Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"XML Developers List" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] How It All Goes Wrong (WAS RE: [xml-dev] Triplets on the Internet)
- From: "Joshua Allen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:57:45 -0700
- Cc: <email@example.com>
- Thread-index: AcRZMjsQcvuOfJicSNK/HRBJWXbz0gAG0khg
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] How It All Goes Wrong (WAS RE: [xml-dev] Triplets on the Internet)
> Here's a pretty good example of how it all goes wrong
> even when humans are making the selections:
Well, it's certainly a source of consternation for people who want
clear, unambiguous guidelines.
But I think it's a bit histrionic to say "chilling effect on free
speech". Adwords are already an exclusive club, by virtue of costing
money. And Google is a private enterprise, with no obligation to
present "fair and balanced" at all. They aren't bound by 1st amendment
(the same goes for newspapers). They could run "all conservative all
the time", if they wanted. "Perrspectives" is not automatically
*entitled* to a place in Google adwords, and they should be grateful to
Google for even creating such a venue and giving them a berth.
I also think the focus on adwords misses the point. The search engine
itself does not discriminate against sites like the "perrspectives".
The mere existence of Google makes the unique voice of "perrspectives"
immensely more accessible and discoverable than it would have been
without Google. That fact alone should negate any silly "free speech"
complaints, since Google has been a fantastic enabler of "free speech",
particularly for fringe or relatively unknown sites like this.
Second is that Google is so engaged in the editorial process when
complaints come up, and apparently is trying to do the right thing.
Anyone who has ever written to newspaper ombudsman to get no response,
should feel encouraged that Google in this case responded to even a
small, relatively insignificant site like this with such genuine
It always annoys me when people try to imply 1st amendment to places it
clearly doesn't apply. The whole thing seems a bit absurd, since
"perrspectives" would fiercely defend their own right to carry a biased
view and shut out voices that it deems too "conservative". When a
newspaper with such overt bias is jumping up and down complaining about
their inability to get space in a private venue which *does* attempt to
be fair and balanced, I have little sympathy. Pot calling the kettle
black and all of that...
Having said that, I agree that the general issue is important with any
public KR database. I personally think it's an issue if "consider the
source", and should be standard for any thinking adult. If anyone
believes that their sources of information *today* are unbiased, they
need to correct their own expectations, rather than project those
expectations onto the semantic web.