Google News: Equating Israel to Nazi Germany NOT Hate Speech


FYI-I've e-mailed Google News at least a dozen times now without a single response asking them exactly what was said here that qualified as 'hate speech' that got us kicked off.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:08 PM


1 you guys (LGF & others) crack me up, always frustrated what google says and categorizes. So what if it IS hate speech? that's no longer free speech?

Posted by: Leo at April 30, 2005 05:20 PM

2 Serves you right.....

Posted by: Larry at April 30, 2005 05:27 PM

3 Rusty,

I don't think you personally advocate hate speech or anything of that sort, but your readers do - e.g.

"I really think it is time to outlaw Islam. The civilized nations of
the world should ban together and get rid of this disease."

"All muslims are not terrorists. But all terrorists are muslim. Enough for me. Ban the sickos from modern civilization until they evolve enough to cope with it."

"...actions like initiating bioterrorism in the Third World, which is infested with these vermin (muslims) would be worthy of consideration. "

There is more like this, and you know it. Now... of course they have a right to say if they think, thats their opinion, but you can understand why Google thinks to drop your site.

Posted by: Larry at April 30, 2005 05:54 PM

4 Larry,

replace the word muslim in those comments with 'christian', and you have a very typical comment on Daily Kos or DU.

Posted by: Carlos at April 30, 2005 09:07 PM

5 Yeugh.

Now... of course they have a right to say if they think, thats their opinion, but you can understand why Google thinks to drop your site.

Google doesn't care about the comments. Google doesn't aggregate comments, it aggregates the articles.

And they will not respond to emails asking for clarification.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 30, 2005 09:08 PM

6 We all hate. Only difference is it's cool to hate christians, not muslims.

Posted by: Carlos at April 30, 2005 09:08 PM

7 Remember, we're talking about Google News here, not the Google search engine.

All Google News sources are individually approved by Google staff. Someone at Google thought that it would be a good idea to include "Conspiracy Planet" in their News offering. Someone at Google decided to remove The Jawa Report. And no-one at Google will respond to email.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 30, 2005 09:29 PM

8 Rusty:
Keep putting up the good fight we at CitzCom are behind you.

Posted by: jwbrown1969 at April 30, 2005 09:30 PM

9 Interesting. There's an observable prejudice that Google uses in what they include and do not, in what they cache and do not.

I have a gallery of paintings, among which are two, three that have identified (and in one case, visually identifiable) references to Christ and Christian theology.

ALL of my paintings -- the entire gallery -- is included in the Google cache/shows up in any search results (related to me, etc.) EXCEPT those three.

I appreciate being included in Google's process but I find the omission of these three paintings specifically, while the entire other range is included (nothing distinguishes the omitted three paintings from any of the others in page design, information, appearance other than the omitted three make reference to Christ and Christianity). It does indicate a very particular "editing" of the Google results and about a very noticable issue.

The pages and content, also, contain nothing political in issue or appearance. They simply contain mention of "Christ" and "the Holy Trinity" and then the paintings that are, themselves, entirely conceptual (one of them features a painting of Christ while the other two don't).

So, although I have nothing related to a pointed opinion in my gallery along socio-political lines (it wouldn't be possible for anyone to realistically exact a "hate" reference from my gallery), the three images omitted simply refer to Christ and Christianity and are omitted from the Google cache system.

Posted by: -S- at April 30, 2005 11:41 PM

10 I see the apologists and propagandists are becoming very active on this site, and they always manage to point out any shortcomings of anyone OTHER THAN terrorists scum and those that support them. They are blind to truth and fact. You want hate you apologist scum? I'll give you hate. Anyone who condones the murder of innocent people in the name of some sick political or religious ideology should be taken out and shot, dumped in a pit, and have dirt pushed over them by a CAT bulldozer. For all those to whom this applies, do the civilized world a favor and have a nice glass of Drano, on me.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 01, 2005 12:00 AM

11 "I see the apologists and propagandists are becoming very active on this site..."

Improbulus -
You are correct, sir. This site is overrun and badly in need of a roach hotel or a can of Raid.

Posted by: Dan at May 01, 2005 12:50 PM

12 >>>"Equating Israel to Nazi Germany NOT Hate Speech"

Of course not. It's just moronic.

"Hate speech" only exists in the totalitarian minds of Leftists, and only when uttered by a rightwinger.

