"Link Relevance" Suppressed on Alternative Media by Google

[Laura]

"Link Relevance" Suppressed on Alternative Media

LUCUS DRADOR 08/13/07

theultimateconspiracy.com

As if it were not bad enough that we are censored by the main stream
media, now there's a new type of suppression being implemented upon
conspiracy related websites and alternative media sources.

It's called *Link Relevance Suppression*, and it's being used on most of
the alternative media websites to lower traffic being driven to them by
the popular search engine Google.

It's also being used in the opposite way to "Promote" Neo-Con supporting
websites by giving them double the "Link Relevance"

Let me explain how Google indexes sites that go into the search cue when
someone types in certain keywords relating that site.

Google has many different criteria when it decides how close to the top
a website gets, but the main and most important one is Link Relevance.
It simply means in laymen's terms;

*The more sites that link to your site, the higher you go on the list.*

There is a simple way to check on Google how many other websites are
linking to your website. You go to Google and type in the word link:
before the web address, for example;

*link:_www.theultimateconspiracy.com*

Now here is where the proof is that Google has implemented some kind of
script that is giving all the alternative media sites less that 1/4th of
the Link Relevance that they deserve.

If you go to Google and simply type in *www.yourwebsite.com* you will
find the *REAL* number of sites that have a link back to your website.
This does not mean that the sites are being added to the Link Relevance,
it only shows that they have the link on their website.

Want proof? Let's do some searches of various alternative media related
websites and see what we get.

Click the links to see results;
[copy and paste links into browser tab]

*link:_www.infowars.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link:www.infowars.com>*
*_http://www.infowars.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.infowars.com&btnG=Search>*

Now notice that the "Link Search" brings up *2,960* pages that are
linked back to *www.infowars.com*, but when you look at the actual
numbers of sites with links to *www.infowars.com* the real number is
*207,000.*

How about;

*link:_www.prisonplanet.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link:www.prisonplanet.com>*
*_www.prisonplanet.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.prisonplanet.com>*

You get *2,530* "Link Relevance", but the real number is *331,000*.

*link:_www.whatreallyhappened.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link:www.whatreallyhappened.com>*
*_www.whatreallyhappened.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.whatreallyhappened.com>*

You get *2,840* "Link Relevance", but the real number is *111,000*.

*link:_www.theultimateconspiracy.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link:www.theultimateconspiracy.com>*
*_www.theultimateconspiracy.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.theultimateconspiracy.com&btnG=Search>*

You get *0* "Link Relevance", but the real number is *56*.

They are even doing it to popular alternative media sites like
Huffingtonpost.com

*link:_www.huffingtonpost.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link:www.huffingtonpost.com>*
*_www.huffingtonpost.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.huffingtonpost.com&btnG=Search>*

You get *47,000* "Link Relevance", but the real number is *851,000*.

Now, let's turn the tables and do a link search on a popular Neo-Con
supporting website called Hotair.com, run by the Fox News Shill Michelle
Malkin.

*link:_www.hotair.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link:www.hotair.com&btnG=Search>*
*_www.hotair.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.hotair.com&btnG=Search>*

You get *11,400* "Link Relevance", and the real number is *526*.

How about doing a search on Michelle Malkin's personal site.

*link:_www.michellemalkin.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link:www.michellemalkin.com&btnG=Search>*
*_www.michellemalkin.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.michellemalkin.com>*

You get *38,200* "Link Relevance", and the real number is *15,900*.

*Notice how the numbers are flipped?*

This should have *ANY* webmaster up in arms. Blatant censorship being
implemented to keep the alternative media down and promote the Neo-Con
Draconian agendas.

Did Google not think that somebody would figure this out eventually?

Did they not think that this very noticeable censorship would go
unchecked forever?

I urge *ALL* Webmasters, Alternative Media Users, and anybody who cares
about how sites are indexed on Google to contact them en mass and state
your dissatisfaction about suppressing "Link Relevance".

If Google gave sites like* Infowars.com* and *Prisonplanet.com* the
"Link Relevance" that they deserve, these alternative media sites would
be in direct competition with Main Stream Media sites that so dominate
the Internet as we know it today.

