Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

You don't get it David. What happened with the google bombing is that a self-selected group of people (henceforth known as 'mob') used technology to deliberately suppress others freedom of speech, even though the speech was obviously based on prejudice. Then you turn around and say what a great world this online world is -- so open and honest.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say this is all open and honest, but then turn around and say,
"As long as what you say is politically correct, in my judgement, and happy-happy speech."

So where is the site now? It's off the search results. It's been pulled in other countries. The site's free speech has been completely abrogated.

Victory? In what friggen way is this a victory?

So what's the next 'bad speech' you all want to go after? Should it be anything like criticism, maybe? I've noticed this trend with more than a few sites now. Forbid that someone would say anything -- horrors! -- negative.

Perhaps the Republicans would like to suppress speech against the President. Or how about Iraqi critical of the American administration.

Oh, wait -- that's already been suppressed based on the fact that the American administration considers it seditous.

Victory? Define how this was anything more than a mob using technology to suppress minority viewpoints, just because those viewpoints are based on discrimination and racial bias.

(Oh wait -- if it had been Howard Stern, it would have been okay.)

Why don't you ask the ACLU what they think of this? You know, that organization that defended the Nazi's right to march in Illinois, specifically because they believe that we can't limit what is or is not 'free speech'. Why does th e ACLU continue this thankless battle? Because no one comes to this party without bias.

Interesting... the top result from google.at is the Wikipedia article. I wonder whether this is a phenomenon limited to google dot com or whether other countries are better...

(p.s. your robot thinks that the site we are discussing "smells like spam"

I do "get it," Shelley. I just disagree with you.

I don't count having a high Google listing as a matter of free speech. The Jew Watch site is still up, I presume, and I never suggested that it be taken down.

I could suggest to you that if you think Creationism should not be taught in public schools as an equivalent to evolution via natural selection, then you favor censorship. But it wouldn't be a very good argument because the analogy isn't very strong. Likewise, I don't see the strength of the analogy you're drawing.

FWIW, I am an ACLU member (as least I was the last time I checked) and I support the right of Nazis to march through Skokie. In fact, as a good liberal, I don't delete the inarticulate, hateful anti-Semitic comments posted to an entry of mine about Ann Frank: http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/002160.html

Read the following, David.

http://www.tripias.com/archives/00000114.html

Webloggers have also managed to get pro-Islamic sites banned, and others who they find 'objectionable'. Doesn't take much really. All it takes is a mob and a link.

We are dangerous. We follow too easily, and we respond too quickly, and seldom do we think about the ultimate consequences. Why should we? It's just a link, it's just Google. It's just a site, it's just someone else's viewpoint.

It's an ugly site introducing ugly words...but have you ever noticed that ugly is in the eye of the beholder? I've been accused of I don't know how many things, just because I'm critical of software.

Joy-joy people and their happy-happy thoughts. That's what social software will buy us.

But yeah, you had nothing to do with getting the site closed at the ISP. Your pages are clean.

Actually, Shelley, I did think about the points you raised before making my original post. I disagree with you not because I'm thoughtless (on this particular issue) but because you and I actually disagree about particular values and assumptions. It happens among friends.

I'm not trying to keep my pages "clean" in some sense that values my moral purity over actual consequences. I am doing what I think is right. Am I sure it's right? Of course not. But, that self-doubt moderates my action, it doesn't prevent it.

I do think there's a big difference between trying to get a site shut down and being glad that a site got moved down in its rankings because it aims at whipping up hatred against me as a Jew. I don't equate being open to diverse views with equally embracing all views. So, sure, let a million anti-Semitic sites exist. Find them through Google. But I'm glad that if you're researching a paper on Judaism for your high school class, the first page listed takes you to the community-written wikipedia entry. IMO, that's a good consequence. Some entry has to be first, and I'd rather not have it be the one that tells lies.

Who am I to pronounce that Jew Watch tells lies? No one special. But then, I'm not trying to shut Jew Watch up. And I'm willing to engage in a discussion if someone is uncertain about whether Jews control the banks, drink Christian blood on Passover, were warned about 9/11, etc. (Willing but not particularly eager.)

BTW, are you certain that Jew Watch didn't get to its #1 spot by google bombing?

I think there are two distinctions that need to be made:

1. Does your Google ranking impact your freedom of speech?

-> I say no. Since a large number of people think that the Wikipedia article is a valuable information source, they have linked to it. Google reflects this. This has nothing to do with Jew watch's right to have a web site.

2. Rights of a group that someone doesn't like, vs. someone not liking them.

-> In light of my answer to 1. I personally think the practical consequences of Jew watch's low ranking are good (Based on his comments David seems to agree). But this does not mean that they should not have a right to publish their website, it's just my opinion on the value of their speech.

On a completely different track, I also want to comment that despite Google's claims of objectivity are not as solid as they seem. Who knows what their factors are other than simple link quantities? We do know that that is the major factor, but not the only one. They will remove pages from their catalog, and it's often an arbitrary decision by the top company executives.

However, despite Google's true amout of objectivity, Google is not the public Web. It is a private entity that for better or worse, does not have any obligation to be objective; it does not even need to meet journalistic standards. (Should it? Newspaper editors are not "objective" in their choice of topics to report on)

reed

"Ironically, the first site on the list is no longer Jew Watch."

It's back as I write this, a few days later. And there's now an anti-semitic Google-bombing campaign in favor of the site. I've updated my report:

"Jew Watch", Google, and Search Engine Optimization
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/google/jew-watch.php

The V7 Network - Highly relevant news and opinion for the advanced web professional

I'm taking part in a google bombing contest right now for the search term flag burning. Fun stuff!

"You can't have it both ways. You can't say this is all open and honest, but then turn around and say,
"As long as what you say is politically correct, in my judgement, and happy-happy speech." -- Shelley

Sure Weinberger can have it both ways. A tradition, itz! There is not a point made by Jewz that serves their interests in the last hundred years that can not be researched where one can find the exact opposite point and reasoning being made when it is not in the Jewz interest. The prime operating idea is 'Whatz Good For Jewz!'

Take the racism debate in America, whereby Whites would choose be separate from negros and what position Jewz would take. Now examine the positon Jewz take on Palestinians in Israel. "One standard for Jewz... another for everyone else".

Weinberger. He's just being typically Yooish!

V. Helsyng

btw, most of the so called "information" on JEWWATCH is lies, not just interpretations of facts... it's disgusting