First the background on “Don’t be evil” as reported by Wikipedia:
In their 2004 founders’ letter prior to their initial public offering, Lawrence E. Page and Sergey Brin explained that their “Don’t be evil” culture prohibited conflicts of interest, and required objectivity and an absence of bias:
Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a well-run newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers’ payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.
And now this surprising screen cap I’ve been sitting on for awhile. While WUWT was the top result, the user is given the option to block WUWT results forever in Google Chrome:
That screencap is from April 22nd, 2011.
ADDED: Some folks suggest it was solely the use of the “f word” in search that triggered it. If so, why is there no block option for Lucia’s the Blackboard?
I ask readers to try getting that message to pop up searching for specific titles on Real Climate or Climate Progress and other pro AGW sites. I tried and could not back then, though it is possible the algorithm has changed in the month since I tried. I’ve also noted that once you ignore the “block all results” option, it does not appear again (for that website).
Your experience may vary, I’m only reporting mine and it appears that once you have a look at the content you get the offer to block, the option goes away. So I can’t repeat it without doing a reinstall and registry cleanse.
[ADDED: Reader Jeremy was able to get the same result with RealClimate, see here so it is good to see that it is not specific to WUWT, though that still leaves the graph below]
What prompted me to publish this screencap today? I needed confirmation that something was afoot.
Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com dropped me an email about his article Climate cleansing: Google to censor skeptics? where he quotes this from the Yale Climate Change Forum:
——————————————————–
The Yale Forum on Climate Change reports that,
… Google leads people to accurate information about climate change. Fifty-two percent of the 980 sites [returned by a Google search on climate change-related terms] contained clear statements in line with the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate science evidence. For example, if you had searched for “climate change myths” in early May, you would have found this Environmental Defense Fund site, which says, “The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it.”
And Google may be willing to fix this problem for the alarmists. The Yale Forum goes on to state:
Meanwhile, can search engines do a better job of pointing the public toward credible sites?
A Google spokeswoman, who insisted on anonymity because she is not a Google executive, said the company is always looking for ways to improve results. “Last year, we made 500 changes to the algorithm to improve search quality,” she said.
————————————————————————————-
So, it appears if you can’t beat them, censor them. I hope I’m wrong about that, but this graph below suggests that my traffic has been impacted by changes in search engine algorithms, Google of course being the lions share.
Here’s my Alexa search driven hits to WUWT, note the step change in mid 2010, perhaps one of those “500 changes to the algorithm to improve search quality” was implemented then:
Source: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com#
ADDED: Some commenters suggest “lack of interest” in climate issues as the reason for the sharp drop, compare the number of search related visits at RealClimate.org then:
The blocking option might be a one shot deal, but the step change and continued lower results (for WUWT search hits) concern me. I had a large traffic spike in December 2010, related to the COP16 climate conference worldwide interest, but no corresponding large uptick in search hits.
UPDATE: Harold Ambler points out in comments his story about what happened when ClimateGate broke, and Google’s search lagged well behind Bing at the time:
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/google-gate/
I have just returned from the Fiji Islands in the South Pacific where WUWT was not available but Climate Etc and Roy Spencer were. I had interpreted that the Fiji Government blocked this site. But, just maybe Larry Paige and his “Do no evil” motto, now reflects his acquired status in world affairs so censorship of alternative sources of information for the Climate Change consensus is just his way of keeping evil people from accosting the Climate Change mantra. Just a speculation of course. Fijians are very interested in Climate Change as their former volcanic and now island nation will be swamped by future rising sea levels. It is currently raining during the “Dry Season” so the sugar cane is benefiting. And the USA “owes” them dollars for previously poisoning the atmosphere with CO2, and they are waiting for their reparations check, at least the Fiji Government is. Their current sources of information are the Fijian Government and those that are working, their unions. Those Fijians living on remote islands and distant villages are dealing with Typhoid Fever and don’t seem to have very good internet access so their concerns are strictly local, not global. However, tourists and Fijian Government officials can access Climate Change information from consensus blogs as well as read the Fijian Sun newspaper which lifts climate news from selected Australian sources. As the internet does provide alternative information, especially regarding Climate Change, blocking WUWT; ie, controlling access, is a good way of focusing the argument and not cluttering the minds or confusing people with ideas like “It ain’t necessarily so…”
I personally hate those content farms and am grateful for the feature from that point of view.
How evil can Google be? As you know, Google owns Youtube now. Apparently they have been responding positively to the governments to remove unwanted content, just like they do in China.
