Yes indeed, it is clearly happening, that fact is not being disputed.  The only real question is “by who”.  This, by the way I regard as a serious issue.  I left Blogger 3 years ago to give my blog more creative control and securi…

LL

Sorry, those excuses don’t cut it. I don’t accept that excuse from any company. People wrote the specs for the software (determined the policy), people wrote the software, people tested the software, and people approved use of the software. I don’t see anybody saying the software isn’t doing exactly what the decision makers want it to do. Thus its those peoples’ fault, not the software or computer’s fault.

In this case, the blogs are flagged for a human to review. Is it too much to ask that a human actually review them before they’re blocked? Even from an administrative standpoint it seems like that would be cheaper than blocking the site, reviewing the site, then unblocking if its OK. Not to mention the affect this has on the “customers”.

How many of us set up automated bots with IP masks to repeatedly pound the flagging options in attempt to fool the host that a far, far greater number of individuals flagged the blogs?

That’s a good question for Gallup to ask Americans or any people from a nation-state in general.

If you could vote more than once, would you still only vote once?

Is this how the idealistic acolytes of Hope would show their support of “a new direction in politics”? By resorting to brownshirt goon squad tactics?…

amerpundit on June 30, 2008 at 3:12 PM

The terror websites were still reported by many of us, only for them to remain online. Google’s system is obviously flawed if reporting of an anti-Obama website gets automatic suspension, but terror websites are allowed to remain.

I think you missed my point. How many of us set up automated bots with IP masks to repeatedly pound the flagging options in attempt to fool the host that a far, far greater number of individuals flagged the blogs?

Can’t get the following out of my head now…

Flag the blogs that flog Obama
Blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah.
Ignore the ones that praise Osama.
Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb bomb bomb.

Yes, I get loopy sometimes.

…but it does say something about his supporters

Yea. They’re Democrats.

They agree with free speech as long as they agree with the speech.

ynot4tony2 on June 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Maybe, but..

The terror websites were still reported by many of us, only for them to remain online. Google’s system is obviously flawed if reporting of an anti-Obama website gets automatic suspension, but terror websites are allowed to remain.

amerpundit on June 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM

The whole automatically removed excuse is bull. People have been attempting to get terror-sympathizing and even terrorist propoganda outlet blogs removed from Blogspot for quite a while. No matter how many people hit the report blog on those, many of the reported sites remain.

You haven’t convinced me. Those who would want to remove terrorist propoganda blogs are normal people like us who have lives. Those who would want to remove an anti-Obama blog are spiteful little trolls with all the free time and computer bot skills necessary to make it happen.

Don’t believe me? Look at Ron Paul’s success in on-line polls. Need more proof? The sensation of google-bombing “miserable failure”. Still not enough? Recall Hank the Drunk Angry Dwarf winning the People magazine Most Beautiful People poll in 1988. Still not enough? Jesse Camp! Sanjaya!

‘Nuff said.

But I guess what’s good for the goose and all – doesn’t apply to the O-bots.

Update: Also see Hot Air’s coverage
Update: Perhaps it isn’t google, but Obamaniacs taking advantage of google’s faulty sytem. A commenter explains:
The problem with blogger is that a group of people with an ax to grind can report a…

You can find a bunch of others with a simple Google search.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM

I should have known Google would have answered me too, but I am trying to reduce my dependance on it. It’s like an addiction, without the cushy rehab to fall back on.

Thank you, though. : )

Just for the good old fashioned heck of it, I went on to Google and just keyed in a search under “The Messiah” Five hits in, there is a site proclaiming B.O. as the Messiah. (Don’t believe me? Try it yourself). Funny thing is that if you try this exact same thing on Yahoo, you don’t even get this site on the first page of hits!

I just did that. Funny as heck, it was.

As for this, I dunno. Sounds like a bunch of Obama cultists who need a job or a girlfriend or something being annoying. Step away from the computer and the bong, dude. :)

I’m sure it’s automated. I think you’re being too hard on Google… blame the immature idiots who support Obama.

DaveS on June 30, 2008 at 2:32 PM

So, we should let Google off the hook for presumptively censoring people? A company who’s motto is, “Don’t be evil?” Wouldn’t it make more sense to not presumptively censor and at least wait until a human can confirm it? “Don’t be evil” my ass.

Here’s one version.

You can find a bunch of others with a simple Google search.

This has to be an automated process run using an algorithim. For example, if a certain number of people from disparate sources mark a blog as “spam” it triggers an event that requires either the admins or another algorithim to take take a closer look at the blog. The bar for triggering the temporary lockout is probably just set too low.

I just can’t see a company like Google allocating staff time to search out and censor anti-Obama blogs. I can see his holiness’ followers doing it though. They’re crazy enough.

This is the product of not opposing “choice architecture.”

Hillary supporters should support BO, they just don’t know it yet.

At someone’s suggestion here, I removed the navbar (with the flag blog link) from my site.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 30, 2008 at 2:47 PM

I didn’t know you could do that. Would you please enlighten me? I’d be much obliged.

Filing false complaints to harass critics is close to dirty tricks…

Close to? As in, hitting someone in the back of the head with a baseball bat is “close to” violence?