*Nothing like beating the competition by eliminating them, right Google?*

Okay, I tried it for SOTT. Here are the results:

For: link:www.signs-of-the-times.org
Results 1 - 10 of about 730 linking to www.signs-of-the-times.org. (0.27 seconds)

For: www.signs-of-the-times.org
Results 1 - 10 of about 38,800 for www.signs-of-the-times.org

VERRRRRY Interesting.

 

[j0da]

Ahem...

link:www.fox.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,100 linking to _www.fox.com. (0.26 seconds)

www.fox.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 201,000 for _www.fox.com. (0.25 seconds)


I have an impression that LUCUS DRADOR might have not a slightest idea of what he is talking about.

 

[rs]

Bzzzztt.

Not a fan of MSM, but not a fan of disinformation either.

Click the links to see results;
[copy and paste links into browser tab]

*link:_www.infowars.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=link:www.infowars.com>*
*_http://www.infowars.com
<_http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=www.infowars.com&btnG=Search>*

Now notice that the "Link Search" brings up *2,960* pages that are
linked back to *www.infowars.com*, but when you look at the actual
numbers of sites with links to *www.infowars.com* the real number is
*207,000.*

So, I did what he sez:

*link:_www.infowars.com

(First I had to remove the '_' because for some reason people on this BB seem to want to obscure the link functions)

What came back was:

Results 1 - 10 of about 77 for *link:www.infowars.com. (0.30 seconds)

Then I did *_http://www.infowars.com: (Removing the _)

Results 1 - 10 of about 96,800 for *http://www.infowars.com. (0.07 seconds)

So far, it does not add up. So I went to "advanced search" and filled out the form for links to infowars:

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,960 linking to www.infowars.com. (0.10 seconds)

OK, this is better. At least the numbers agree.
So instead of the second search term I instead entered the link. The results are important to actually study.

Results 1 - 10 of about 194,000 for www.infowars.com. (0.07 seconds)

Now notice that in particular "www" is underlined and blue as is "com". However neither "infowars" nor the "." characters are. In other words, Google is *not* returning the 194,000 sites that contain the string "http://www.infowars.com" either in "plain text" or in meta text as a link, instead it is returning something else.

"When all else fails, manipulate the data". What this demonstrates is that if you really really want to find that searches don't return what *you* think they should return, it is trivial to set up a case that "proves" the point. This does not however "prove" or even substantiate the case that Google is explicitly filtering the infowars web site out of return hits.

The point is that Google is not interpreting "http://www.infowars.com" as a literal string. Instead it insists of treating the "." characters as a delimiter like a period, that it discards. There does not seem to be a way to "force" Google to do this. You can argue that it should be possible but the counter argument is also that if they did this, many searches would not return even close to what you were really looking for.

I know y'all have the proverbial bug about Google, but this data does nothing to substantiate the point, it only adds more questions to anybody who has had to actually classify gigabytes of data only to find that the searches return garbage. The design of a search engine is a non trivial problem, even if you are not trying to make a profit out of it (like Google).

I know of what I speak because I have implemented searches on huge data sets and very quickly discovered that you have to sacrifice "accuracy" for "content" or you will simply drown in data. Since a search engine is supposed to "help" not "hurt", you have to make choices. You have no choice. If you wish, it is "trivial" to design your own search engine. The software tools are trivially available on the web. Its easy. Just read the data on every web site (which can be determined by DNS queries) and classify the data.

After a few months of trying I have $10,000 that says you will return to using Google. And this is from someone who didn't bother placing a single bet in Las Vegas because I could not find any nickel machines.

VERRRRRY Interesting.

Yes, it is, but not for the reason you would like... I'm not defending Google nor am I saying that manipulation does not occur. However I *am* saying that this article is bulls*** and proves nothing.

 

[Joe]

There's obviously more to it than Mr Drador's explanation, but that doesn't mean some skulduggery is not afoot. After all, with the current state of the world, and google being the net behemoth that it is and the natural laws of life on planet earth, in which we are all rather well versed, being what they are, we simply HAVE to conclude that google simply HAS to be doing something to skew/control the data.

