Internet Skullduggery?

May 15, 2006
5:26 AM CST

The Skipper writes:

What do you do when your site has no hidden text, no cloaking, no SEOoptimization crap, no keyword spamming - and Google just drops you from the index? That is what has happened to my weblog Barking Moonbat Early Warning System.

I have sent repeated messages to Google and the only response I get is “We cannot comment on the reason your site was dropped”. I have requested reinclusion and after three weeks nothing has happened. This is arrogance beyond belief.

My site is a conservative weblog and has been online for two and a half years with no complaints or problems. I am an IT professional and I know how to play by the rules of web publishing. Since Google dropped my site, traffic has dropped from over 3,000 hits per day to just over 1,000 and advertisers have left. There is considerable financial damage being done with no reason given as to why.

Will it take a lawsuit to get Google to play fair? Does anyone know a good lawyer who wants to go after Google?

He’s right, by the way: as far as Google is concerned, the only way you can find BMEWS is through links at other sites. Inexplicable. I’ve known Alan for years, and his website can hardly be called “offensive” except perhaps by the most shrill barking moonbat. He’s a decent man, and this action by Google is, as they say, inexplicable.

If anyone out there has the wherewithal to help him, please do so.

And in the meantime: I’m not a lawyer, but I can help in other ways: BMEWS is hereby added to the blogroll (under “Fine Blogs"), so get over there.

Also, I think I’ll use Ask.com as my primary search engine from now on… after using Google for years.

Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

As unfair as this seems on the surface, Google has the right to list or exclude anyone that they choose.  Just as you (and I) have the right to take our searches elsewhere.  Google is market-driven; if enough people stop using Google, they will have to reassess their criteria for inclusion on their search engines.  In the meantime, they have broken no laws that I’m aware of.

MG

Author ID: 2615 | 5/15/2006 06:07 AM CST | #63022


Yup, I’ve quit using Google and I won’t touch Yahore with a forked stick.  I remember reading in some business publication that Google is a search engine and that those are getting close to being a commidity item, which was why Google management was trying to expand into other areas.  However if they can’t perform in the base area and start pissing off people, then they’ll see their stock go tits up in the fish bowl.

Author ID: 67 | 5/15/2006 06:36 AM CST | #63023


>>As unfair as this seems on the surface, Google has the right to list or exclude anyone that they choose.

The more I encounter this bit of libertarian dogma, (that private property owner’s rights are infinite and boundless) the more I wonder if people really understand that there is a balance of responsibility that goes with the power.

I’m not going to get into _that_ aspect here in comments.

What I AM going to say is that Google at least implicitly (and possibly explicitly) represents itself as an unbiased search service of the entire internet, and if that’s not what they are, then there needs to be some “truth in advertising”.

Author ID: 188 | 5/15/2006 06:56 AM CST | #63027


Edit:

>>the more I wonder if people really understand that there is a balance of responsibility that goes with the power, and that there is a distinction between property that is truly private, versus property that is by its nature that of “public accommodation”.

Property owner’s rights collide with patron’s rights in the arena of public accommodation, and our laws and society strive to find the balance.

Author ID: 188 | 5/15/2006 06:58 AM CST | #63029


>>Property owner’s rights collide with patron’s rights in the arena of public accommodation, and our laws and society strive to find the balance.<<

Google is a business.  Just like Wal-Mart has the right to refuse to carry music that it considers to be “unsuitable”, Google has the right to refuse to carry websites that it considers to be “unsuitable”.  And we have the right to shop elsewhere.

Even restaurants have the right to refuse service if you don’t measure up to their standards ("improper dress”, for example).

Author ID: 2615 | 5/15/2006 07:13 AM CST | #63033


All that would be okay if Google had responded to BMEWS with a “we find your site unacceptable” letter or similar.

But they’ve chosen weaselly silence instead, which is entirely inappropriate. As Alan said, his site carries opinion only, and none of the usual software / programming nonsense which would make a site objectionable, from a systems standpoint.

Hell, even his opinions are relatively mild, compared, say, to mine.

Screw Google if they won’t at least have the balls to say why BMEWS has been “de-indexed”. I won’t use them anymore—and I’ve used them a LOT in the past, both in terms of their search engine and their advertisers.

0 Author ID: 1 | 5/15/2006 07:19 AM CST | #63034


I scraped Google off my browsers after finding out about their affinity for sleeping with Beijing.

Author ID: 6681 | 5/15/2006 08:00 AM CST | #63039


I’m not so sure about using Ask.com - but I do recall reading about another search engine that wasn’t so chickenshiit (but I can’t remember which one it was).

Once I figure out which one it is, I’ll start using that one and putting it as the default start page on all my machine rebuilds at work.  To give you an idea how many machines that is, I have a Windows XP CD key memorized - all 25 characters (images don’t work reliably due to various hardware issues and Sysprep doesn’t give us what we want either).

I’ve added BMEWS to my regular list of blog sites I hit.

Author ID: 2187 | 5/15/2006 08:18 AM CST | #63040


Isn’t this a little moonbatty? Google indexes many gun related and conservative sites. Goodness, I’ve found ammo deals on froogle and guns (yes guns) on google. They drop one site and suddenly they’re a pariah?

