Let's stir it up some...

[rider]

rider, I do know how search engines work. I searched for the same terms some time ago and did get the intended results. The fact is that google searches are "for sale". The company will allow you to put your results on top by paying money. What I found interesting is that the resulting article wasn't even any of the results----not even on the third page.

You don't know what you are talking about. Google searches are not "for sale". Maybe they are in your mind, but not anything like that. Again, no one hid that article. You are just exhibiting your paranoia again. "Watch out, big brother is watching you!"

 

[Econ101]

rider, I do know how search engines work. I searched for the same terms some time ago and did get the intended results. The fact is that google searches are "for sale". The company will allow you to put your results on top by paying money. What I found interesting is that the resulting article wasn't even any of the results----not even on the third page.

You don't know what you are talking about. Google searches are not "for sale". Maybe they are in your mind, but not anything like that. Again, no one hid that article. You are just exhibiting your paranoia again. "Watch out, big brother is watching you!"

You are so naive. Just what does the following article explain has happened with the very search engine we are talking about? Do you not think the most powerful men in the Senate, and ardent supporters of a corrupt administration are weaker than the Chinese? Do you not think corporate america is where the republican leadership (not all rank and file) have thrown their lot against the people's interest and for their own? Your assumption this is not happening has less credibility than that it is. Unfortunately, we are losing the objective voices in our own society who are powerful enough and willing to find the truth. That is what is really scary.

Google China censorship fuels calls for US boycott
Some American users also urging investors to sell service's stock

By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | January 28, 2006

Google Inc.'s decision this week to censor its Internet search service in China has infuriated many American Google users, some of whom are calling for boycotts of the company's industry-leading search service and urging investors to sell their Google stock.
Article Tools


Umbria Inc. a market research firm in Boulder, Colo., that tracks blog postings about businesses, has detected ''a huge peak in activity" related to Google, according to Howard Kaushansky, Umbria chief executive. Kaushansky said a sudden burst of online comments could mean trouble for the world's leading Internet search service.

Many bloggers have expressed dismay over Google's censorship policy. Pamela Geller Oshry, former publisher of the New York Observer newspaper and operator of the conservative blog AtlasShrugs, said she will no longer search for information through Google. She's dropped Google's advertising from her blog, even though it helped to pay her online expenses. Oshry has also posted a message urging investors to sell their Google shares.

''You have to withdraw your sanction," said Oshry. ''The evil of the world is made possible by the sanction that you give it."

Another conservative blogger, Randy Thomas, dropped Google ads from his blog, Everyday Thoughts Collected. Thomas said Google had a moral duty not to bow to China's wishes. ''I remember when Google first came online. Google had a free spirit about it," Thomas said. ''Now they're turning into a corporation that's in it for the money . . . I just think it's a travesty that Google would sell out."

The censorship imposed by Google can produce startling results. A Chinese user looking for photographs of Tiananmen Square sees images of attractive buildings and smiling tourists, while American Google users get photos of Chinese tanks used to disperse prodemocracy protestors in 1989.

Google's senior policy counsel, Andrew McLaughlin, defended Google's decision, saying the company was trying to balance its commitments ''to satisfy the interests of users, expand access to information, and respond to local conditions."

''While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission," McLaughlin said in an e-mailed statement sent to the Associated Press on Wednesday, ''providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission."

Not all bloggers are calling for action against Google. Michael Stickings, a self-described liberal who contributes to the group blog The Reaction, said he thinks that even a censored Chinese version of Google is better than no Chinese Google at all. ''We do need to take a tougher line on China, including in the area of trade and investment, and I'm not terribly happy with Google's move," Stickings said. ''I just think that it may -- repeat: may-- end up benefiting the Chinese people."

Rebecca MacKinnon, former Beijing bureau chief of CNN, is now a research fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Though a staunch opponent of Chinese human rights practices, MacKinnon sees little point in trying to punish Google through a boycott. ''I find it difficult to imagine people not using Google," said MacKinnon, who runs the RConversation blog.

MacKinnon said other major US Internet firms have also compromised with the Chinese government, including Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp. When so many firms cooperate with China, it's hard to fight back with a boycott, she said, ''because it's sort of like you're boycotting everything."

Instead, MacKinnon hopes to see American companies pressured to disclose the extent of their compliance with Chinese decrees. For example, she wants Google, Yahoo, MSN, and other firms to describe what kinds of information it withholds from its Chinese users. MacKinnon would like the companies to provide this information voluntarily. But MacKinnon also said she would welcome an effort to make such disclosures mandatory. The US House of Representatives is planning to hold hearings as early as next week on the Internet policies of US companies in China.

''If these companies are forced to be more transparent with what the Chinese government is making them do," said MacKinnon, ''then over the long run it might be more difficult for the Chinese government to keep making them do this."

Hiawatha Bray can be reached at [email protected].
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

 

[PORKER]

Twenty-one companies and trade organizations that outspokenly oppose the mandatory COOL law and have registered to lobby against it have spent a total of $29.2 million to lobby Congress and the executive branch on COOL and other issues from 2000 to 2004. These groups are some of the biggest names in agribusiness and include the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), Wal-Mart, Cargill, Tyson Foods, the American Meat Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
* These companies have marshaled an army of at least 160 lobbyists to oppose COOL. Among these lobbyists, at least 45 – or 28 percent – previously held positions in the federal government, many working on key agriculture issues such as COOL.

Could it be written that Most of the FOOD recalls in the last year were caused by these organizations. Yup ,these are the ones that did NOT want M-COOL and the 2002 FDA Bioterrorism 24 hour traceback records law.