I mean, look at Fox news! I mean, does a bear use an area of relatively dense foliage as a make-shift lavatory?

Joe

 

[Beau]

(First I had to remove the '_' because for some reason people on this BB seem to want to obscure the link functions)

We don't like to link to people who don't reciprocate such linking. The number of times one's website is linked to is part of the algorithm that gives it a higher result in search engines. Why would we want to help people that don't want to help us?

 

[rs]

(First I had to remove the '_' because for some reason people on this BB seem to want to obscure the link functions)

We don't like to link to people who don't reciprocate such linking. The number of times one's website is linked to is part of the algorithm that gives it a higher result in search engines. Why would we want to help people that don't want to help us?

Yes, but the funny thing is that if the solution that LUCUS DRADOR presented (searching for the string) actually worked your link spoofing wouldn't work either... Besides, if it *really* bothered you, it would be trivial to modify the PunBB scripts to simply disable this feature. Also, if it *Really Really* bothered you, you would investigate the actual algorithms used by the aforementioned evil empire (Google) to determine experimentally how they make their measurements to determine a workaround that actually defeats Google. Humans don't make these decisions, algorithms do. Algorithms can be defeated and worked around. However this requires effort.

Hoist by your own petard, me thinks...

 

[j0da]

PageRank Explained

PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at considerably more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; for example, it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important." Using these and other factors, Google provides its views on pages' relative importance.

Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines dozens of aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query.
Integrity

Google's complex automated methods make human tampering with our search results extremely difficult. And though we may run relevant ads above and next to our results, Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a particular or higher placement). A Google search provides an easy and effective way to find high-quality websites that contain information relevant to your search.

IMHO - Google not neccesarily is engaged in foul play. The huge number of corporate media outlets linking to each other as well as their size is enough to boost their Page Rank. In this case size DOES matter.

 

[anart]

Yes, but the funny thing is that if the solution that LUCUS DRADOR presented (searching for the string) actually worked your link spoofing wouldn't work either... Besides, if it *really* bothered you, it would be trivial to modify the PunBB scripts to simply disable this feature. Also, if it *Really Really* bothered you, you would investigate the actual algorithms used by the aforementioned evil empire (Google) to determine experimentally how they make their measurements to determine a workaround that actually defeats Google. Humans don't make these decisions, algorithms do. Algorithms can be defeated and worked around. However this requires effort.

Hoist by your own petard, me thinks...

Or, if we consider, after much research and discussion, that certain sites are disinformation and we simply do not want to promote them or link to them, then, guess what? We manually disable the link - no algorithm workaround necessary - nice and simple. Even if disabling links doesn't affect rankings, it makes it clear to regular members of the forum whether certain sites have passed the sniff test or not.

No hoisting - no petard. Rather odd you didn't understand this awhile ago, rs, you've been around long enough to see it explained many times - or is your 'right man' program acting up again?

 

[Laura]

Hoist by your own petard, me thinks...

Hmmm... methinks you are somewhat enthusiastic to think such a thing.

Fact is, I simply received an email, tried the system that it presented, and posted it here for comments from those who know more about the web and how these things work than I do. If I thought it was a "ringer," it would be on SOTT. Notice that it isn't. I prefer to get feedback.

But SOME people think that feedback is a question of "scoring."

Sorry, I just don't think that way. I prefer to get information and don't mind admitting my ignorance.

Having said all that, I KNOW that google manipulates results.

 

[Beau]

Yes, but the funny thing is that if the solution that LUCUS DRADOR presented (searching for the string) actually worked your link spoofing wouldn't work either

I know one way it works. If you have to manually paste the URL into the address bar, there will be no referring URL for whoever checks the logs on any of the websites that we disable the links to. That's another motivation for disabling certain links.

Besides, if it *really* bothered you, it would be trivial to modify the PunBB scripts to simply disable this feature.

That's not my area so I stick to a really simple way of editing the link. That's pretty trivial as well.

