Google goes on the anti knife warpath again.

[Jack142]

I just added ixquick to my fav list for searches. Google loses me as a customer
Only way to change a politik
jack

 

[AlphalphaPB]

"Google is pushing a political agenda."

I think that it's ridiculous to refuse to use Google simply because they refuse to accept knife ads. Their choice doesn't affect search capabilities at all. People just need to accept the fact that despite Google's importance, the search engine company isn't their personal teet.

Google's refusal isn't exactly an in-your-face statement either. Last I heard, they haven't organized anti-weapons rallies. They just turned down a business transaction.

"Google sucks."

It's not like they're censoring search results right now (at least not in the US, AFAIK). I absolutely love the pinpoint precision and control of exact text searching with Google, because I don't have to depend on a computer's fuzzy grasp of semantics to serve up the right list of pages. Flexible minds do tend to be more controllable than flexible machines.

 

[Gollnick]

I think that it's ridiculous to refuse to use Google simply because they refuse to accept knife ads.

That's the only way we have to fight back.

And it's a good way too. The rates Google can charge for its advertising are based on how many people use 'em.

We can hit 'em where it hurts, in the hit rate.

People just need to accept the fact that despite Google's importance, the search engine company isn't their personal teet.

If you are a business trying to sell flashlights and Google dooms you to the bottom of the pile just because you sell "tactical" knives as well, you might feel otherwise.

Search engines are very important and they are in great positions of influence.

Google's refusal isn't exactly an in-your-face statement either. Last I heard, they haven't organized anti-weapons rallies. They just turned down a business transaction.

Sometimes, you see stories in the papers about people who stand outside abortion clinics and shout and carry signs. We recognize them as making an "in-your-face statement."

Recently, there was, in the news, a story about a building contractor who had to quite a project unfinished. Why? Bankruptcy? No. Incompetence? No. Why? Because he couldn't get supplies; nobody would sell him supplies for that project. No subcontractors would work for him either. Bad credit? Bad labor relations. No. The project in question was to build a building that would be an abortion clinic.

Is the refusal made by the suppliers and subcontractors any less of a protest? Are those suppliers and subcontractors any less protesters than the folks carrying the signs?

Reconsider my example of the on-line retailer who sells both flashlights and knives. His flashlight business suffers because Google won't let him buy a better listing because of his knife business while his competition who only sell flashlights get ahead despite their higher prices.

It's not like they're censoring search results right now (at least not in the US, AFAIK).

Maybe not in the strictest sense of the word, but they certainly are skewing the results based on their political agenda. That seems like a form of censorship to me.

 

[AlphalphaPB]

Originally posted by Gollnick
Maybe not in the strictest sense of the word, but they certainly are skewing the results based on their political agenda. That seems like a form of censorship to me.

Originally posted by Gollnick
If you are a business trying to sell flashlights and Google dooms you to the bottom of the pile just because you sell "tactical" knives as well, you might feel otherwise.

We must remember that right now we're talking about the "Sponsored links" column that's displayed separately from the search results. They're not the search results. My argument is that Google's efficacy as a search engine is not directly affected by their selectivity in accepting ads.

Sure, it might be unfair to the knife stores that can't get listed, but that's Google's decision to make. It won't affect my choice to use Google.

I believe that the majority of boycotters are making a knee-jerk reaction based on their reading that Google is broadly "anti-knife", whereas the reality is that they do not accept advertisements from some retailers based on what they sell. It could be that they wish to avoid legal complications, rather than wishing to impose their morality on the users of the search engine. Maybe we, the knife-using community, should request more information from Google concerning their standards for selecting ads. I know that I'm interested.

 

[Thom Lambert]

...otherwise it's "rules enforcement" or "family values" or any number of other descriptions. Anytime we enforce any kind of rule, norm, cultural practice...we are censoring some group that does not have the same practices as "us".

