3 ms·

No, this is an entirely separate process. The wikipedia link you shared relates to content that is illegal in a country, so consequently Google does not show it

No, this is an entirely separate process. The wikipedia link you shared relates to content that is illegal in a country, so consequently Google does not show it. E.g. in my home country (Germany), this includes some types of Nazi propaganda. I would assume all other search engines follow the same rules.

tpolzer 9y ago
In theory all other search engines have to follow the same rules, in practise nobody cares if ddg shows illegal results.
StreamBright 9y ago
So in your country can you look stuff up about China and Tiananmen Square? Well you can't in China. This is censorship coming from the state. Now go on Youtube and look for PagerU videos. I understand that conservative views are not popular in Google but filtering legitimate content is just bad. https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1406441&start=240 https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1406441&st... What about Dave Rubin? Does he fall into the same category as nazi propaganda according to you? What about Christina Hoff Sommers? Same question. And the list goes on an on. I do not necessarily agree with these viewpoint but I strongly against censoring them just because it does not fall inline with Google's political agenda.
- leephillips 9y ago
  It's important to realize that Google censorship to appease a foreign government sometimes affects search results in all countries, including the U.S. For example, search results worldwide are partly determined by Google's decision to avoid offending the government of Pakistan with content that may be critical of some aspects of Islam: https://lee-phillips.org/youtube/ https://lee-phillips.org/youtube/
  - freeflight 9y ago
    This isn't reserved to Pakistan, the US, Islam or Google. [0] Tbh if I had a choice between nudity being censored and bigotry being somewhat buried, I'd always go with the later. But for whatever reason a certain demographic, from a certain country, takes quite a lot of offense at the sight of something as silly as a female nipple. [0] https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/09/censorship-is-killing-the-spirit-of-social-media.html https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/09/censorship-is...
    - leephillips 9y ago
      I'm confused by your mention of "bigotry". Does it have anything to do with the content of my comment?
- soundwave106 9y ago
  On much of this, it's not Google's political agenda here from what I see... it's advertisers in general. You are aware that Youtube faced a huge backlash earlier this year from large scale advertisers over "hate videos" and "extremist content": https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-advertising-boycott-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a... Defining what a "hate video" and is "extremist" can be vague, so it's not surprising that some strong political channels are caught in the crosswinds, even if they are not necessarily "hate speech" or "extreme". (After all, Youtube is probably relying heavily on user feedback to determine what to flag). It's also not surprising that other things are caught in the crosswind (as the Ars Technica article mentions, LGBT content was also caught in the crosswinds.) Youtube's most recent advertiser-drive purgek came over "inappropriate" videos aimed at children. Again, advertisers are driving what some might call "censorship". https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-deletes-150000-videos-following-boycott/ https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-deletes-150000-videos-foll... Basically, I feel like strong advertiser presence in the future is going to heavily focus Youtube towards more "mainstream" oriented material in the future, especially on what can be monetized. Is it censorship? Not really -- no one is going to force companies to spend money to advertise where they don't want to. Feel free to start your own video platform that doesn't have Youtube's current corporate advertisement pressure. At this point, in my opinion, the energy some are spending in fighting Youtube's monetization policy ("1st Amendment" lawsuits against Youtube are going to fail, in my opinion) would be better spent in making sure the web remains open. So that any Youtube competitors, some of which might focus on hosting "non-mainstream" content that Youtube might ignore in the future, actually have a chance.
  - StreamBright 9y ago
    I disagree. You are mixing together two categories: legitimately bad content (like the scary kid videos) and content does not fall in line with Google's political stance. As an advertiser you are targeting a very specific narrow population anyways and it is super easy to exclude your ads showing up in videos that you do not approve. And just a counter example to your point: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facebook-halts-potential-anti-semitic-ads-following-report-n801566 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facebook-halts-potenti... This was in production for god knows how long. "Feel free to start your own video platform that doesn't have Youtube's current corporate advertisement pressure." Well I do not use Youtube as much as I can. I use alternative video content providers. Anyways, this argument is silly at the very least.
jrs95 9y ago
It would be better to say this includes some types of "Nazi" propaganda, since the modern usage of the label is far broader than literal Nazism.

tpolzer 9y ago

In theory all other search engines have to follow the same rules, in practise nobody cares if ddg shows illegal results.