Suppose you sent a letter to the editor and it wasn’t published. Are you entitled to have your letter published? Is the paper not being fair and balanced if it doesn’t publish your letter? Can you demand an explanation as to why your letter wasn’t published?

I view the google delisting thing in a similar light.

As for not using Google; come on ... they’re only *THE* most complete internet index. I say, continue using them but don’t click on any of the sponsored links. That way no “money changes hands”. Sure, they can tout your usage in their hit count “ratings” to present to prospective advertisers. But using your hit for “ratings” is like a newspaper including the hobo who finds a newspaper in the garbage among its “readership”.

Author ID: 1558 | 5/15/2006 08:18 AM CST | #63041


Felix said:
“They drop one site and suddenly they’re a pariah? “

Actually, it’s not just one site.  They also dropped Acidman (http://www.gutrumbles.com) and other conservative sites I can’t recall.  They’re all small sites with sharply conservative opinions and the occasional use of the f-word.

I dunno what’s going on at google, but between that and cozying up to the chicoms makes me want to see another search engine.

Lamont

Author ID: 7723 | 5/15/2006 08:42 AM CST | #63043


As Geek says, what we need is a little truth in advertising from Google.  Since you don’t pay for listings for them, and you don’t pay for use, it gives every appearance of indexing all sites.  I can understand them delisting sites that contain viruses or hacker type stuff, but they say that in their terms and conditions.  If you, as a member of the WWW comply with their terms and conditions for listing, they have an obligation to tell you how you have fallen out of compliance.

Phone companies can’t decide that you can’t get a phone, unless you don’t pay your bill or are committing fraud.  The utility companies can’t refuse you for the same reasons.

I can also understand blocking programs.  They have a right to categorize sites and enable firewall blocking technology based on their rules.  But Google is free to users and gives the impression that you will get the most popular and best matches for what you type in (sans hackers and viruses). 

Here’s what their Terms of Service says:

Content Linked to by Google
The sites displayed as search results or linked to by Google Services are developed by people over whom Google exercises no control. The search results that appear from Google’s indices are indexed by Google’s automated machinery and computers, and Google cannot and does not screen the sites before including them in the indices from which such automated search results are gathered. A search using Google Services may produce search results and links to sites that some people find objectionable, inappropriate, or offensive. We cannot guarantee that a Google search will not locate unintended or objectionable content and assume no responsibility for the content of any site included in any search results or otherwise linked to by the Google Services.

[empasis mine]

0 Author ID: 2 | 5/15/2006 08:45 AM CST | #63044


Well, two weeks ago constitution.org disappeared from google.com’s index. If you go to google and do a search on “constitution.org”, it will return a page that says:

Sorry, no information is available for the URL constitution.org

So, it could be technical difficulties, but it could also be censorship. I know of a number of consertive blogs and sites that got whacked, including Chris Byrne’s site (but that was google ad sense dropping him for no good reason). Google is a very powerful communication tool and it knows it. It also has no problem doing business with the Red Chinese. It is a good idea to find out what other search engines are out there. That is, as long as they are listed on google…

Author ID: 2814 | 5/15/2006 09:16 AM CST | #63046


Here’s the fact of the matter: Google is run by a bunch of liberal geeks. Clearly, they’re trying to “clean up their part of the Internet”—which means de-indexing some sites which use harsh language or whatever.

The problem, as most have realized, is that search engines, by their very definition, are supposed to be neutral—just as the mainstream media are—but both Google and the NYT are falling foul of their Lefty tendencies, which is towards PC and the multi-culti “all political systems are equal” nonsense.

Hence the fact that the mainstream media ignores (and sometimes glorifies) repressive leftwing regimes like Cuba and Venezuela, and cozies up to the powerful ones (like China). When last did you read any article in the Washington Post which criticized China for colonizing Tibet?

Frankly, I’ve found the Google indexing to be a mixed blessing, at best. Yes, it has enabled people to find my website—but it’s also enabled corporate recruiters to find my website, which is why I’m (corporately) unemployed and will continue to be so.

But back to the point. The problem with Google is that as they’ve grown and become the search engine leader, so they’ve had to deal with big-company problems, like: do we do business with a large market, even though their practices may be reprehensible to us?

Obviously, Google has chosen “yes” as that option—and the PC part has just been a subset of that attitude.

Screw them, the pinko twerps. There are other search engines—and as ask.com’s TV ad says, they’re bigger, but that doesn’t mean they’re better.

0 Author ID: 1 | 5/15/2006 09:17 AM CST | #63047


The

Author ID: 2814 | 5/15/2006 09:48 AM CST | #63051


Not disclosing that their search engine results are filtered for political reasons is fraud ... they are defrauding the folks that pay for google advertizing, by not providing the service they promised as bait for their audience.

I use dogpile.com ... they will search a bunch of engines, including google ... if google censors, I just see results from other engines.

Author ID: 1358 | 5/15/2006 10:07 AM CST | #63054


I was one of the people who noticed that Barking Moonbat was not coming up on Google. I have changed my search engine to another company as I don’t like dealing with commie pinko bastards.