Take a look at this site: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/
They also remove certain key words from their search engines apparently in order to reduce or eliminate traffic to certain sites.
I tried that Google Chrome search and had no blocking option come up.
Why should anyone be surprised by the suspicion that Google is quietly, slyly altering the outcome of anti-AGW searches. They did build a team of 20 spin doctors to help promote the AGW position. After William Connolley became the “Minister of Lies and Misinformation” at Wikipedia by single-handedly editing over 5000 articles it is not unreasonable to expect a similar but subtler scenario at Google. Choosing Bing is no better with Gates firmly in the warmist camp. There couldn’t be any pressure from Obama? Nah.
The problem with allowing permanent blocking on Chrome is that some people use internet cafes.
Before performing an experimental search on Google clear out your cookies, cache etc. I have found that previously clicking sites I interact with places them higher on the results page. I cleared out cache, cookies etc. performed the same search and down they went. That was my experience using Explorer though I now use Firefox.
I have known for nearly four years that Google “filters” your search results of certain subjects so that your top two or three pages of search results will give you “liberal” websites and stories.
Let’s not forget that WUWT was blocked from Facebook too. That seemed to be a result of ‘guerilla protests’ where individuals FB users were tagging WUWT as inappropriate with the intent of censoring your views. If we allow Google’s executives the benefit of doubt, there IS the possibility that the ability to block WUWT and NOT Pro-AGW websites is a result of another kind of ‘guerilla protest’.’ Essentially Chrome users have the ability to block WUWT because it is currently tagged as a potentially being content farm. I am further postulating that WUWT is tagged as a content farm because a small group of people (possibly at google or not) have a grudge against you and knowledge of how to game the system.
When Google tells me their motto is “Don’t be evil”, what does that *really* mean?
Are they telling me that they strive to not be evil themselves? -or-
Are they telling *me* not to be evil? -and furthermore-
Who gets to define “evil”?
Personally, I view Google’s statement in the same light as “Trust me.” Neither engenders much trust or confidence in their true motivation. And neither really means anything except “You must watch me very carefully.”
Cheers!
When climate gate broke we saw alarm bells going off and we saw the powers that be jump into HIGH gear. They started to circle the wagons to save CAGW. I remember how incredible it was to see Arnold Schwarzenegger just days later saying that CA has a good solid plan to go ahead with carbon trading. (in other words, pretend everything is ok, and we going ahead!).
Up in Canada, right after climate gate, Google started playing views of Al Gore with ONE CLICK from the main Google page. These videos would play WITHOUT me even having search anything! So, one click form main Google main page, and out pops Al Gore!
(I am not kidding, and I was SO shocked by this, I recorded it for history:
The above is a precious video during that special time when climate gate broke. We all remember that special time, but it also exposed so many people in the wrong way and their true colors. I mean, if the popular press is so behind AGW, then why would not a search engine like Google do the same? I do not believe that in ANY other time one mouse click from the MAIN Google page would START a video of propaganda in this fashion.
So, this was A RARE chance in history when these folks showed their true colors and thought they could sweep this under the rug and nullify climate gate. Note that Al Gore is a special advisor to the Google board of directors.
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Look at the list of people Obama wanted to see here:
http://www.californiabeat.org/2011/02/17/president-obama-to-visit-the-bay-area-thursday-for-meeting-with-tech-leaders
Google is on the list. Note also, now blogs are beginning to use a Facebook-based identity checker. I may have to set up a spare computer that never visits my Facebook account. It’s getting harder to be anonymous these days. Rataliation for stating what you really think is a fact.
Espen says:
May 20, 2011 at 8:43 am
I assume this is what they talk about here:http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-chrome-extension-block-sites-from.html
Wuwt still shows up as #1 for that search for me (currently on an iPad).
This is potentially really scary, but let’s not jump to conclusions!
From your link Google says:
“We’ve been exploring different algorithms to detect content farms, which are sites with shallow or low-quality content. One of the signals we’re exploring is explicit feedback from users. To that end, today we’re launching an early, experimental Chrome extension so people can block sites from their web search results. If installed, the extension also sends blocked site information to Google, and we will study the resulting feedback and explore using it as a potential ranking signal for our search results.”
Effectively, this approach is looking for a crowd-source blocking. There are those who would use this type of un-checked voting to repeatedly vote to block a site they consider ‘the opposition’. I would expect some to even be willing to avoid any checks at multiple voting that Google may attempt to put in place. Therefore, Google would block WUWT – and probably may even agree with the blockers – claiming that it was a ‘neutral algorithm’ but hope nobody notices the impact.