Posted by: Carlos at May 01, 2005 08:27 PM

13 To the good Doctor here, our host:

I'm going to stop participating here, including reading. It's not that your site isn't entertaining and informative (it is) but that, after looking into a certain group of websites by a certain commentor, and after earlier emotionally odd content from the other polar direction from another site referenced, I'm now concluding that there is a strange community on the website of warring factions.

People calling others 'trolls' who write, themselves, with false identities always puzzle me. However, since I write with my own name on the internet and don't engage in that sort of behavior otherwise (I consider it dishonorable when someone uses the pretense of anonymity to criticize others, and I'm comfortable with those conclusions). However, no one is anonymous and their content and language does give them away if someone just tracks references and the allusions left by others.

I'm just saying that the entire warring thing between a certain highly aggressive set of opposing interests on the internet is too much for me. For me, a voter and netizen.

My memberships in all and any are as a Christian in the Catholic Church, a few mail servers and domain registrars, and some financial things and a political party as to voting. I really find all the racial/religious/sexual/gender factions just too much and am resigning myself to reducing the blogroll and complaining to Google and Yahoo when/if I find reason to (there are reasons, you're right about that, along with other instances similar).

Not to criticize you, not at all, or your site, but to try to explain. I realize even explainations get flamed but that's the downside of using the internet. Unfortunately, it's a big downside.

Be well, thanks for the entertainment and best wishes...


Posted by: -S- at May 02, 2005 12:46 AM

14 Hate is fear, and fear is respect, therefore only hate people you respect if you don't want to pick on the weak and minorities. So everyone should just hate white men, they seem to be the strongest ones among humans, since no-one protests when white men are being picked on, except groups that instantly get the rest of the world against them, like KKK, fascists, nazis and skinheads.

Or perhaps just go hippie and love everything else, but hate soldiers, governments and wars, and die of std:s.

Posted by: A Finn at May 02, 2005 04:08 AM

15 S is your real name? What an odd rant.

Posted by: Carlos at May 02, 2005 07:26 AM

16 God forbid you offend someone.

By the way, the terrorists are muslims and they are dirty people.

Posted by: Harold T. Fancypants at May 02, 2005 08:12 AM

17 It is an interesting tidbit that S chooses to complain to say Google or whatever when he could simply choose to change what he reads. Hmmm very interesting.

I'm afraid that when Rusty tried to make a point some people out there can't tell jest from serious comments. I'm sure there have been some radical sentenced when taken out of context. But some people just can't seem to read. Also shame on Rusty for saying what he want's to say. Shame on Rusty for having an origilal thought once in a while.

Looks like you may be right about Syria Rusty. Just seems too much of a coincidence that the insurgency seems to have increased its activity just at the some time Syria left Lebbanon. Maybe my hopes for Assad have been a pipe dream. See I was challenged to think for a minute and wow I may have learned somthing.

No shame on Rusty Shame on the censors. For sure Shame on S for being a whiney little tattletale. If I need S to censor my internet for me I'll drop him a line.

Posted by: Howie at May 02, 2005 08:52 AM

18 fingers still sleeping this AM.

Posted by: Howie at May 02, 2005 08:57 AM

19 I agree that the post by "S" was weird, and having read it through three times, I am only now confused and have a strange urge to go stand on the streetcorner and babble maniacally at passing cars.

On a related note, I have some advice for A Finn: You seem intelligent enough, possibly even moreso than average for a younger fellow, if that's what you are, but I can tell that your English, while good, is limited, since you likely learned it mainly from TV. At least this is how a Finnish friend told me he learned English. Anyway, I highly recommend polishing your English by reading Rudyard Kipling, as his use of English is perfect, and his work is pleasurable enough to read that you learn without realizing it. Ta-ta!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 02, 2005 09:12 AM

20 You might try purchasing a single share of google stock so you can attend the annual meeting of shareholders. REgister to make a comment. Then read what they call hate speech by you and then what they don't consider hate speech.Then you can ask the chairman to explain the distinction to all the shareholders. And of course you can liveblog.....

Posted by: vivi at May 02, 2005 09:27 AM

21 Should I link less sentences together? I've noticed most my posts, no matter how long, are composed of just 2-5 really long sentences.

Kipling... I've seen all his short stories (and the Jungle Book in it's many versions, personally liked the one made in early Yugoslavia the best, very gory, even had a huge war between the wolves and red hounds) as cartoons spoken in Finnish and English, and also few of them in Swedish, so I pretty much know all his interresting works, and I'm not into poetry. (the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn seems interresting, mostly because of the Futurama and Simpsons episodes that had it, and the mention of it in "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" when the albino was insulting all the countries in the world)

Posted by: A Finn at May 03, 2005 02:12 AM

22 A finn, English basically is just 2 to five really long sentences. I can read you, no worries. Just keep writing and screw them. I'm reading the ideas not the grammar.

