0 votes

Google censorship

836. Google censorship (6/3/2014)

In late April, there was a news:

[quote] Google+ chief's resignation sparks questions about Google's social media efforts
By Dan Nakaso
Posted: 04/25/2014

MOUNTAIN VIEW -- Google+, which has struggled to gain traction against social networking behemoth Facebook, has lost its leader and co-founder, leaving industry analysts to wonder about the future of Google's foray into social media.

On his Google+ account Thursday, Vic Gundotra, Google senior vice president for social, offered no explanation for his departure after eight years and gave no indication where he will end up next.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25639814/google-chief... [/quote]

I post in a few forums of Google+. It’s somewhere I still got some responses from other members. Ten days later, on May 5th, I got a warning after I posting new article in Google+:

“This post violates our policies; it's visible only to you.” Though they didn’t specify the policy I offended, I know it’s for “spamming’. Because I post same article in many other web sites. Since my article tells truth and it used to be proved correct later, the Feds are afraid of it. They couldn’t find a reason to censor it, they create an absurd excuse – “spamming.” Anyone with common sense knows it is only an excuse as my article is not commercial for commodities but political opinion.

I speculate that Mr. Vic Gundotra resigned to oppose the new censorship rules. It’s too coincident on timing of his resignation and the censorship warning on my post. The censorship is disgusting thing so the news “offered no explanation for his departure”.

If my speculation is correct, then in US there are still people who have positive value of civil rights and moral sense.

837. The Feds go rogue in censorship (6/7/2014)

The technique “the article is visible only to poster” is a malicious way of censorship. The poster thought his article were seen by other members because he could see it while others didn’t. Anyway, Google is a big firm. It gives a warning when it adopts such a malicious technique. Many other web sites may have carried out such policy without a notice. That’s worse.

Some sites were straight. Here are cases took place early this year.

[quote] 11/18/2013

You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

http://whitewomenblackmen.com/forum/index.php [/quote]

[quote] 1/13/2014

You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

http://www.davidleerothfans.com/board/forum.php [/quote]

[quote] 1/13/2014

Sorry katsung47, you are banned from using this forum!
2 posts and you have already proved that nuts are more sane.
This ban is not set to expire.

http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?board=37.0 [/quote]

They even use same words in notice. It means the Feds have infiltrated all these internet sites and control the forums with their own puppets. They think they are above the law. They ban without a reason and “the ban is not set to expire”. What a rogue.