‘Not internet warfare’? Then what exactly do you call it?
Sunday October 29th 2006, 7:04 pm

The SMH quoted me:

“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.”

But are nazi hitlist websites actually terrorism?

You tell me;

[Terrorism] is defined by the US Department of Defense as “the unlawful use of — or threatened use of — force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.”

“The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change.”

“…the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear…”

Now, go have a look at Nic Miller’s redwatchnz.blogspot.com:

OK, then what is it?

Nic’s right… it’s not internet warfare. It’s terrorism in its most plain and unmistakable definition… unless, of course, an image of a handgun accompanied by such a statement was supposed to make everyone feel warm, cosy and secure.

If Nic were a brown fella in a turban, he’d be contemplating his navel in a concrete box for a few years.

And Google wants us to think that they’re not ‘evil’ for refusing to remove garbage like this despite Blogger TOS provisions specifically prohibiting it.

-weez


6 Comments so far
Leave a comment

It’s painfully clear that the likes of Nic Miller and his barking mad group of right wing nutbars are advocating violence. The threat here goes way beyond implied violence in so far as the ‘Glock’ imagery goes and is unfortunately symptomatic of such ideologies and groups.

Google should take a long hard look at itself too, it’s projected image as a clean company is bound to cop a hammering when it continues to host such racist crap.

Comment by Dan 10.30.06 @ 11:51 am

Dan, I didn’t even mention the paedophilia blogs that Google permits with no questions.

Comment by weez 11.01.06 @ 6:09 am

What’s in it for Google to allow these sites?

Comment by sozzy 11.01.06 @ 8:52 am

Sozzy, I’ll suggest a financial motive.

If Google won’t moderate nor edit any Blogger user content (which Google obtain for free), they don’t pay any editors. That in and of itself would be a major expense. The (attempted) moderation and editing of Blogger content is now being borne by ‘hitlist’ victims, their communities and eventually the courts. It’s not like Google won’t edit user submitted content; they’re having that experience right now with their new YouTube acquisition.

Google also sells GoogleAds which run on some Blogger sites. While the ads are not mandatory on all Blogger blogs, the income to Google from those blogspot sites that do run them can’t be insignificant. Less content means less viewer traffic leaving less incentive to advertisers to buy ads.

However, Google could dump all their bad content and not even approach a 1% cut in online content. While that numerically insignificant yet demonstrably harmful material remais online, the community suffers, not unlike the ‘irresponsible publican’ scenario.

Comment by weez 11.01.06 @ 9:56 am

Once again, a flag means nothing.

Comment by sozzy 11.02.06 @ 9:40 am

If you’re referring to the ‘flag’ (objectionable content) button on blogspot blogs, you’re quite right. It only prompts Google to put a ‘content warning’ on the blog. It’s a badge of honour to these morons.

Comment by weez 11.02.06 @ 10:08 am



Leave a comment

(required)

(required)