Also, if it *Really Really* bothered you, you would investigate the actual algorithms used by the aforementioned evil empire (Google) to determine experimentally how they make their measurements to determine a workaround that actually defeats Google. Humans don't make these decisions, algorithms do. Algorithms can be defeated and worked around. However this requires effort.

I don't have any knowledge/time to defeat an algorithm.

Hoist by your own petard, me thinks...

Methinks that you doth protest too much. We are not being hurt by trying to understand something.

 

[Laura]

Now, what IS on SOTT today:

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/138671-Media+Manipulation%3A+Users+Mistakenly+Trust+Higher+Positioned+Results+in+Google+Searches

Media Manipulation: Users Mistakenly Trust Higher Positioned Results in Google Searches

An eye tracking experiment published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication revealed that college student internet users have an inherent trust in Google's ability to rank results by their true relevance to the query. When participants selected a link from Google's result pages, their decisions were strongly biased towards links higher in position, even if that content was less relevant to the search query.

"Despite the popularity of search engines, most users are not aware of how they work and know little about the implications of their algorithms," says study author Bing Pan. "When websites rank highly in a search engine, they might not be authoritative, unbiased or trustworthy."

According to Pan, this has important long term implications for search engine results, as this type of use, in turn, affects future rankings. "The way college students conduct online searches promotes a 'rich-get-richer' phenomenon, where popular sites get more hits regardless of relevance," says Pan. "This further cements the site's high rank, and makes it more difficult for lesser known sites to gain an audience."

The author says users need to be aware that search engines have tremendous influence on what and how information is accessed. An effort on the part of search engine developers to provide users with information on how the algorithms function could help to raise user awareness.

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/136476-Google+in+court+for+%27misleading+its+users%27+on+paid+links+to+advertisers

Flashback: Google in court for 'misleading its users' on paid links to advertisers

Google, the world's most popular internet search engine, is being taken to court for allegedly deceiving millions of users over links that are paid for by its advertisers.

In the first legal action of its kind, Australia's competition watchdog is seeking an injunction to stop Google from displaying search results that did not "expressly distinguish" advertisements.

The Australian Competion and Consumer Commission claims that Google has engaged in deceptive or misleading conduct in relation to the use of its paid links. It also seeks an injunction to prevent Google from displaying the paid links of advertisers that claimed an association with other businesses or competitors where no such association existed.

Google said that the claims are "without merit" and that it would vigorously defend the court action. Google said the action was "an attack on all search engines and the Australian businesses, large and small, who use them to connect with customers throughout the world".

But the legal dispute has prompted fears of a wave of similar challenges in other countries that will test the advertising methods used by Google and other internet companies.

Revenue from sponsored links have helped to propel Google's stock market value to $169 billion (£83 billion) since it was started in a Silicon Valley garage by two university students 8½ years ago.

At the heart of the dispute is the way in which Google displays the results of searches. Advertisers are clearly identified at the top of each page and in the right-hand column. But those same advertisers are likely to feature in the main search results, where they are not identified as sponsors. This, the Australian watchdog claims, constitutes an unfair trading practice.

The legal action has surprised the IT sector. Even in Australia, IT companies believed that the dispute over internet advertisers had been resolved by the Federal Trade Commission, the US regulator, as long ago as 2001.

The commission ruled that paid search results could be displayed to search engine users so long as they were clearly labelled as "sponsored links". Google and other big search engines such as Yahoo! and Microsoft have adopted the commission's ruling.

John Butterworth, head of the Australian Interactive Media Industry, said last night: "I can't see that there is any deception going on when they [Google] make it perfectly clear in writing that they have sponsored links."

The legal action arises from a separate investigation by the Australian competition watchdog, which started in 2005, after two car dealerships complained that potential customers who used Google to look them up were being first offered a link to a newspaper that carried used-car advertisements. The newspaper had paid Google for the right to use the names of the motor vehicle dealerships in its sponsored links, thus drawing people searching for the dealerships to the newspaper site. The newspaper was in competition with the motor vehicle dealerships for used-car buyers.

The threat to Google is that the courts will rule that it has a responsibility to police such behaviour. Google sells millions of keywords every day. Regulating auctions to make sure that bidders own any trade-marks they are trying to buy would be complicated.

