- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
How can Google, Yahoo or MSN possibly monitor who promotes gambling or not? I strongly doubt a huge impact here.
I know, what I mean is will they “CUT” the search phrase completely from the results.
I think that would be very difficult considering terms such as online and internet actually reside in land-based casino web sites. There would be no way to distinguish between them unless as a result of this law they chose to ban all information about any gambling game (such as blackjack, roulette, or keno), as well as all information about legal casinos (both online and land-based) throughout the world as well.
The only way to distinguish between them would be to have tens of millions of web sites constantly monitored by humans. That’s just not feasible.
Also, once banking restrictions are in place over time, such an action would be unnecessary. Furthermore, there appears to be no requirement in the bill that would force them to do this.
Read the bill carefully…. Google WILL be effected…
Remember when they agreed to modify their returns for the Chinese market?
I bet they will use similar technology for the US….
xgambler wrote:The only way to distinguish between them would be to have tens of millions of web sites constantly monitored by humans. That’s just not feasible.No not really… DOJ provides list of websites to google that they believe provide illegal gambling activities to US citizens (Not portals, just sites like 888.com etc..) google spiders your website, grabs your outbond links, determines where they direct to, compares the final destination to DOJ lookup table and removes your site from the search engine.
Plausible: YES
Likely: NOIn response to Prof’s post I did read the bill carefully. Here is what it says:
Page 239, Line 3
Relief granted under this section against an interactive computer service shall-
A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access to, an online site violating section 5363, or a hypertext link to an online site violating such section, that resides on a computer server that such service controls or operates, except that the limitation in this subparagraph shall not apply if the service is subject to liability under this section under section 5367;
be available only after notice to the interactive computer service and an opportunity for the service to appear are provided;
c) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts indicating activity violating this subchapter;
D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and
E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.In the above area it talks of an exemption to these limitations on relief and has a reference to section 5367 which states that a service provider may be liable if they have “actual knowledge AND controls of bets and wagers”.
Otherwise page 239 of the bill applies and relief is limited to the removal of, or disabling access to a site in violation. Furthermore, the relief shall not impose any obligation on an interactive computer service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts indicating activity in violation.
It sure sounds like governmental agencies must make known a specific offending link and that there is no obligation to self-police.
Google may choose to filter results on their own, but the US government is not barring access for Google to US visitors so long as they remove specific offending links that they are formally given. This is a lot different than Communist China, although we are becoming somewhat more like them when it comes to the government’s approach to thought, debate, and privacy.
Other folks are discussing this bill too:
dynamic link maybe? Dom?
Just because drugs are ilegal it does not mean that you can’t speak about drugs. So, how can google ban selectively?
Well, they can go into censorship, but that would mean that you’re no longer on a free country.
I don´t believe google will ban our keywords. They have a lot of links to illegal content such as HYIPs and Ponzi schemes and don´t do anything about them. I guess that the search phrase terrorist handbook would also return quite a few results which are actually illegal.
Professor wrote:Read the bill carefully…. Google WILL be effected…Remember when they agreed to modify their returns for the Chinese market?
I bet they will use similar technology for the US….
Prof., no offense, but i think you are paranoid. It can’t possibly go to that extent…
If it does, then I shit you not, I will not ever step my foot to Northern Northern Hemisphere….
but i don’t think it can go this far…with this big ‘american constitution’ and stuf, to which i give a lot of respect..
actual knowledge AND controls of bets and wagers
Ok, i dont know about you guys with the huge sites but I have no control on bets and wagers.
Censorship by Google would be our best friend in the long run. The U.S. doesn’t stand for censorship of any kind. You can still get all the porn, pills and bomb making information you want from the web. Maybe a move toward censorship is what the U.S. needs to wake up from the continued threat to civil liberties.
I haven’t been posting much because this is the second time the U.S has takin away my living. In regards to Google they will do nothing for fear of setting a precesdent over censorship.
All I have too say is WOW! the U.S will not bomb me for a second time. There are ways around this dictatorship.
greek39
Read the bill carefully…. Google WILL be effected…
Unfortunately Google answers to the stockholders now (80% of wall street votes Republican). As soon as they went public I noticed a big change.
