- Google versus Evil
Google 0
Evil 1
Google owns Blogger, and has since its acquisition of Pyra Labs, the company behind Blogger, in February 2003. Google is a publicly-listed company, with a majority of shares owned by its founders, corporate executives, and other parasites. Two major shareholders are the company’s founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Forbes places them at #26 and #27 of ‘The World’s Richest People’. (Their net worth? $12.9 and $12.6 billion respectively.) Google famously employs the slogan ‘Don’t be evil’ as a kind of lame-brained advertising gimmick, but in practice is happy to censor information flows into (and out of) China, as well as host neo-Nazis — who, apparently, don’t merit the term ‘evil’. Perhaps two of the world’s richest people — (Sergey Mikhailovich) Brin (Russian: Сергей Михайлович Брин) and (Lawrence Edward “Larry”) Page — should take a break from counting their money, and instead consider what they might do to retard the growth in anti-Semitic and other racist violence in contemporary Russia? Or contemporary Europe? (Or even contemporary Australia and New Zealand/Aotearoa, for that matter!)
Then again, billionaires only act if ordered to do so by a court, apparently… and justice don’t come cheap. So, fuck ’em; and the new economy horse they rode in on!
Google harbouring ‘racists’
Sydney Morning Herald
October 26, 2006Racist blogs targeting minority groups in Australia are springing up on the web, but Google’s Blogger, the service some are hosted on, refuses to take them offline, says an anti racism lobby group.
“Blogger is absolutely insensitive to complaints about racist and neo-Nazi content,” said Brian Stokes, co-founder of FightDemBack!, a group that monitors the activities of racists, fascists and other such offenders operating in Australia and New Zealand.
Blogger, owned by Google, enables anyone to create a blog or online journal, and publish their thoughts online using internet space provided by Blogger.
Mr Stokes said his group had reported numerous discriminatory Blogger journals to Google, both through the “flag” button that appears on each blog and through an email form that Mr Stokes said was “buried in their site, very hard to find”.
Mr Stokes said his appeals had fallen on deaf ears at Google.
“Most other outfits [that provide free web space] like Angelfire and Tripod actually do respond,” he said.
“We have probably knocked about 25 or 30 Nazi, white supremacist, racist in general websites off the web, in the two and a bit years [since the group (was) founded],” he said.
He refers specifically to two Blogger journals that Google has refused to remove from the web – Patriot Alliance Downunder and Red Watch NZ.
“Patriot Alliance Downunder comprises a number of patriots and nationalists alike from New Zealand and Australia,” its blog reads.
“We … hope to preserve and defend our heritage, culture, customs, traditions, morals, and values, as well as our blood itself, against hostile alien elements that are destructive to who we are and we as a race hold dear.”
The blog posts photographs and full names of anti-racism activists from Australia and New Zealand, in effect making this information available to those who wish to do these activists physical harm.
It also publicly endorses and links to the recent racist online board game based on last year’s Cronulla riots, but it denies that it’s a “hate” group.
Mr Stokes said that the owner of the Patriot Alliance Downunder blog was Ben Weerheym, convicted for being a getaway driver in a racist graffiti attack by neo-Nazi group [the] Australian Nationalist[s] Movement.
Patriot Alliance Downunder does not list Weerheym as the owner of the blog, but he has signed certain postings with his name.
While the Patriot Alliance Downunder blog says its musings are simply nationalistic, Red Watch NZ is more overtly racist.
[NB. Weerheym was threatened with legal action over his online rantings by the WA DPP in March, 2006; nothing came of it, and the DPP instead opted to (unsuccessfully) prosecute an Aboriginal teenager under newly-enacted anti-racial vilification laws. The ‘irony’ being that these laws were introduced following the violent antics of Weerheym’s mentor: the Australian Nationalists Movement! For more on Weerheym, see listing under Francis De Groot Brigade.]
“Red Watch NZ is here to combat Communism and Zionism within our borders,” reads the blog, which openly endorses the Nazi movement.
“Today is a sad day for National Socialists all over the world. Today in 1946, the Eternal Jew managed to swindle the Allied Nations into hanging 10 of our comrades at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial,” reads a post published on the anniversary of the Nuremberg trials written by author “We Hate The Jews!”.
Mr Stokes said Red Watch NZ was operated by Nic Miller, “famous for stunts like publishing a photo of FDB NZ activist Asher Goldman’s mother’s tombstone, leafleting Goldman’s neighbourhood with libellous material, publishing photos of activist’s parents’ homes and their street addresses, [and] much more”.
The tombstone post Mr Stokes mentions is still online, as are numerous posts that include photos, street addresses and even phone numbers of various activists.
Miller is not listed as the owner of Red Watch NZ, but some recent postings have been signed with his name.
“I think what Google intends is not to restrict people’s freedom of speech,” Mr Stokes said.
