Who Cares?

The news is almost always pointless. Instead of "telling me fast and telling me true, or else to hell with you." Or telling me about things that actually effect me. They waffle on. Extending a story to death without any actual change in the story. News "updates" after the main news are really news repeats. Repeats of society gossip.

There was an earthquake. X number of people die. Fine. Next. But no. We got to hear from someone who ran across some Australians who were in the area when the earthquake happened. I say, Who Cares?

Hillary Swank was fined $200NZ for trying to bring fruit into New Zealand. I say, Who Cares?

Some security guard somewhere brings in a porno video to watch at work when he does the graveyard shift stuck in a small security office. I say, Who Cares? And, would you have made a fuss if it had been a book brought in to read? And even if a fuss was made of bringing in a book to read, I still say, Who Cares?

Patrick Rafter, former world champion tennis player, was at a fashion show recently. I say, Who Cares?

The "Easter Holiday Road Toll" (which doesn't actually see an increase in the rate of deaths on the road as research has discovered - same applies to all holidays) is the highest in ten years. I say, Who Cares?

The temperature in Moscow today is 10 degrees. I say, Who Cares? It's not like I am there, or can even get there to experience Moscow's weather today, or even tomorrow for that matter, because the flight takes so long.

A house in Such-And-Such suburb burnt down because someone put a bar heater next to a curtain. I say, Who Cares?

A family is relieved to hear their son wasn't killed by the tsunami, and wasn't even in any country effected by the tsunami at the time, and was trekking high on a hill top somewhere thousands of miles away. I say, Who Cares?

A puppet show theater's storage room was flooded and insurance doesn't want to pay, but looks like it will anyway. No-one in town new the puppet show theater even existed except for a few parents and their children. I say, Who Cares?

It's like the TV News people think I care about a bunch of inane stuff. As if my life wouldn't be complete without me knowing about stuff that has nothing to do with anyone other than the person it happened to. And even then, it is no big deal.

It's like the regular story (at least every six months) of some kid getting his finger caught in the sink at daycare. Like I care. Like I need to know. Who decides that this drivel is newsworthy? Is the world so devoid of events that might actually have an impact on me, that I need to know that some five year old, who I don't know, got a finger caught in the sink somewhere?

Now let me let you in on something. Come closer. This is important. [Look left and right to make sure no-one else is listening in.] The TV News gets their story ideas from the newspapers. Very rarely does the TV news report something before it hits the newspapers.

When you think about it, there is very little news that actually matters. Most of it is just blah. The kind of stuff you can say, "Who Cares" about and your life won't change one jot.

Freedom of Speech? We Used To Have That When I Was A Boy

Freedom of speech carries with it a burden... to allow others to express their freedom of speech even if what they say disagrees with you, and even if you find their speech repulsive.

Unfortunately, the left are at the forefront of removing our freedom of speech.

See. If there is something they disgree with, they say you are being racist, sexist, a bigot, or are guilty of "hate speech". Even if you say it in a calm and rational way.

However. When they go right off the edge. Ranting. Raving. Cursing. Screaming - as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have been known to do, even going red in the face while doing it - then that isn't hate speech. They are exercising their right to free speech.

If you say, "The problems encountered in black getto areas are due to a lack of parental supervision and control of their young. And how they are not taught any responsibility by their parents." Then you will be crucified by the left. In their eyes, you will be the most vile of vile humans that ever walked the planet. You will be abused no end. Accused of not only being a racist, but a white supremacist Nazi.

It won't matter if what you say it true. Your calm statement will be called hate speech and met with the most insane ranting you could hear. While those insane rantings will be called freedom of speech.

If the left say, "The problem is that all the white male CEOs are sponging off of the effort of the blacks and causing them to talk drugs and lead lives of violence. Capitalism is the scourge of the planet, and all those who are for it should be taken out back and beaten up." Then that is ok, even if there is not one single shred of evidence of proof to back it up. If you object to their false statements and encouragement of your beating up, you will be accused of infringing upon their right to free speech.

And so in light of this, is a story that Google News, the news search engine run by Google, will ban "Hate News" from its news service.

The first questions asked then are, what is "hate news"? and how does one know who is banned? and who determines this "hate news"?

For Google News, at the moment the first site is National Vanguard (who are affiliated with the National Alliance, the leading organization for people of European descent around the world). You can read an article on Free Speech on their website There is No Freedom Without Free Speech as well as An Open Letter to Google.

