BigWoolyBanjo
Member
Bing works fine for me
Google going anti gun?
- Thread starter RussellC
- Start date
- Status
I guess some of you didn't hear that Google proved that Bing was secretly using Google to run searches on Bing. Easy to prove, just make up some fake hits on your search engine and see if they show up on a competitor's search engine...
As for Google gun-related searches, I just typed "firearms for sale" and got roughly 26,000,000 hits in .069 seconds. Also got a mapped list of the 6 closest gun shops near my Zip code. Good enough for me.
As for Google Shopping, who uses that anyway? That link only puts up the vendors who pay Google to show their links.
As for Google gun-related searches, I just typed "firearms for sale" and got roughly 26,000,000 hits in .069 seconds. Also got a mapped list of the 6 closest gun shops near my Zip code. Good enough for me.
As for Google Shopping, who uses that anyway? That link only puts up the vendors who pay Google to show their links.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Come, now; do you really think there's only 26 million guns for sale? Perfidy! 
).
Let's not fool ourselves; Google was spawned from Silicon Valley with the meaningless hipster motto "don't be evil." Guns are obviously evil, so... but wait, they like making money, more.
TCB
Judging by their search results, I think Shopping is used exclusively by people who re-package their findings under their own website name (not unlike Bing
).Let's not fool ourselves; Google was spawned from Silicon Valley with the meaningless hipster motto "don't be evil." Guns are obviously evil, so... but wait, they like making money, more.
TCB
I got rid of yahoo long ago when they started intrusive advertising and Microsoft/Bing as a search is kind of useless since it can't find anything.
I've tried duckduckgoo and startpage and neither one are as good at searching as Google so I'm still searching for something.
I've tried duckduckgoo and startpage and neither one are as good at searching as Google so I'm still searching for something.
Tinfoil hat?
What claims I've made are public knowledge. Just surf them on Google, you'll find the answers.
Cooperates with Chinese government: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=1540568
Abandons cooperation: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/world/asia/15china.html?_r=0
Search results as Google policy: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/70897?hl=en
Wikipedia on Google search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search Note specifically that the European Commission called them out in 2013 for listing their stuff first.
Tor: https://www.torproject.org/
The Deep Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web
Some consider the darknet or deep web as interchangeable terms. They may not be in some circles. The point is that dynamically generated web pages are intrinsically unsearchable as they are completely generated anew on each access. Therefore a web crawler cannot access them by simply searching for an index and drilling down. Note especially that those pages exist "in several orders of magnitude larger" than searchable index pages.
As for the progress of open liberal governments to closed societies, I reference the writings of many subject experts who contribute to counterterrorism theory. I had hoped to dumb it down to the examples given in our own legislative history. Sorry if the point was missed, but just look at what Congress does every year - write more laws to prohibit our behavior, all to prevent the few people who lack ethics from taking advantage of the naive.
It does imply the study of history on a broad basis, rather than ignoring the past to solely focus on the Now, which is a bad habit to get into. We can't collectively learn from your mistakes if you don't examine them. And a bias against the old contributes to that - lessons learned tend to be ignored by those who only revere their youth.
Don't need a tinfoil hat, knowing the truth by simply paying attention to it is bad enough.
What claims I've made are public knowledge. Just surf them on Google, you'll find the answers.
Cooperates with Chinese government: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=1540568
Abandons cooperation: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/world/asia/15china.html?_r=0
Search results as Google policy: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/70897?hl=en
Wikipedia on Google search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search Note specifically that the European Commission called them out in 2013 for listing their stuff first.
Tor: https://www.torproject.org/
The Deep Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web
Some consider the darknet or deep web as interchangeable terms. They may not be in some circles. The point is that dynamically generated web pages are intrinsically unsearchable as they are completely generated anew on each access. Therefore a web crawler cannot access them by simply searching for an index and drilling down. Note especially that those pages exist "in several orders of magnitude larger" than searchable index pages.
As for the progress of open liberal governments to closed societies, I reference the writings of many subject experts who contribute to counterterrorism theory. I had hoped to dumb it down to the examples given in our own legislative history. Sorry if the point was missed, but just look at what Congress does every year - write more laws to prohibit our behavior, all to prevent the few people who lack ethics from taking advantage of the naive.
It does imply the study of history on a broad basis, rather than ignoring the past to solely focus on the Now, which is a bad habit to get into. We can't collectively learn from your mistakes if you don't examine them. And a bias against the old contributes to that - lessons learned tend to be ignored by those who only revere their youth.
Don't need a tinfoil hat, knowing the truth by simply paying attention to it is bad enough.
Palehorseman
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 736
Google has said it would implement in September of this year. I have already made the switch to Bing and Google can go pound sand..
http://www.bing.com/search?q=google...=&ghc=1&cvid=c4fe333c55e843b2812fe30154b90751
http://www.bing.com/search?q=google...=&ghc=1&cvid=c4fe333c55e843b2812fe30154b90751
I guess you haven't been reading any of the above? -Like my post #27.
I guess you also didn't bother to read Bing's own "Disallowed & restricted list"?
http://advertise.bingads.microsoft.com/en-us/editorial-disallowed-content-guidelines
Perhaps a phone book for your search needs?
JTHunter
Member
Doesn't Google also own Youtube now? If so, this might explain what happened to a short clip I watched recently.
I had received an emiled link to a video of some speech Dumbo was giving in Brussels, Belgium. He was saying to this conference (with his usual "head back - nose in the air" arrogance) that the people were "incapable of governing themselves" and needed a "supreme sovereign" to rule over them.