Wal Mart, the largest retailer in the world, and the largest music seller in the world, has a baptist-based "family values" philosophy. They sell so many CD's - often 45% of any successful release - that artists are pretty much required to clear lyrical content and cover art with Wal Mart before even releasing their music. Otherwise, Wal Mart refuses to stock it. Is that censorship? Well, I disagree with it, so I say yes. Millions of other people call it "supporting family values"

Google is a private enterprise and is under no obligation to accept advertising dollars from someone that they disagree with. The same way that I believe the owner of this site is entitled to keep me, a non-gold member, from selling knives on the "for sale" forum, or posting "for sale" posts on the Manufacturers forums. Both of those Blade Forums practices keep me from selling knives as easily as I would like, but that is the owners right. If I were a very public figure with vehemently anti-knife philosophies, I would support BF's right to refues to sell me a Gold membership. The same way that I support your right, Gollnick, to refuse a banner ad on your site from an organisation that you do not support.

Under our current system of "free enterprise", Google has risen to the top and is entitled to do what they want with that power. That's one of the flaws of the system. Megapowers like Google, Wal Mart, Pepsi, get enough clout that they begin to set policy, not just sell product.

Thom

 

[Gollnick]

...artists are pretty much required to clear lyrical content and cover art with Wal Mart before even releasing their music. Otherwise, Wal Mart refuses to stock it. Is that censorship?.... I say yes.

I say yes too.

Megapowers like Google, Wal Mart, Pepsi, get enough clout that they begin to set policy, not just sell product.

You're right.

And if you don't like Walmart determining what an artist can put on the cover of a CD, the feedback mechanism you have is to not shop at Walmart.

Google has clearly displayed an anti-knife and anti-gun bias. Today, they manifest that by not accepting payment from sites selling guns or knives they find offensive. Tomorrow? Will they, like Walmart, take their campaign even further?

 

[W.T. Beck]

I agree with what has been said, too. The problem is that in this country people with money and power can have a drastically disproportionate influence on social, economic, and political affairs. We all have one vote. We are all free to express our opinions to others, write our congressmen, etc. However, when a large organization uses it's wealth and power to exert far more control over an issue than citizens can do as individuals, or even collectively, then that is a fundamentally anti-Democratic process.

There is nothing wrong with the owners of Google holding anti-gun and anti-knife opinions, joining gun control organizations, and voting for liberal politicians. It is when they use their power to have a much greater influence than other citizens are capable of, or to set policies never voted on by the representatives of the people, that the democratic system is then subverted.

 

[W.T. Beck]

I use www.dogpile.com They don't seem to be anti-knife or anti-gun.

I hate to break the news but Dogpile actually uses Google to do searches, along with several other search engines. Dogpile is not itself a search engine. It is a "meta search engine", which is one that submits your inquiries to several actual search engines and then combines their results. Of course, using Dogpile will likely net some results you would not get with Google, since it uses multiple search engines. So using Dogpile could still be a way to get around Google's censorship.

 

[averageguy]

I love Google. If it goes public I'll own a piece.

 

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by W.T. Beck
The problem is that in this country people with money and power can have a drastically disproportionate influence on social, economic, and political affairs.

Oh, that's not just this country. That's every country with people living in it.

I don't see just what the problem is with this. Of course those who have worked themselves up to a position of status and wealth are going to be able to influence things more than the average citizen.

Or are you telling me that if you had unlimited resources and high level connections you would not use these to try to change things for what you think is the better?

You would just let it all go to waste and not promote "knife rights" (or whatever cause you feel strongly about) because doing so would not be fair to the factory worker and the farmer who lack such resources?

You seem to be saying that if somebody does anything besides vote to influence events or laws they are somehow subverting democracy.

If I am ever in a position with considerable influence I certainly intend to us it to further my "agenda" as much as possible within the law, and I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Keith Montgomery]

I do not and will not use Google. This decision was made because i disagree with their stand on accepting certain knife and gun ads. It is not a knee kerk reaction. It is my way of showing my disapproval of the way they conduct business. If I don't like the way a store conducts business I will not shop there. The same thing goes for Google.

 

[RWS]

It isn’t rich people who have the most influence in our great nation. It’s the people who control the media in this country who have the most influence over what you and I think.

Television, radio, magazines and newspapers are where most citizens are told how and what to think in their daily lives. And it works! Look at the billions of dollars poured into advertising just to influence you.

The liberal media dominates all major media in this country. They tell everyone viewing, listening and reading that guns and knives are bad things.

Most people are susceptible to brainwashing and many have grown to truly believe this about guns and knives. Part of our media’s agenda is to essentially turn everyone into little, scared pacifists where guns and knives are of no use. They won’t call it that, but that’s what it amounts to, IMO.