And on the surface, Google's move can seem rather hypocritical. As other news feeds which say some very horrid things are left in their news matrix, while National Vanguard is removed. And we can jump up and down about it. And cry foul. And say how it's just another nail in the coffin of free speech. And no-one was forcing anyone to read the National Vanguard articles, because you actually had to search for that kind of stuff to find it on Google News in the first place. And all of these comments will be correct.

However. Those who complain about what Google has done are forgetting one very important point... Google is a private company. Which is to say, it is NOT a public govt enterprise. As such, Google, and only Google, has the right to determine what does and does not get into their news matix.

Here's my point using a different business besides Google. Imagine a news-agent. The owner of the news-agency has the final decision about which magazines are, or are not, sold there. No-one else can force that business owner to sell certain magazines. If that business owner does now want to sell magazines to do with Kit Planes or other forms of Experimental Aircraft or Ultra-Light Airecraft, then that is his choice. And I doubt many of us would accuse him of censorship.

If that business owner does not want to sell any "girly" magazines for men to oggle over naked and nearly naked women, then that is his choice. He isn't trying to ban the publication of those magazines. He is deciding his business doesn't want to have anything to do with them.

This is what I see Google News doing. Deciding not to take the news feed from certain publications. And as a private business not owned by the govt, they have every right to do that. (That it defeats its purpose for existing is a different matter. That it diminishes its usefullness as a news source is also a different matter.)

The problem is created, however, the moment they do it while leaving other equally, but opposite, sites in their feed. And this problem comes about because the term "Hate Speech" or "Hate News" is not clearly defined. It is left up to interpretation.

If Google had simply said, "We will not longer be providing service from any source that advocates whites breeding with whites." then everyone would know where Google stands. We would all then see Google as the hypocrits they are, for banning the whites but allowing the Greeks, Italians, Blacks and so on, to talk about keeping their races pure and only breeding with others of the same race.

If Google had made this decision of its own violition, I am sure we would all understand. But if Google is bowing down to pressure from some lobby groups, THEN we really need to question Google. And even more so with regard to its news service.

With the news service, to find these supposedly offensive articles, you have to actively search for them. Meaning, those who do not want to read them would not search for them in the first place. And so would not even know they exist.

So it would appear that what you have here is the following: Someone went out of their way to search for something. When they found it and didn't like it, they complained about it. Complained about the very thing they searched for. Complained that it was there! And wanted it removed.

Now. Even though I applaud Google for making a decision to only index sites it feels fine with indexing (just like I only link to select sites). I boo them and give them two thumbs down if it came about as the result of complaints. And I question their decision based solely on the fact they became so large, in terms of useage, because they indexed everything to begin with.

(The solution, in my eyes, is the same as what was done with the porno websites. It used to be no matter what you searched for, a porno website came up. The search engines reconfigured their algorithms to stop that from happening. And now even give you the option to search with adult filter on or off. So I ask, why not do the same with these supposed hate news feeds?)

If Google continues on in this censoring way, then people will stop using their service. They will move to other search engines like Clutsy or AllTheWeb (from Overture) - both of which have fast loading interfaces free of junk, like Google's interface is free of junk.

In other words, while Google can exercise its right to accept or ban whatever sites it wishes, the MARKETPLACE which made Google can also break Google and COMPETITION will provide what people want. And quite possibly, at some point in the future, we will see more and more niche search engines emerge.

There are already search engines for the occult - AvatarSearch. And a search engine for business discussion boards was created - but this might be too narrow of an engine.

In short, the speed at which Google gained dominance - word of mouth - can also bring it down and create other dominant sites and search engines. And that's what's so good about the internet. The market rules out here. The market adapts to what people in the marketplace want.

Could this be the sounding of the Death Nell for Google News as a legitimate news source? Or will people take it in their stride just like they did when Ebay banned listings that "promote or glorify hatred, violence or racial intolerance, or items that promote organizations with such views (e.g. KKK, Nazis, neo-Nazis, Skinhead Aryan Nation)"? Only time will tell.

One thing is interesting though. Even though Google removed National Vanguard from its index, at least it still shows new stories which report on what it did, as you can see from this Google News search for "google national vanguard".

Oh. And if you want to tell Google what you think about their censoring, you can do so here.