To my mind this just shows completely inept, less than logical thinking by Google developers. Nevertheless, having found that the outcome is to reduce traffic to ‘opposite viewpoints’ the managers of Google will continue to allow it. Wait till closer to the election when Republican candidates will find themselves blocked by Google.
Evidently success has gone to their heads to the extent they feel they must direct and restrict the information we seek so we can make better decisions.
Google is now acting like the liberal MSM that not only filtered the news but explained it to us to justify the news they delivered.
I cannot think of a more arrogant and pardon the expression jackass decision by Google. Bing is looking better for the availability of drop down choices and speed.
If you want the best search engine, and the one that google is supposed to have stolen, try http://www.altavista.com/ . It was developed by Digital Equipment Corporation software engineers years ago and is still the best.
I know that search results can be skewed by “google bombing” where a simple script is used to repeatedly search a specific site to skew the search ranking to the bombers advantage. I don’t think for a minute that the warmistas are above this behavior.
I am not very internet savvy – just enough to get by. So if this thought is wring, I apologise in advance.
If one went to a search engine ‘home’ page and then searched for WUWT – would it ensure that WUWT keeps getting search hits? and thus ‘up’ the search rankings?
I don’t visit many websites and use my drop down address bar menu to ‘recall’ the WUWT site – I’d be happy to do a ‘search’ everytime if it helps – yes, I know I’m only one person, but I do check the site a few times a day (usually).
Microsoft used to be referred to as the evil empire.
“Don’t Be Evil” doesn’t mean don’t do bad things; it means don’t turn into Microsoft.
Anthony, I think you and others have valid reasons to fear Google. They have the means to control what people are seeing/thinking, and they’ve proven since their first interaction with China that they stand for nothing other than themselves. They broke their “dont be evil” right away when they realized they would have to compromise on free speech in order to get access to China’s market. They’re slimy and clever and they control the worlds information hub. Yes for all those reasons we should watch them closely.
That said, I don’t think we have anything on them yet, given what you’ve shown in this post.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54951.html#ixzz1MpsSPzcK
Clinton wants some kind of UN or Federal agency to ‘police’ and correct internet rumors. Cass Sunstein is another one who has expressed similar thoughts.
I gotta believe that AGW is the biggest ‘rumor’ target they have in their sights because the estimated yearly carbon trading market is said to be worth $20 trillion a year. Given that many of our major banks (most that control our federal reserve and hence, our government) have carbon derivates ready and stand to profit from carbon trading by other means, I think we are essentially hosed. I don’t see us winning this issue, no matter how many holes we find in the climate science.
sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=21070001&sid=ar0X_FWXo1ag
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/16/lawrence-solomon-better-off-with-bing.aspx
I’m sorry – but comparing GOOGLE and GOOGLE CHROME are like comparing a VW – Bug with VW-Ultra Sedan. Ya they both are made by Volkwagon … but ….
If you actually (and I did) a Google (non-Chrome) search – you will find this “Block” feature – NOT PRESENT!
Why?
Google Chrome is just that – FULL FEATURED – the “Block” is not “censorship” anymore then Parental Control is ‘censorship’ or Spam Block, is “Censorship”.
With your private features you get to “make the call” … Before we cry “Foul” – make sure it is! Google and Google Chrome are not the same software .. it’s called “Chrome” for a reason .. more power, more INDIVIDUAL features, etc …. this is not “censorship”.
FINE PRINT – > This deals with my searching these with GOOGLE – I do not own Google Chrome as I have no use for it. But when I looked on-line
T Boone Pickens hypocrisy… He sold his wind farm stuff and then complaints about Obama’s energy agenda…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110520/ap_on_bi_ge/us_pickens_obama
I guess tax dollars subsidies did not flow his way to make a profit with wind…
I just did a google search for “Climate Blogs” and WUWT was the 6th listed. Climate Audit was number 1 followed by Real Climate, Climate Progress, another hit on Climate Progress, a couple more sites that are to some particular article and then WUWT.
I did the same on Bing and WUWT doesnt make even the first 6 pages….
What’s up with that?????
Youtube/ Google caught censoring videos at government request. Read the article and click the links included for yourself and see the youtube censorship screen come up.
QUOTE:
‘In a frightening example of how the state is tightening its grip around the free Internet, it has emerged that You Tube is complying with thousands of requests from governments to censor and remove videos that show protests and other examples of citizens simply asserting their rights, while also deleting search terms by government mandate.’
Continue reading here:
http://www.infowars.com/government-orders-you-tube-to-censor-protest-videos/