Posted by: Howie at May 03, 2005 11:32 AM

23 Carlos...the user display links to my real name, real site, domain that equates with my real name. Pretty straightforward.

Posted by: -S- at May 03, 2005 03:03 PM

24 And, "a rant"?

I see that sort of juvenile behavior on boards whenever a point is can dismiss what I wrote as "a rant" but you can't discuss the points I communicated.

And lift your finger on your little mouse to look select an I.D. displayed to consider who expressed what.

So far, points for you: less than zero.

Posted by: -S- at May 03, 2005 03:05 PM

25 If that's "a rant," then what you're writing is gas.

Posted by: -S- at May 03, 2005 03:06 PM

26 And more gas from "howie" who can't read, either!

Howie "wrote":
No shame on Rusty Shame on the censors. For sure Shame on S for being a whiney little tattletale. If I need S to censor my internet for me I'll drop him a line.

Did you even read what I wrote?

I wrote in agrement with Rusty/jawareport -- a site I enjoy without certain commentors trolling around calling other people trolls -- that Google edits search results, and I provided a realtime example of them doing so.

I don't criticise Google or any site owner for doing what they chose to do with their content. It's Google's search process, let them do what they decide they can and want to.

The only point is that, yes, they DO edit responses to EDIT OUT certain religous content of a sincere sort. They EDIT IN content that ridicules certain religions and even denigrates religious sites, and yet they EDIT OUT content that isn't even political, just -- as in my example -- religous (Christian).

Since I'm neither Jewish nor Arabian/other Middle Eastern races, I am not keenly, inherently involved in the Israel/Palestine issue as to taking sides so much as I am sympathetic to Israel based upon my religious beliefs (that's allowed last time I checked, it's still an opinion and that should be acceptable as an individual opinion) but I am even now hated by some (who hate, so it's a statement about them, mostly) because I'm a Christian who sympathises with Israel, and from many polarized sources.

I'm not affiliated with racist groups of any sort and those sorts are found among any/all polarized groups lately on our planet, so it isn't the issues that are racist, but individuals making a lot of noise from all of them.

Does that clarify for you? Please try reading the comments before you go insane about what you imagine they might say, or perhaps represent, or project upon through your own troubled emotions.

Some of us are tired of the haters in our world and in my experience, they're found in all areas, all polarities, among human groups. Again I write, it's a case of individual mental and emotional troubles by those who hate, not always inherent to the message of the groups with which they affiliate. I've met hateful racists who were Palestinian, who were Chinese, who were Cuacasian in America/elsewhere, Hispanics and Negroids in Europe, who were Jewish, who were...

the point is that hate is not the type, the race, the nationality, but the individual, in my experience. It's just that sometimes certain racists/haters get into positions of power and then you get the nations on missions to erase others from the earth.

Posted by: -S- at May 03, 2005 03:17 PM

27 And, Improbulous, you are already babbling nonsensically at passing readers, so I can assure you that passing cars or not would make no difference to the source: you're still babbling nonsensically.

You're also a very troubled person, based upon what you've written here.

You are also not anonymous, just so you know...some of us can discern the source behind the babbling, and pretty easily.

Posted by: -S- at May 03, 2005 03:19 PM

28 I agree that Google has an odd decision about what represents "hate speech."

Posted by: -S- at May 03, 2005 03:21 PM

29 Nonsensical Improbulus:

Based upon your example, "learned" equates with psychosis. You appear to be one of those persons who assume "studying English" bestows special powers...

I attended the University of California, and majored in both English Literature and Biological Sciences, so there goes THAT babbling argument of yours.

I think you'll be more successful if you just stick with cars as to your babbling.

Your comments and some by others here well represent what I wrote and that is that often it is a case of individual human troubled pscyhology that lends to attraction to certain militant factions. You get hateful individual upset using greater issues, expressing hate that originates in a troubled person's mind moreso than in that with which they affiliate.

But, case closed, I like Rusty's site and Rusty but the site. I agree with Rusty that Google edits search and content results. I agree that it's non productive after a point to attempt to continue to participate here. Improbulus, Carlos and Howie, you are very troubled people.

Posted by: -S- at May 03, 2005 03:29 PM

Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0073 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0039 seconds, 37 records returned.
Page size 25 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.