The real risk is that similar rules would spill over into other parts of Google's business, to make the company responsible for all search results, not just the sponsored ones.

The group is involved in a legal battle involving YouTube. After buying the world's largest video-sharing site for $1.65 billion last year, Google was served with a $1 billion lawsuit by Viacom, the media giant behind MTV, which alleged that Google was not doing enough to prevent the appearance of bootlegged clips.

If the courts agree with Viacom and Australia's car dealers that Google needs to be a policeman, the internet could be seriously affected.

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/126480-Google%3A+Disabling+the+Politically+Incorrect

Flashback: Google: Disabling the Politically Incorrect

As Raw Story tells us, Google has finally addressed link bombs, attempts to influence the ranking of a given page in results returned by the Google search engine. Specifically, and apparently embarrassing for the corporation, entering "miserable failure" in the search engine returned George Bush. Vladimir Putin returned "enemy of the people," a description not too far off the mark.

"While Google has known about link bombs for years, it had previously expressed reluctance to defuse them individually because it didn't want to tinker with the objectivity of its Internet search model," notes Raw Story. However, as we know, in the Bushzarro era, such objectivity is no longer acceptable. Indeed, for a profit-based corporation, it can be deadly.

Google bombs are one thing, delisting web sites for their political content is quite another. For instance, take Google delisting the Italian web site Uruknet as a news source, thus removing it from the Google News page. According to Alexa, the web-ranking organization, Uruknet is highly rated as an Iraqi news source. "URUKNET is and has been the most consistent, credible, and powerful web-based source of News and Information on Iraq during the last 4 years. They have incomparable lines of communication direct from inside Iraq that fly in the face of the lies of the Global Corporate Empire. When the imperialists cannot buy off or intimidate websites like URUKNET, they can always depend on their billion dollar corporations like Google to get the job done," explains Les Blough of AxisofLogic.

But then, of course, the idea here is not to provide both sides of a given news story, but only the politically correct, that is to say the neocon side of a given news story. In essence, Google News is not much different than the New York Times or the CIA's favorite newspaper, the Washington Post.

According to Robert Steele, former intelligence officer the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992, Google takes "money and direction from my old colleague Dr. Rick Steinheiser in the Office of Research and Development at CIA." As well, according to the Google Watch web site, Google hires former spooks, for instance Matt Cutts, a former NSA employee with a "top-secret clearance."

In the future, we should expect Google to be whistle clean and return only results politically acceptable to our rulers, who can't have truth seekers such as those posted at the Uruknet site running around, throwing cold water on their world domination project.

 

[j0da]

I searched for "google manipulating results" on _alltheweb.com and I found few interesting things like:

Google bomb

A Google bomb (also referred to as a 'link bomb') is Internet slang for a certain kind of attempt to influence the ranking of a given page in results returned by the Google search engine, often with humorous or political intentions.[1] Because of the way that Google's algorithm works, a page will be ranked higher if the sites that link to that page use consistent anchor text. A Google bomb is created if a large number of sites link to the page in this manner. Google bomb is used both as a verb and a noun. The phrase "Google bombing" was introduced to the New Oxford American Dictionary in May 2005.[2] Google bombing is closely related to spamdexing, the practice of deliberately modifying HTML pages to increase the chance of their being placed close to the beginning of search engine results, or to influence the category to which the page is assigned in a misleading or dishonest manner.

The term Googlewashing was coined in 2003 to describe the use of media manipulation to change the perception of a term, or push out competition from search engine results pages (SERPs).[3]

souce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

Interestingly, even NYT published an article regarding it's use:

A New Campaign Tactic: Manipulating Google Data
By TOM ZELLER Jr.

If things go as planned for liberal bloggers in the next few weeks, searching Google for “Jon Kyl,” the Republican senator from Arizona now running for re-election, will produce high among the returns a link to an April 13 article from The Phoenix New Times, an alternative weekly.

Mr. Kyl “has spent his time in Washington kowtowing to the Bush administration and the radical right,” the article suggests, “very often to the detriment of Arizonans.”