“But we’re talking about bashing up brown people and defaming them. This isn’t politics, this is terrorism.”
Both blogs appear to violate Blogger’s user agreement, particularly Red Watch NZ.
Blogger’s terms of service reads: “Member agrees not to transmit through the Service any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature. Member further agrees not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.”
Whether or not the blogs invite legal action under Australian law isn’t immediately clear, Simeon Beckett, president of the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights organisation said.
“The Racial Discrimination Act [federal legislation] and Anti-Discrimination Act [state legislation(s)] both prohibit racial vilification. It doesn’t make that a criminal offence, but it does make it unlawful for a person to do an act which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group. As long as that act is done because of the person’s race,” he said.
Mr Beckett hasn’t visited Red Watch NZ or Patriot Alliance Downunder, but, based on our description of the blogs, he said their actions were probably in violation of Australian law.
Regardless, he said there might be difficulties in enforcing the law because it’s highly likely that Blogger’s servers are located overseas.
“Trying to enforce a right under Australian law in the US makes it complicated and cumbersome,” he said.
Google refused to divulge where its servers are located.
Mr Beckett also said that, since the authors of the blogs have only posted names, addresses and photos of anti-racism activists, and don’t appear to have explicitly incited violence against them (even if violence is implied), pursuing legal action would be difficult.
“I think there may be difficulties if all there was available was the name and address of the anti-racism activists,” he said.
In its terms of service, Pyra (the company that founded Blogger, now acquired by Google) says that it is not liable for the contents of user blogs, but Mr Beckett suggests that this might not legally be the case.
“If it’s an Australian server, and Google itself has listed a blog that’s racist in Australia, it may be acting unlawfully itself,” he said.
Google, whose corporate motto is “don’t be evil”, says it will take the blogs in question offline only if ordered to do so by a court.
“Blogger is a provider of content creation tools, not a mediator of that content,” a Google spokesman said.
“We allow our users to create blogs, but we don’t make any claims about the content of these pages. In cases where contact information for the author is listed on the page, we recommend working directly with this person to have this information removed or changed. We would only remove content from this blog if ordered to do so by a court order,” the spokesman said.
More commentary later… and props to Weezil.
Another Community Service Announcement brought to you by…
What’s Evil Andy ? Define it for us please, or spike the post, the preferred method of Totalitarians like yourself. I’d say that the informed propagation of lies is evil. That is, being knowingly duplicitous to advantage one’s self at the expense of others. What say you ? I’ve always considered even a dupe whose words are consistent with his thoughts and motivations to be an honest man.
The Anarchist/Communist, seem none too averse in their use of the mind controllers of the press. It’s almost like you’re a bunch of Snivelling classroom dobbers running to the teacher.
I oppose the DeRacination agenda. I deem it EVIL because it is enacted by means of stealth. As a Anarchist, surely you would advocate for the informed consent of Individuals over the concealed duplicity of social authoritarian instrumentalities.
G’day Kinky!
What’s “evil”? Hmmm… how ’bout that Sydney financier what tortured rabbits? Well, that’s an example, maybe — although whether EVIL! inheres in the act, the person who committed it, or both, is an interesting moral question: something which philosophers have — apparently — been debating for centuries.
Speaking of Socrates, here’s a tale recently transcribed into English from a grecian urn by a team of experts at The Pond’s Institute:
::::::
In ancient Greece (469-399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom.
One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran up to him excitedly and said, “Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students?”
“Wait a moment,” Socrates replied. “Before you tell me I’d like you to pass a little test. It’s called the Test of Three.”
“Three?”
“That’s right,” Socrates continued. “Before you talk to me about my student let’s take a moment to test what you’re going to say.
The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?”
“No,” the man said, “actually I just heard about it.”
“All right,” said Socrates. “So you don’t really know if it’s true or not.
Now let’s try the second test, the test of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?”
“No, on the contrary.”
“So,” Socrates continued, “you want to tell me something bad about him even though you’re not certain it’s true?”
The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.
Socrates continued. “You may still pass though, because there is a third test – the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?”
“No, not really.”
“Well,” concluded Socrates, “if what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?”
The man was defeated and ashamed.
::::::
This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.
It also explains why he never found out that Plato was screwing his wife.
::::::
EVIL!?
::::::
e·vil (ē’vəl) pronunciation
adj., e·vil·er, e·vil·est.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader’s power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
adv. Archaic.
In an evil manner.
[Middle English, from Old English yfel.]
::::::
Hope that helps!
::::::
6. Eichmann and the ‘Banality of Evil’
Published in the same year as On Revolution, Arendt’s book about the Eichmann trial presents both a continuity with her previous works, but also a change in emphasis that would continue to the end of her life. This work marks a shift in her concerns from the nature of political action, to a concern with the faculties that underpin it – the interrelated activities of thinking and judging.
