2 ms·
They aren't publishing it, just indexing what others have published. The aggregation of information should never be censored; it is telling you where things ar
by mjevans 8y ago
They aren't publishing it, just indexing what others have published.
The aggregation of information should never be censored; it is telling you where things are out there in the world.
As a loosely related topic; the conveyance of truthful or believed to be truthful information should never be suppressed. However polity asking someone to be quiet for a time or for some other reason might be. This is why I believe 'state secrets' and secrets of all other types should only be for a specific limited time, and that all official records MUST receive re-classification on a regular interval (say once every 10 years, but a new review party who must also agree that it's worth keeping secret for another 10 years). Failure to review should result in publishing ~1 year after the expiration period.
- phs318u 8y agoGood points. On indexing, I'd question if that's all that search engines do. They used to "only index" (in reality, "simple" index), but doesn't the complexity of current promotion/demotion algorithms go beyond that (given the biases those algorithms encode)? Might that cross the line? Do these algorithms encode a sort-of editorial policy? Also, agree in principle re: classification timeouts and mandatory review, though the sheer number of state/corporate secrets might make that impractical.
- paranoidrobot 8y ago>They aren't publishing it, just indexing what others have published. Depends on how you define publishing, I guess. They definitely pushed news about both things to my phone, and I'm in Australia, moreover Google clearly knows I'm in Australia as many of the news articles relate to Australia/Australian things.