Searching Google for “Peter King,” the Republican congressman from Long Island, would bring up a link to a Newsday article headlined “King Endorses Ethnic Profiling.”

Fifty or so other Republican candidates have also been made targets in a sophisticated “Google bombing” campaign intended to game the search engine’s ranking algorithms. By flooding the Web with references to the candidates and repeatedly cross-linking to specific articles and sites on the Web, it is possible to take advantage of Google’s formula and force those articles to the top of the list of search results.

(snip)

source: _http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html?ei=5090&en=cf9c1ba8c49c62b2&ex=1319515200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Agreed - I may me somewhat reluctant to admit Google's direct involvement in manipulating results for reasons which are unclear to me - after all I work hard to be paranoid enough :|

So, probably we have many possibilities here, where various parties, including Google itself play their tricks. Ultimately, those who really understand those algoritms can probably alter results considerably without being exposed, especially if some part of technology isn't available for public scrutiny for copyright/patent/whatever reasons.

 

[Beau]

I searched for "google manipulating results" on _alltheweb.com and I found few interesting things like:

Google bomb

Supposedly the new Google algorithm made Google bombing no longer possible. At least that's what we've been told...

 

[adam7117]

I have recently began to explore the depth of Google OS and must say it is really impressive. Some of the applications and the way they improve one’s productivity borderline on genius.

This is why I am also rather reluctant to demonise any particular player in the Internet market – Google, Yahoo, MS – they are all pretty much the same. Google just happens to be smarter than the average bear.

There are a lot of posts about the privacy concerns and browsing records privacy, etc. I use Google Toolbar – after a long period of ho humming due to those very concerns. It would seem to me that the privacy thing is left to us – if you don’t want to be tracked, then log out of Google services, clean your cookies, etc.

But even then, wherever you go, there is a log of your activities anyways – be it at the ISP level or the search engine level.

As far as the link relevancy goes – this is also something that I have been playing with extensively, especially at work.

First of all, the guy is confused about the term “link relevancy” – he is using it in a wrong context. Link relevancy means – there is a link that links to another page – is the content of that other page in any way related to what is on my current page?

This is a very important component of the overall page rating – calculated based on the linguistic algorithms and added on along with many other variables.

What the guys is talking about refers to “site cross-linking” – how many other websites in general link to me and vice versa. It is important to remember that the content of those other sites is also a variable used in the overall ranking calculations.

Site cross-linking is not all that important because of possibility to bomb the search engine and to create link farms. As somebody already mentioned the Google algorithm is immune to that – that means site linking is even further de-emphasised from the overall formula. Google have admitted that, too.

And the ranking formula itself is secret – nobody knows it and so most of these revelations are mere speculation that can only be confirmed or denied by Google themselves.

Now, there is a simple trick that makes sites and pages rank higher than competition:
- create page full of interesting and linguistically diverse content (this is something that is now confirmed as the main component of the ranking calculations – no two ways about it)
- for each link on the page – ensure that there is a link tag (e.g., hovering over the link to Laura’s blog pops up a tag “Laura Knight-Jadczyk Blog | Ponerology | I’m Cool”), etc.
- ensure that the outgoing link leads to content-relevant pages – the three components used are: link tag relevancy, outgoing and incoming page relevancy

This is something that I have played with successfully in the past, achieving very high page ranking without any cross-linking. There are several good books that deal with this issue as well.

While I am reluctant to take sides in this Google Good – Google Bad argument, I strongly believe that with a little bit of research, these things are quite irrelevant.

Methinks anyways.

 

[Graalsword]

All of this makes me remember what happens in some cybercafes, where they have the "anti-porn blocker"...and sites like Cass/Sott and related are forbidden as though they were porn sites!! or "adult language" sites.

Then the internet explorer (as it rarely happens with mozilla, you can cheat the machine if you download mozilla in the 'cyber' but some cybercafes don't allow you to download it) closes or dissapear or just brake and gets stuck in blank. It seems that words such as cassiopaea, zionism, one world government, and so on, are "porn" for those little programs put by the Big Brother.