"Google has been canceling its News relationship with conservative websites for what it has dee

http://newsbusters.org/node/5667

Would Microsoft please compete with Google in a way that will ensure that the articles that promote intellectual discussion on homosexual marriage, Islamic extremism, its relationship to terrorism, religion and morality are represented, regardless of whether or not a political party labels it as hate speech because it goes against their platform?

A lot of those "news articles" would be illegal in the UK and many other countries regardless of if they stimulate actual debate or not. And as Google is an international company with branches in the UK they could get into some trouble over it.

Shining Arcanine wrote:

Would Microsoft please compete with Google in a way that will ensure that the articles that promote intellectual discussion on homosexual marriage, Islamic extremism, its relationship to terrorism, religion and morality are represented, regardless of whether or not a political party labels it as hate speech because it goes against their platform?

Let's have one right now.

"Marriage" is purely a religious affair and should be left to the religious organisations to sort out, not the government.

But I see no 'Christian moral' concerns with homosexual human rights, such as the right to cohabitate and attain the perks that go with it (such as, but not limited to "Next of Kin" status, inheritance tax reductions, and everything else that goes with Marriage)

Anyone see anything "wrong" with that at all?

Shining Arcanine wrote:

http://newsbusters.org/node/5667

Would Microsoft please compete with Google in a way that will ensure that the articles that promote intellectual discussion on homosexual marriage, Islamic extremism, its relationship to terrorism, religion and morality are represented, regardless of whether or not a political party labels it as hate speech because it goes against their platform?

I don't think sites like GodHatesFags.com count as 'trustworthy' news sources, do you?

It just so happens the Right-wing tend to stoop to lower levels than the Left-wing when it comes to propaganda and media manipulation (At least from what I've seen, do you have any evidence to the contrary?)

Shining Arcanine wrote:

http://newsbusters.org/node/5667

Way to hit Godwin's Law before even allowing article comments.But wait.... wasn't the German (I need to watch my language) movement Right-wing... just like the Republicans, who also liked to invade countries on dubious evidence?

Homosexuality is viewed as morally offensive by every major religion sense their inception.
Western Cultural and Government is based on Judo-Christian values for more than 2000 years.

Naz-ism and Com-munism are left wing ideologies Both are Socialist governments  just one more extreme than the other  the idea of Big Government taking care of the masses.  Russia and Germany both did horrible things to minorities.

Classifing discussion about Gay Marriage and the banning is hardly hate speech.  it seems the test for hate speech is getting weaker every day. If one does not fall into ABC/BBC/NBC/Reuters/CBS/CNN world view of moral flexibility ones spews hate speech. 

What's more disturbing is Europe has laws against speech.  Does this not defeat the idea of Free Speech?  With Freedom comes responsibility.  The idea of freedom is one must take the good with the bad no matter if it is right wrong or indifferent?

What also puzzles the mind is The very people that say its good for Google to band these articles because European laws against Hate Speech are throwing a fit about the US trying to enforce IP laws that are on the books in other countries. 
Is this not Europe forcing its morality onto the US people?
What ever happened to staying inside the countries borders?

Manip wrote:

A lot of those "news articles" would be illegal in the UK and many other countries regardless of if they stimulate actual debate or not. And as Google is an international company with branches in the UK they could get into some trouble over it.

Why would they be illegal? They are not actually "hate speech," but unfortunately some political parties forget to consult with dictionaries before they speak:

http://www.answers.com/hate
http://www.answers.com/speech

No conservative website on the internet qualifies as having content that is defined by both of those words and if a website on the internet did, it would not be conservative as it would not be observing the decalogue. Unless conservativism is outlawed in England (which is the birthplace of Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism), none of the news in question is illegal in England, and even if it is outlawed, Google has its own British news site to appeal to the British government, much like it has one for the Chinese government:

http://news.google.co.uk/
http://news.google.cn/

Anyway, as I said, Microsoft should compete with Google by not censoring of intellectualism on the false premise that it contains hate speech. Many of the liberal websites that are not being censored condemn the Renaissance as a time under which intellectual dialogue was censored with the premise that they do not do that. While the Renaissance was a time in which intellectual dialogue was not only allowed but encouraged, it is important to promote intellectual dialogue, which is something that Google will not do (and refuses to do in violation of its "do no evil" motto) and is something that I am encouraging Microsoft to do with its Newsbot service.

W3bbo wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote:Would Microsoft please compete with Google in a way that will ensure that the articles that promote intellectual discussion on homosexual marriage, Islamic extremism, its relationship to terrorism, religion and morality are represented, regardless of whether or not a political party labels it as hate speech because it goes against their platform?

Let's have one right now.

"Marriage" is purely a religious affair and should be left to the religious organisations to sort out, not the government.

But I see no 'Christian moral' concerns with homosexual human rights, such as the right to cohabitate and attain the perks that go with it (such as, but not limited to "Next of Kin" status, inheritance tax reductions, and everything else that goes with Marriage)

Anyone see anything "wrong" with that at all?

Yeah, I do. I see that you are hijacking my thread.

Wikipedia wrote:

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion

W3bbo, stop being a troll and start a new thread.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/index.php?p=124 no cares politics about this. Yay google! sorry, english bad

zzzzz wrote:

Naz-ism and Com-munism are left wing ideologies Both are Socialist governments  just one more extreme than the other  the idea of Big Government taking care of the masses.  Russia and Germany both did horrible things to minorities.

