1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Google's "Free & Open Internet" Campaign

Discussion in 'Activism' started by dc.fireman, Dec 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dc.fireman

    dc.fireman Well-Known Member

    After I read and commented on a thread from earlier this summer bemoaning Google's new policy banning firearms and most firearms related items through Google Shopping, I've since come across this gem of a campaign sponsored by Google. It is a petition from Google to the governments of the world to allow internet designers, engineers, and service owners to have a voice in their respective countries when it comes time to make decisions concerning the 'net.

    It reeked of hypocrisy to me - Google is asking it's users to speak out and cry foul when a government approaches what they consider things which would harm free speech, and Net Neutrality in general. Considering that Google has recently enacted their own brand of censorship - to prevent lawful businesses and their would be customers from conducting 'net based transactions because they deal with firearms, I felt as if we who are users of not only the internet, but also fans of the shooting sports should come to answer their call - and tell them just what it is we really think.

    Hopefully, this recent campaign will open them up to a barrage of comments from our High Roaders who also have a Google ID. Let them know your feelings - Let them know just how hypocritical this recent campaign against censorship and promoting "free & open internet" (a.k.a. Net Neutrality) seems to our community. Here is the link:

    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
  2. mr.scott

    mr.scott Well-Known Member

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

    Anger Well-Known Member

    ^^^ 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.
  4. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    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
  5. ShadowsEye

    ShadowsEye Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. k_dawg

    k_dawg Well-Known Member


    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.
  7. ATLDave

    ATLDave Well-Known Member

    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?
  8. ShadowsEye

    ShadowsEye Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. LiENUS

    LiENUS Well-Known Member

    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?
  10. blarby

    blarby Well-Known Member

    An amazingly good point !
  11. mr.scott

    mr.scott Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. mgmorden

    mgmorden Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. ATLDave

    ATLDave Well-Known Member

    This. A thousand times this.
  14. k_dawg

    k_dawg Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. k_dawg

    k_dawg Well-Known Member

    Not a single person here has made that confusion.

    No matter how desperate you are to imply someone has.
  16. mgmorden

    mgmorden Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. k_dawg

    k_dawg Well-Known Member

    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?
  18. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Oh good grief. This is getting dumb. Consider yourselves censored!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page