Author ID: 6577 | 5/15/2006 10:52 AM CST | #63061


Forgot about dogpile… there ya go, into the old taskbar it goes.

0 Author ID: 1 | 5/15/2006 03:20 PM CST | #63073


Although BMEWS wasn’t the first, I doubt that they will be the last. This from the American Prowler.

http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9821

Somewhere I think that I recall that Albert Gore worked for GOOGLE. It makes you wonder.  Yet another reason to discontinue Google.

Author ID: 8111 | 5/15/2006 03:59 PM CST | #63076


Somewhere I think that I recall that Albert Gore worked for GOOGLE.

Oh fur christ’s sake. Source please?

Author ID: 1558 | 5/15/2006 04:07 PM CST | #63078


TS writes:

Here’s what their Terms of Service says:

Content Linked to by Google
The sites displayed as search results or linked to by Google Services are developed by people over whom Google exercises no control. The search results that appear from Google’s indices are indexed by Google’s automated machinery and computers, and Google cannot and does not screen the sites before including them in the indices from which such automated search results are gathered. A search using Google Services may produce search results and links to sites that some people find objectionable, inappropriate, or offensive. We cannot guarantee that a Google search will not locate unintended or objectionable content and assume no responsibility for the content of any site included in any search results or otherwise linked to by the Google Services.

And that is what in legal-speak is called a disclaimer. It implies you can’t hold Google liable if you stumble across something icky. What it doesn’t say is that Google *cannot* remove links to icky sites (by whatever definition of icky). 

Reading a little further in their Terms of Service:

Changes In Terms and Conditions and Google Search Service

We may modify or terminate our services from time to time, for any reason, and without notice, including the right to terminate with or without notice, without liability to you, any other user or any third party. We reserve the right to modify these Terms of Service from time to time without notice. Please review these Terms of Service from time to time so that you will be apprised of any changes.

NOTE: I’m neither a fan nor a detractor of Google. I don’t own a single share of stock (though I took a bet that an oz. of Au will still be more valuable than a share of Google stock by the end of the year) nor do I care about the fortunes of the company. I do however find it funny that a site which purports to support the 1st amendment ("The 1st amendment doesn’t apply to private parties") dedicates space and bandwidth to an issue that should have garnered little more than a ho-hum response.

Author ID: 1558 | 5/15/2006 05:05 PM CST | #63082


Feeelix:  I was mistaken that Albert Gore worked for Google, at least directly, however there is a close relationship between Albert and GOOGLE.

http://www.webprowire.com/summaries/1011694.html

http://msn-cnet.com.com/Gores+TV+network+set+to+launch+with+Google+tie-in/2100-1047_3-5653913.html?tag=nl

How is Alberts TV network doing? Anyone?

Author ID: 8111 | 5/15/2006 06:58 PM CST | #63088


BTW, the above links were produced using ASK.COM. GOOGLE is officially sh*t-canned on my network.

Author ID: 8111 | 5/15/2006 07:00 PM CST | #63089


I was reading a discussion thread on Uncyclopedia about Google blacklisting Uncyclopedia.

There’s some interesting discussion on that thread that offers up a less malicious explanation of these events.

Now, I know you said there’s no hidden text or other sneaky SEO shenanigans on BMEWS, but does that include faux blackouts?  As in, black text on a black background in mimickry of a government bureaucrat taking a Sir Marks-A-Lot to the document.  Because toward the end of the thread I linked, they point out that Google’s automated web crawlers do not take kindly to text matching the color of its background, and this may be the reason many sites get dropped.

If that is the case, then this might be what has happened.  Through disgracefully cooperating with the ChiComs, Google has sparked a huge discussion over government Internet censorship, which more than a few people have made sarcastic comments about.  On the internet, said sarcastic comments are easily embellished with blacking out the text’s background.  The fact that right wingers tend to mock communists more than other people may be the reason that there appears to be a malignantly leftist bias as of late.

If this speculation is true, it may be solvable by convincing Google to adjust some of its algorithms so that it is more possible to excuse the artistic use of hidden text.  They still have a lot to answer for, but keep in mind the cardinal rule of realistic conspiracy theory: “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence”.

Author ID: 1552 | 5/16/2006 12:36 AM CST | #63101


Worth trying a newer search engine, too.  This one’s a “clustering” engine which categorizes results by contexts.  I got rid of my Google toolbar and use it exclusively anymore:  http://clusty.com/ .

Author ID: 8118 | 5/16/2006 07:03 AM CST | #63120


Some libertarians have difficulty remembering that capitalists can do evil things.

If it looks like some big money capitalist is doing something evil ... he probably is. If you dig hard enough, you can generally find the hidden initiation of force that tripped your intuitive bullsh*t sensor.

Author ID: 1358 | 5/16/2006 07:26 AM CST | #63127


Google hates guns, they are fairly up front about this in the UK, because they know it isn’t an issue.
I expect they are quietly dropping sites they don’t like content of, personally I’m not surprised - too many liberals on the payroll.

Author ID: 7344 | 5/17/2006 09:00 AM CST | #63223