They’ve even gotten to me. I’m kind of embarrassed to pick up a gun or knife magazine in front of people at my favorite bookstore here in Los Angeles.

What’s worse is they believe it’s ok for two guys to tongue kiss and fondle each other on one of their nationally aired TV shows, but neither one of them had better be carrying a pocketknife or have a gun at home.

The other night I was listening to the news, which I rarely do because it’s such trash. Anyway, they were telling a story about someone being beaten to death. While telling this story about someone being beaten to death, they had a picture of a Baretta in the upper right hand part of the screen.

Whoever controls the media controls the thoughts of the people. Right now in the U.S., media owners and executives hate guns and knives, which means we are screwed with a capital “S”.

 

[nhamilto40]

I use and will continue to use google. I don't really care about their addwords or their policy of rejecting gun/knife addwords. I'm just there for the search results.

 

[W.T. Beck]

You seem to be saying that if somebody does anything besides vote to influence events or laws they are somehow subverting democracy.

Not so. There is a practical limit to what can and should be done to promote a more democratic system. We could not and should not attempt to limit everyone's political participation to only voting. That would violate alot of constitution rights, not the least of which is freedom of speech.

However, there are some clearcut situations where the activities of the rich and powerful must be restrained. We have laws against bribery and excessive campaign contributions, so that the rich cannot buy political influence. We have laws that make it illegal for an employer to fire an employee for union activity. Such laws are needed to prevent this country from being an oligarchy.

What bothers me the most about activities such as has been described in this thread is the sneaky and dishonest way they are carried out. I was just looking at the Google webpage, and could find no information where Google admits to exercising political bias in the way it operates its search engine. It is the same as the news media outlets who have a liberal slant but won't admit it. I consider that kind of dishonesty to certainly be an attempt to subvert the democratic process.

 

[RWS]

Originally posted by W.T. Beck
It is the same as the news media outlets who have a liberal slant but won't admit it. I consider that kind of dishonesty to certainly be an attempt to subvert the democratic process.

Absolutely!

 

[FullerH]

Originally posted by Gollnick
Google's explaination on balisongs is that they are illegal in some states. That's true.

Try a google search for "radar detector" an object which is illegal in some states. You'll see that they have gladly taken money from dozens of sites selling those dodgie goods.

I suppose that google's justification for restricting "tactical" knives, is that they want to keep those evil knives from hurting people.

I'll bet that more people are injured, more people are killed, and there's more property-damage is done every year by drivers who feel at liberty to speed because they've got a radar detector than by people with "tactical" knives.

Section deleted by FullerH

Chuck, I have deleted most of the post, with which I generally agree, and will be using other search engines for now, but I do wish to take issue with you on the question of radar detectors. A radar detector is nothing more than a very specialized and specifically tuned radio receiver, a device which we are guaranteed the unrestricted right to own by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. In this caase, the Federal law pre-empts any state laws to the contrary, a position taken in lower courts but never appealed to the Supreme Court in this specific matter.

I happen to live in Virginia, a state where they have tried to make the ownership and use of radar detectors illegal, only to have the Virginia Supreme Court rule the law to be an unconstitutional presumption of guilt. The Commonwealth continues to enforce a law that its own Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional! That is why it has never been appealed to the federal Supreme Court on the issue of pre-emption, there is no basis from Virginia.

As to your claim that there are "more people are injured, more people are killed, and there's more property-damage is done every year by drivers who feel at liberty to speed because they've got a radar detector than by people with "tactical" knives", I have severe doubts about that. I say this because the people who spend the money to get a radar detector and who use it tend to be more aware of the driving conditions prevailing around them than the average oblivious jackass out on the road. The great majority of accidents are caused by drunks, and not by the casual, incidental, social drinker, the guy or gal who had too many at a Christmas Party or whatever, but by people who have records with the courts and with other agencies for problems with alcohol.

The next largest group of accidents are the result of reckless driving, the people who are driving much too fast for the conditions or doing other things that are equally stupid, such as cutting and weaving through traffic, overtaking on the right shoulders at speed, running red lights, road racing, road rage, etc. None of these are caused by radar detector usage but by sheer arrogant stupidity.

