. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/3/2009 10:51:59 AM |
|
#6: some things are so repugnant that it is not necessary to defend free expression by defending them in any way.
Like what? Who determines what is repugnant and ineligible for protection? Even the laws as written are so vague that they could be used against anyone for almost anything. I know that there are laws that cover very specific types of speech, such as threats and incitement to violence, but banning things that offend is the thin end of the wedge perched precariously on the slippery slope. demanded that such an image be taken down immediately. It should be left up as a lesson in free speech as well as an example of intolerance, how to recognize it and how to deal with it. This was simply mean and as simply wrong and it offends as every possible level... which has less to do with race, any everything to do with attacking an innocent person that happens to be married to the current US President. And this is exactly why it should be protected. It is the most offensive forms of speech that are most in need of protection from free speech laws. I'd smash in the face, any man displaying this image, or any like it - while at the same time protecting any man that would in any way lampoon, or characterize the president himself - even ones I do agree with. Well, that's just wrong on many levels. Violence is never an accepted response to bigotry. As well, satire is protected speech so lampooning the President is perfectly acceptable. I believe that every sitting President would agree that criticism, satire and even mean-spirited jokes are what separates free states from oppressive ones. If why this is so wrong and unworthy of protection is not clear, it sure should be. I completely disagree, and you haven't provided any reasoning to convince me otherwise. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 204 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:50:29 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