She controversially uses the phrase ‘the banality of evil’ to characterize Eichmann’s actions as a member of the Nazi regime, in particular his role as chief architect and executioner of Hitler’s genocidal ‘final solution’ (Endlosung) for the ‘Jewish problem’. Her characterization of these actions, so obscene in their nature and consequences, as ‘banal’ is not meant to position them as workaday. Rather it is meant to contest the prevalent depictions of the Nazi’s inexplicable atrocities as having emanated from a malevolent will to do evil, a delight in murder. As far as Arendt could discern, Eichmann came to his willing involvement with the program of genocide through a failure or absence of the faculties of sound thinking and judgement. From Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem (where he had been brought after Israeli agents found him in hiding in Argentina), Arendt concluded that far from exhibiting a malevolent hatred of Jews which could have accounted psychologically for his participation in the Holocaust, Eichmann was an utterly innocuous individual. He operated unthinkingly, following orders, efficiently carrying them out, with no consideration of their effects upon those he targeted. The human dimension of these activities were not entertained, so the extermination of the Jews became indistinguishable from any other bureaucratically assigned and discharged responsibility for Eichmann and his cohorts.
Arendt concluded that Eichmann was constitutively incapable of exercising the kind of judgement that would have made his victims’ suffering real or apparent for him. It was not the presence of hatred that enabled Eichmann to perpetrate the genocide, but the absence of the imaginative capacities that would have made the human and moral dimensions of his activities tangible for him. Eichmann failed to exercise his capacity of thinking, of having an internal dialogue with himself, which would have permitted self-awareness of the evil nature of his deeds. This amounted to a failure to use self-reflection as a basis for judgement, the faculty that would have required Eichmann to exercise his imagination so as to contemplate the nature of his deeds from the experiential standpoint of his victims. This connection between the complicity with political evil and the failure of thinking and judgement inspired the last phase of Arendt’s work, which sought to explicate the nature of these faculties and their constitutive role for politically and morally responsible choices.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/arendt.htm#H6
::::::
Btw, yr comments appear not to address the post… which seems to be pretty standard for you Hideous. Imho, it would be worthwhile yr shedding the wordy verbiage and addressing the issue, which, on one level, appears to be relatively straight-forward: Google/Blogger’s non-enforcement of its TOS.
So, I’ve little desire to enter into a dialogue inre the nature of ‘evil’; the only reason I refer to it is because Google has chosen a rather daft slogan employing it. Briefly, ‘evil’ may be defined in numerous ways. What’s important, for rational dialogue, is an agreement between speakers as to its (operative) meaning. A standard definition such as that I provided above is a start.
As for “The Anarchist/Communist”… I don’t ‘use’ the corporate or state media (“the mind controllers”) in anything like the fashion you imagine: the notion is ridiculous, and I’ve no desire or, I suspect, ability, to combat yr delusionary ideas regarding it.
Oppose the “DeRacination agenda”. Knock yrself out. Really, I couldn’t care less.
Jeez Andrew, you really do dribble on don’t you? “KinkyBoy” had a good question and highlighted your idiocy. Funny that you don’t answer him.
It must really eat you up that the owners of Google are Jewish! Hahaha, all you FDB lot are such boobs.
You’re Jewish too, Ben.
That must really eat YOU up.
hah! pull the other one and play skrewdriver!
What’s wrong with boobs ya wally?
(I think they’re cool.)
As for that dead bonehead, here’s a nice ditty:
‘He’s fat, he’s round
He’s 6 feet underground
Ian Stuart, Ian Stuart’
Sorry, Ben, but that’s the way it is. You provided the origins of your name, and in every single incarnation – EVERY. SINGLE. INCARNATION. – of that name, everything comes up yamulkes and hanukkahs.
I understand it will be hard to accept – you’re not the smartest Jew, to be sure – but I’m afraid you have Jewish blood. Welcome to the cabal, my son. There will be a place setting for you at the White House come Eid. (Yes, you were right, the Jews and the Muslims are working together)
You’re the one who goes on about being proud of your heritage – you’d think you would have done even the most basic research into what that heritage was!
Some stuff of interest, for balance.
Victor Thorn interview is interesting.
http://www . jewishracism . com/interviews . htm
Segregation = Diasporization = DeRacination.
A clearly enunciated doctrine in Zionist literature according to Bjerknes. Not clearly enunciated in public policy, but evident to those who view these sociopaths with scepticism.
For those who have read this article, do yourself a favour and find out what kind of people are responsible for it at the following links:
www . avoiceofdissent.blogspot.com/2007/05/communists-anarchist-criminals-and.html
www . whitelawtowers.blogspot.com
These sites details [sic] the often deviant, criminal and [hypocritical] nature of these people.
You don’t want to be ignorant of the facts do you?
(What’s the bet that Andrew Moran doesn'[t] publish this? H[o]w are ya anyboy[sic]?)
I’m excellent.
You’re an idiot.