By now, we are down to rather small numbers, and among them we might actually find sombody who was lulled into some false sense of security by their use of a radar detector. But the people whom I know who use them, and I was one until they repealed the federal "Double Nickle" mandate, tend to use them while driving on open roads between cities. Why, do they do it there and not around town, you ask? That is where the police lay in wait with speed traps. They seldom, if ever, put up traps on the busy Interstate sections such as I-495, the Capitol Beltway, which is usually bumper-to-bumper 24x7 and where excessive speed is truely dangerous, and NEVER during rush hour when the speeders and reckless drivers are the most dangerous of all. No, they want to put them where they will not interrupt the traffic flow and where they will not create a traffic hazard.

You see, speeding tickets are not a safety issue but a revenue-raising matter. If they weren't, the state and local governments would stop using the ridiculous speed limits that they now have and use the "85% Rule" that traffic engineers have long recommended. Under that system, the local government would study the speed at which people drove a specific section of highway and then set the speed limit at 85% of the average speed. With the usual 5 mph grace that is given, that would put the speed limit right at or near the observed average speed. At that point, the police could really go after the drivers who are dangerous instead of the guy who is out on a nearly empty piece of road going at 15-25 mph over some arbitrary limit, say 55 mph on a highway built to handle 65-70 mph. That driver is not hurting anybody.

 

[Keith]

The next largest group of accidents are the result of reckless driving, the people who are driving much too fast for the conditions or doing other things that are equally stupid, such as cutting and weaving through traffic, overtaking on the right shoulders at speed, running red lights, road racing, road rage, etc. None of these are caused by radar detector usage but by sheer arrogant stupidity.

These are by far the largest group of people I've seen using radar detectors, and from conversations with several cops, apparently the largest they've seen to.

You see, speeding tickets are not a safety issue but a revenue-raising matter. If they weren't, the state and local governments would stop using the ridiculous speed limits that they now have and use the "85% Rule" that traffic engineers have long recommended. Under that system, the local government would study the speed at which people drove a specific section of highway and then set the speed limit at 85% of the average speed. With the usual 5 mph grace that is given, that would put the speed limit right at or near the observed average speed. At that point, the police could really go after the drivers who are dangerous instead of the guy who is out on a nearly empty piece of road going at 15-25 mph over some arbitrary limit, say 55 mph on a highway built to handle 65-70 mph. That driver is not hurting anybody.

Actually speed limits are determined by the amount of traffic on a road, the type of road, and the location of the road. There is a federal law that restricts revenue from traffic fines. Studies have shown that when existing traffic laws are strictly enforced there is a major reduction in the amount of traffic accidents. You are right that there usually are not speed trap during rush hour because it would cause as much or more danger than it would prevent. But are laws against radar detector stupid? Yeah. Is using a radar detector stupid? Unless you are on a long strait road with traffic ahead, yeah. Except under those conditions by the time the radar detector goes off the cops already got you.

 

[FullerH]

Keith, you rather obviously know little about radar detectors a nd little about the people who use them. And talking to the police about radar detectors is like talking to Sarah Brady about handgun ownership.

 

[stich]

The main problem I have with special interest groups is their money is used to impose their will on the rest of us with no regard to the greater good of our country (the people). A large portion of this money is used as bribery, both outright and in the form of campaign contributions to unethical if not blantantly crooked politicians who use it to continue to abusively wield power. It has become such an ingrained corruption of our political process that I realistically harbor no hope of ever seeing an honest politician again (I only have 30 years left to live). That is, one who votes consistently for the good of the country (the people). All the monied industries, from religion to oil to agriculture, use their clout to pervert our elected officials into advancing selfish agendas. And it seems to me that the more money involved, the more heinous the perversion, and the more subversive it is to the common man (the country). Neither the inept left nor the greedy right serve me one iota. Since I'm just a working stiff, I'm stuck with the fees, taxes and price hikes used to fund my own demise. "We the people" my ass.

 

[MicMurry]

Google can do what ever it wants, legaly.
I beleive that they should have the ablity to determine wether or not to accept knife adds. It's their company, it's their choice.

Now I am going to make a choice. I'm not going to use google any more. I'm going to send them an e-mail and tell them that.

I'm not going to demand that they change and whine and b*tch about censorship. I just won't use their service. And hopefully enough people will do the same. So that google will change on its own.