Do you have any knowledge of history?(I need to watch my language) Germany was fascist. That's the extreme opposite of communist.

EDIT: Why is N4zi considered a bad word?

Pon wrote:



zzzzz wrote:Naz-ism and Com-munism are left wing ideologies Both are Socialist governments  just one more extreme than the other  the idea of Big Government taking care of the masses.  Russia and Germany both did horrible things to minorities.

Do you have any knowledge of history?(I need to watch my language) Germany was fascist. That's the extreme opposite of communist.

EDIT: Why is N4zi considered a bad word?

To be honest, communism existed long before Karl Marx. Infact, it has existed as long as marriage has existed as when two people are married, they form a communal unit in society (i.e. your parents are communists). Facism is the idea that government should play a larger role in business. After WWII, people interpreted it to mean something else but it originally meant big government, kind of like what we have now.

Wikipedia wrote:

Historian Srđa Trifković says "Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust,” the architects of the New Deal, were fascinated by Italy’s fascism — a term which was not pejorative at the time.

I just thought that I would clear that up. Back to the topic, could anyone from Microsoft comment on MSN's intentions with Newsbot and whether or not they will be following Google's lead of censoring things that are against a particular political party's platform?

zzzzz wrote:

Homosexuality is viewed as morally offensive by every major religion sense their inception.

And yet, they are all morally and ethically WRONG.

zzzzz wrote:

Western Cultural and Government is based on Judo-Christian values for more than 2000 years.

Bull on so many levels.  The American government was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment and other philosophy of the time.  Religion can just pike off.

zzzzz wrote:

Russia and Germany both did horrible things to minorities.

So did the USA.

zzzzz wrote:

Classifing discussion about Gay Marriage and the banning is hardly hate speech.  it seems the test for hate speech is getting weaker every day. If one does not fall into ABC/BBC/NBC/Reuters/CBS/CNN world view of moral flexibility ones spews hate speech. 

No, sites that say "ZOMG GAY MARRIAGE IS UNNATURAL NEWS AT 11" are full of crap.
And, it is Google's service.  They can stop putting those sites into their service at will, depending on the contracts.

DoomBringer wrote:



zzzzz wrote: Western Cultural and Government is based on Judo-Christian values for more than 2000 years.

Bull on so many levels.  The American government was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment and other philosophy of the time.  Religion can just pike off.

See?  This is what America has done to you.  In an effort to avoid offending the minorities, we offend the majority.  (By blotting out Christianity everywhere.)  The Declaration of Independence was based mostly on the Enlightenment thinking of the time, yes.  But the framers of the constitution were Christians (because almost everyone in the colonies were at the time, true?) so of course our country is based on Christian teachings.

oh, but back to the topic...
Yeah, Google censoring that news source (because I doubt that while possible controversial, those articles were not hateful.) Google has effectively "done evil".

ask yourself this question:

how does someone else's sexual preference directly impact your life in a harmful manner? (as apposed to other things that are legal and possibly traumatic) and how would two people of the same sex being married harm your life, etc?


and remember your rights end where someone else's begin.....

better thought.... how about you live your life and everyone else lives their's.... and the world becomes a better place

Ang3lFir3 wrote:

ask yourself this question:

how does someone else's sexual preference directly impact your life in a harmful manner? (as apposed to other things that are legal and possibly traumatic) and how would two people of the same sex being married harm your life, etc?


and remember your rights end where someone else's begin.....

better thought.... how about you live your life and everyone else lives their's.... and the world becomes a better place

Well start a thread.  Put a link to it here.  I'd be glad to debate.

What's it with you americans and the liberal and conversative camps fighting each other like crazy idiots? I wish we had something like this here in Europe, so I could have a laugh in real life about political extremism.

alwaysmc2 wrote:

What's more disturbing is Europe has laws against speech.  Does this not defeat the idea of Free Speech?

Europe has laws preserving the right to "Freedom of Expression" (which is much better phrased than it is in the US constitution which is open to varying degrees of interpretation).

I don't know the full story on any laws/regulations/directives against speech, but they're most likely to do with Intellectual Property, remember that we have no concept of "Fair Use".

zzzzz wrote:

If one does not fall into ABC/BBC/NBC/Reuters/CBS/CNN world view of moral flexibility ones spews hate speech.

What's more disturbing is Europe has laws against speech.  Does this not defeat the idea of Free Speech?

Exactly.  And who are the media?  Liberals.  (mostly) Therefore this makes all conservatives seem extremist and intolerant.  (By the way, we Christians are supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner.)

Even with free speech there are still laws regarding speech.  For instance, you can't go out in the middle of the night and start shouting at the top of your lungs. (no mater what you are saying, it's causing a disturbance.)
edit: fixed some quoting issues

W3bbo wrote:



alwaysmc2 wrote: What's more disturbing is Europe has laws against speech.  Does this not defeat the idea of Free Speech?

Europe has laws preserving the right to "Freedom of Expression" (which is much better phrased than it is in the US constitution which is open to varying degrees of interpretation).

I don't know the full story on any laws/regulations/directives against speech, but they're most likely to do with Intellectual Property, remember that we have no concept of "Fair Use".

Woops.  I didn't say that, zzzzz did.