StreamBright 9y ago

So in your country can you look stuff up about China and Tiananmen Square? Well you can't in China. This is censorship coming from the state. Now go on Youtube and look for PagerU videos. I understand that conservative views are not popular in Google but filtering legitimate content is just bad. https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1406441&start=240 https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1406441&st... What about Dave Rubin? Does he fall into the same category as nazi propaganda according to you? What about Christina Hoff Sommers? Same question. And the list goes on an on. I do not necessarily agree with these viewpoint but I strongly against censoring them just because it does not fall inline with Google's political agenda.

leephillips 9y ago
It's important to realize that Google censorship to appease a foreign government sometimes affects search results in all countries, including the U.S. For example, search results worldwide are partly determined by Google's decision to avoid offending the government of Pakistan with content that may be critical of some aspects of Islam: https://lee-phillips.org/youtube/ https://lee-phillips.org/youtube/
- freeflight 9y ago
  This isn't reserved to Pakistan, the US, Islam or Google. [0] Tbh if I had a choice between nudity being censored and bigotry being somewhat buried, I'd always go with the later. But for whatever reason a certain demographic, from a certain country, takes quite a lot of offense at the sight of something as silly as a female nipple. [0] https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/09/censorship-is-killing-the-spirit-of-social-media.html https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/09/censorship-is...
  - leephillips 9y ago
    I'm confused by your mention of "bigotry". Does it have anything to do with the content of my comment?
soundwave106 9y ago
On much of this, it's not Google's political agenda here from what I see... it's advertisers in general. You are aware that Youtube faced a huge backlash earlier this year from large scale advertisers over "hate videos" and "extremist content": https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-advertising-boycott-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a... Defining what a "hate video" and is "extremist" can be vague, so it's not surprising that some strong political channels are caught in the crosswinds, even if they are not necessarily "hate speech" or "extreme". (After all, Youtube is probably relying heavily on user feedback to determine what to flag). It's also not surprising that other things are caught in the crosswind (as the Ars Technica article mentions, LGBT content was also caught in the crosswinds.) Youtube's most recent advertiser-drive purgek came over "inappropriate" videos aimed at children. Again, advertisers are driving what some might call "censorship". https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-deletes-150000-videos-following-boycott/ https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-deletes-150000-videos-foll... Basically, I feel like strong advertiser presence in the future is going to heavily focus Youtube towards more "mainstream" oriented material in the future, especially on what can be monetized. Is it censorship? Not really -- no one is going to force companies to spend money to advertise where they don't want to. Feel free to start your own video platform that doesn't have Youtube's current corporate advertisement pressure. At this point, in my opinion, the energy some are spending in fighting Youtube's monetization policy ("1st Amendment" lawsuits against Youtube are going to fail, in my opinion) would be better spent in making sure the web remains open. So that any Youtube competitors, some of which might focus on hosting "non-mainstream" content that Youtube might ignore in the future, actually have a chance.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  I disagree. You are mixing together two categories: legitimately bad content (like the scary kid videos) and content does not fall in line with Google's political stance. As an advertiser you are targeting a very specific narrow population anyways and it is super easy to exclude your ads showing up in videos that you do not approve. And just a counter example to your point: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facebook-halts-potential-anti-semitic-ads-following-report-n801566 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facebook-halts-potenti... This was in production for god knows how long. "Feel free to start your own video platform that doesn't have Youtube's current corporate advertisement pressure." Well I do not use Youtube as much as I can. I use alternative video content providers. Anyways, this argument is silly at the very least.

jrs95 9y ago

It would be better to say this includes some types of "Nazi" propaganda, since the modern usage of the label is far broader than literal Nazism.