Two days later, I went back to that link to post it on certain forums, only to find that Youtube had deleted the account!
How's that for "censorship"!!
I had received an emiled link to a video of some speech Dumbo was giving in Brussels, Belgium. He was saying to this conference (with his usual "head back - nose in the air" arrogance) that the people were "incapable of governing themselves" and needed a "supreme sovereign" to rule over them.
Two days later, I went back to that link to post it on certain forums, only to find that Youtube had deleted the account!
How's that for "censorship"!!
mgmorden
Member
Doesn't Google also own Youtube now? If so, this might explain what happened to a short clip I watched recently.
I had received an emiled link to a video of some speech Dumbo was giving in Brussels, Belgium. He was saying to this conference (with his usual "head back - nose in the air" arrogance) that the people were "incapable of governing themselves" and needed a "supreme sovereign" to rule over them.
Two days later, I went back to that link to post it on certain forums, only to find that Youtube had deleted the account!
How's that for "censorship"!!
Google has owned Youtube since 2006. If the account was deleted for such a video it likely was due to a copyright claim rather than "Censorship". You can find all sorts of crazy anti-<insert political figure here> videos all over Youtube.
blarby
Member
FWIW...
If Google Fiber was in my neighborhood, I'd not be caring if they were sacrificing virgins- I'd just want a plug.
If Google Fiber was in my neighborhood, I'd not be caring if they were sacrificing virgins- I'd just want a plug.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
The search engine Google has been anti-2A/anti gun for several years.
I don't think they can or will cut all gun content(1A issues) but some shooting sports industry vendors advise not using Google.
The service is so common & part of so many devices/systems, I'll stay with it for now.
Ummm...WHAT "1A issues"?
The First Amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT suppression of freedom of speech. Google is not a government web search engine.
forward observer
Member
I'm confused why these websites think this is something revolutionary or new for Google. If one goes to Google now and looks up their current advertising policy, it is largely no different.
Current Google advertising policy restrictions
The way I understand this is that it has nothing to do with what one can find using Google's search engine, it just means that if you have a company that deals in these products, you cannot advertise directly with Google.
This is no different than their current policy.
Once again, what it means is that if one types in "gun parts" or "silencers" or whatever into the Google search engine, you will still get hits for sites who do sell or promote those items. Google is not suddenly going to censor what one can search for. However if you do sell or promote those types of items, you simply cannot advertise directly with Google.
Using Google to search for items and opening an account as business or organization with Google to advertise such products are two totally different things. As near as I can tell, these restrictions only apply to the latter and are nothing really new.
Cheers
Current Google advertising policy restrictions
The way I understand this is that it has nothing to do with what one can find using Google's search engine, it just means that if you have a company that deals in these products, you cannot advertise directly with Google.
This is no different than their current policy.
Once again, what it means is that if one types in "gun parts" or "silencers" or whatever into the Google search engine, you will still get hits for sites who do sell or promote those items. Google is not suddenly going to censor what one can search for. However if you do sell or promote those types of items, you simply cannot advertise directly with Google.
Using Google to search for items and opening an account as business or organization with Google to advertise such products are two totally different things. As near as I can tell, these restrictions only apply to the latter and are nothing really new.
Cheers
Last edited:
One simple issue with direct sales advertising to consumers is that the transaction must go thru an FFL to be legal, with the consumer receiving the firearm in their home state.
If Google advertises it but the transaction isn't handled legally, their lawyers likely are telling management about the real and legal consequences. Rather than pay them more money to shield less profit, they are just avoiding the whole problem.
It's almost always a decision about money. It's just business, you know. Nothing personal.
If Google advertises it but the transaction isn't handled legally, their lawyers likely are telling management about the real and legal consequences. Rather than pay them more money to shield less profit, they are just avoiding the whole problem.
It's almost always a decision about money. It's just business, you know. Nothing personal.
It s not just a FFL thing, they put knives & bows into there. They will still advertise kitchen knives but not tactical knives. They will not advertise hunting guns as opposed to tactical.
Guns & parts, explosives, tobacco, illegal drugs, knives, bows, other weapons are now verboten. We'll never get a straight answer on why but lumping legal and illegal items together is fishy.
Guns & parts, explosives, tobacco, illegal drugs, knives, bows, other weapons are now verboten. We'll never get a straight answer on why but lumping legal and illegal items together is fishy.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I'm not seeing where this is a problem for Google. Google doesn't actually sell anything. They're a search engine which also puts up targeted ads based on the individual's search criteria. All FFL criteria has to be met by the actual seller.
forward observer
Member
This is correct. However, the targeted ads service is something that Google sells to whomever wants to pay to have it done. This is the crux of what their prohibitive policies pertain to. It always has been, but evidently they were just tweaking those policies, and some internet journalist jumped to an incorrect conclusion that they were going to censor these prohibited items from being found with a simple search.
Once again, as I understand it, that is not the case. None of the items that Google deems harmful will be censored out of their search engine. These are just items will Google will not actively advertise for their paying customers.
Cheers
forward observer
Member
I tried those very words in their regular search engine and found all sorts of AK mags. Their shopping search is a joke anyway. All shopping bots have been for years. At one time they were great but there isn't enough money in it for the service to work well and companies fake results too often. They'll have a 30 second sale that starts as soon as the shopping bot picks up their prices and they take it off sale after 30 seconds. So you see very distorted results in those things anyway. The only way to do searches now is through the regular search engine.
- Status
Similar threads
