Google's "Free & Open Internet" Campaign

They only want free and open internet if it falls in line with their politics.

mr.scott said:

They only want free and open internet if it falls in line with their politics.

Click to expand...

^^^ this. Its sickening. Search for "insert your favorite p0rn phrase here....no problem". Search for bsa sweet 22? And hope to do a google shop comparison of vendors and pricing? Forgetabout it. Luckily google hasn't squashed their web spider generic search results for gun related items. Give it time.

And that is any different from the current administration and the mainstream media? - They ALL scream about censorship until they get the power to enact it themselves

Their shopping service, and even their search engine doesn't have anything to do with the free and open internet that they're advocating for.

Boycott google all you want for their firearms stance but it's really foolish to ignore what the UN is doing behind closed doors, because of it.

Shadow:

That is the point. They are NOT advocating a 'free and open internet'. They are advocating that they retain the power to censor, but not others. That is, just yet another hypocritical political organization.

Now, that does not mean the UN is not a threat to freedom. Just that google is not our [2nd amendment folks] ally.

Hmmm... The foundation of 1st Amendment free speech jurisprudence is that there is a difference between private "restraint" of speech and government/state-action restraint of speech. They are qualitatively different in many instances, including this one.

Don't like Google's firearms attitude? Fine, don't use Google. Don't like you government's rules on what can go onto the internet? Fine, don't... oh, wait, unless you leave the country, you are stuck with those rules.

It's like the difference between a business that doesn't want CCW on their premises and a state that will not issue CCW permits. You can avoid the former - the latter requires moving.

There are things that I wouldn't allow in my home that I think others should be legally permitted to do in theirs. Does that make me a hypocrite?

k_dawg said:

Shadow:

That is the point. They are NOT advocating a 'free and open internet'. They are advocating that they retain the power to censor, but not others. That is, just yet another hypocritical political organization.

Now, that does not mean the UN is not a threat to freedom. Just that google is not our [2nd amendment folks] ally.

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between an ISP routing traffic for financial gain and an end user service deciding how they show search results and what they omit.

You can use your internet connection to connect to an infinite variety of services, but not if your ISP is directing your traffic for their own purposes.

I don't use google to search, you don't have to either, however I do have to connect to the internet, my ISP shouldn't get to dictate how my traffic is routed or prioritized for THEIR financial gain.

This is exactly the same as having free speech, and having the freedom to say whatever you want on The High Road, two separate things entirely.

Are you advocating we protest google's push for free and open internet due to their advertising policies? This seems just as hypocritical (and even more counterproductive) than google's own actions. Why aren't you advocating we protest the advertising policies directly?

This is exactly the same as having free speech, and having the freedom to say whatever you want on The High Road, two separate things entirely.

Click to expand...

An amazingly good point !

I still think many are missing the point. Google is "championing" for an Open Internet, saying ultimately the end user shouldn't be limited by the provider. Guess what, in some areas google is a provider and they still censor their shopping results.

But don't be fooled, google only wants an Open Internet so they can make more money.

I still think many are missing the point. Google is "championing" for an Open Internet, saying ultimately the end user shouldn't be limited by the provider. Guess what, in some areas google is a provider and they still censor their shopping results.

But don't be fooled, google only wants an Open Internet so they can make more money.

Click to expand...

Difference there is that Google Shopping is censoring their own results - for everyone. Google the ISP is not.

Some companies don't want to deal in firearms related merchandise. Be that for political reasons (either that they're anti-gun or that they merely don't want to be seen as pro-gun), or simply for more mundane ones like a desire to avoid potential legal hassles in a heavily regulated industry - that's their choice.

Don't confuse a company having the right to choose in what areas they do business with government censorship.

Lets compare to an even more controversial industry: pornography. Pornography is protected under the 1st ammendment, but many have an aversion to it and so many businesses don't deal in it. They feel that the regulatory hassle and aversion that some customers have to the subject isn't worth the additional revenue. That's fine - if any company chooses not to deal in the subject its their choice. A government ban saying NO ONE can deal in it is completely different though.

Long story short - any attempt to keep the UN OUT of the internet is a good thing. I can get by with Google not showing shopping results for guns (heck I don't even use Google Shopping, and the search engine searches for them just fine). It'd be quite another for the UN to shut The High Road down for discussing topics that aren't allowed under whatever rules they draft.

mgmorden said:

Don't confuse a company having the right to choose in what areas they do business with government censorship.

Click to expand...

This. A thousand times this.

I did not say they do not have the right. I said it was hypocritical.
Censorship is still censorship, even if they have the ability and/or right.

I am engaging in my First amendment right to point out the hypocracy of Google. And its your first amendment right to ignorantly defend hypocracy and anti-second amendment companies.

But it's beyond ignorance to the point of repugnancy to believe that if one does not accept and justify Google's hypocracy, that one accepts the UN censorship. You are intentionally conflating the two issues with a false dichotomy.

mgmorden said:

Don't confuse a company having the right to choose in what areas they do business with government censorship..

Click to expand...

Not a single person here has made that confusion.

No matter how desperate you are to imply someone has.

Not a single person here has made that confusion.

No matter how desperate you are to imply someone has.

Click to expand...

You seem to be doing so. Google - a private company - has chosen to not allow firearms advertising on a PORTION of their site (one of the lesser used portions at that). Heck I'm sure THR itself has some restrictions on what ads they'll allow to show up here. That's their choice.

However Google comes out against potential government regulations that could affect what all of us can and can't say you think its somehow bad?

There's a lot of things I wouldn't allow people to say in my home that I'd absolutely fight for their right to say in public. There's nothing wrong with that.

mgmorden said:

You seem to be doing so. .

Click to expand...

You seem to be justifying the Brady Bunch and killing kittens out of fun.

wee! Isn't this great where you simply make up BS about someone else's position is?

Oh good grief. This is getting dumb. Consider yourselves censored!