Join SIF yahoogroup, get answers..

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Google Censorship

>>>Google Censorship<<<


The major search engines censor access to many web sites. 11 min

They all have internal organizations responsible for executing the censoring policies of their company. We can be confident that none of these organizations is called the “Censoring Division”. The people in these organizations may also sincerely believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of their users and that every single site that they block is “doing something wrong”.

The problem with Internet censoring is the same as any other form of censoring. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, once you start censoring it is very hard to stop. It is always possible to rationalize that people would be better off if they didn't have access to certain information.

Google has often censored some of my own pages. These pages have completely and utterly disappeared from their search engines. They do not exist!

(And please do not bother writing to me to explain that this might be because their 'blind' algorithms might simply have changed - because I have far too much evidence pointing to the conclusion that these 'algorithms' include site-specific and/or page-specific instructions and I also know the internet extremely well.)

You see; Google has a problem. And it is this.

Just like the telephone companies, Google claims that it cannot possibly have any responsibility for what information flows through its system. After all, in much the same way that the telephone companies cannot possibly monitor all the billions of telephone conversations that flow through their systems, Google cannot possibly monitor all the information on the billions of webpages that it lists.

Or so it claims.

And, on the surface, this claim seems to be a reasonable one.

BUT!

If Google is, indeed, censoring information (e.g. delisting pages from its search engines or demoting them in the rankings because of their content) then, quite clearly, it is monitoring this information.

And if it is monitoring this information, then it can surely be deemed to be liable for the presentation of it!

And if this was the case then, for example, this would mean that Google could be held responsible for any libel that appeared on webpages that it had listed - or, perhaps, responsible for aiding terrorists etc etc etc.

In short; if Google admits to monitoring, then it can be held to be 'liable'.

So, Google is somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, it proudly proclaims to be a defender of free speech and that it would not dream of censoring (blocking, de-listing, demoting etc etc) any webpages of information, and it insists most strongly that, therefore, it cannot possibly be held liable for any of the content but, on the other hand, it does not want to upset governments; and it can only do this by doing what governments tell them.

And so Google has chosen to worm its way out of this dilemma by, quite simply, accommodating to the wishes of governments - and lying to the people about it.

Now some of my long-time readers might recall that the last time that I had a barney with Google - when, if you believe it, they removed all advertising from a single innocuous page concerning men's issues on my other website - I had to maraud around for three or four days demonstrating to Google that I would trawl the internet here, there and everywhere in order to spread the news about Google's heinous activities to whomsoever might seem interested - especially journalists.

And I think that what finally convinced Google to be more accommodating was me pointing out the fact that not only was I, clearly, a very energetic activist, but that rushing around the internet badmouthing Google would do absolute wonders for my site's traffic - and that, therefore, I would find the experience most rewarding - which meant that I was very unlikely to stop badmouthing Google hither and thither - week after week if necessary.

My ads came back.

Well, it looks as if I am now going to have to create a fuss over www.HarrietHarmanSucks.Com - because its pages have been disappeared into the abyss - having all first appeared for a few days hovering between pages 5 and 20 following a search for "Harriet Harman"

And so my plan is this.

I am going to write a piece about why Google needs to be 'controlled' and restricted in some way and explain how outrageous it is that it should have so much power.

And then I am going to start marauding around the internet again.

Because, ....

I will not be censored!

LOL!

(And you can forget all the BS about Google being a private company and so it should be able to de-list or demote whatever pages it likes, because it is illegal for companies to cheat people. And if Google is censoring my pages, then it is cheating the people most horribly!)

The alternative, I suppose, is to re-write the pieces so that they are less 'hostile'.

Hmmm.

I'll think about it.

Maybe if I grovelled to Harriet Harman in my pieces instead of castigating her Google would re-list my pages.

Grovel. Grovel.

LOL!

Huh!

I would rather that my missus be torn apart and devoured slowly by a gruesome herd of flesh-eating crocodiles.

(While I watched her writhing in agony, ate ice cream, and chatted to my new girlfriend, of course!)

Anyway. The piece above is very good indeed, and definitely worth reading.

+ We have private companies like Google deciding what we can and can't see based on their self-interested readings of poorly-drafted national laws, taking advice from unnamed and unaccountable Government agencies and telling nobody what is going on. Bill Thompson

And, of course, this is one of the ways in which western governments intend to stifle dissent.

This is the deal in a nutshell.

Government: "If you, Google, do not disappear from view those most effective pieces that are hostile to us, then we shall bring some kind of law to bear upon you."

Google: "Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir."

Government: "But you must not tell the people of this secret deal."

Google: "Yes Sir. No Sir. Three bags full, Sir."

There is no question in my mind that this is going on.

And this means that we do not have a democracy.

Of course, Google would not dare to nobble websites that were very influential - because too many influential people might get upset about it.

So, between them, Google and the government keep it all secret and under the carpet.

In other words, as usual, our own governments - and, in this case, Google - are cheating us.

And talk about hypocrisy! - with all our politicians forever criticising the Chinese government for blocking access to websites that are critical of government and its officials, when they are doing something very similar over here.

Indeed, our governments - through their officials - are lying to us all the time.

Furthermore, when, at the time, I did a whole load of research into the matter of 'adverts' and the 'blacklisting' of them, it became fairly clear to me that the sites that had lost their adverts were mostly on the right side of the political spectrum in that they were often anti-feminist and/or not politically correct.

So, as in so many other areas, my guess is that internet activists who are anti-feminist and/or not politically correct are also having to cope with the customary institutionalised biases against them; but this time, with the aid of Google.

But decent lefties must also be very much concerned about this, firstly, because it might not be too long before those who are pulling the strings are more right-wing and, secondly, because "men's issues" have precious little to do with being on the left or the right of the political spectrum; because when it come to issues of concern to 'men', the official left and right are just as bad as each other.

In other words, all men should be very concerned indeed about Google's underhand censorship because not only does this undermine the democratic process most seriously, it also means that those activists who are fighting the corner for 'men' (rightly or wrongly) are being unfairly treated and that the issues of concern to 'men' are - once again - being purposely sat upon and hidden.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Recognition of women’s rights on Women’s Rights Equality Day August 26, 2008

To,

<>

Sub: Recognition of women’s rights on Women’s Rights Equality Day August 26, 2008

Respected Sir / Madam,

On the occasion of Women’s Rights Equality Day we would like to draw your attention towards a topic gaining momentum in all strata, be it the media, society, or the legislative or executive environment - the ‘Wide and Rampant misuse of Women Protection Laws vide section 498A Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 leading to mass destruction of the social fabric and familial system of India. It’s a pity to note that this destruction of families is happening under the patronage of the Indian Legal System in the barb and paradoxical veil of “Women Empowerment and Protection”.

Although drafted with the sanest of intentions; to provide women with security in a marriage, of late, due to the large number of false cases making their way to courts, the protector’s shield has become the assassin’s weapon. The women NGOs also, who are supposed to be working as watchdogs, have turned into bloodhounds by discriminating between women related to husbands and wives and failing to recognize, empathize and redress the grievances of those fateful mothers and sisters who have been through the ordeal of seeing their son and brother suffering at the hands of an unjust and almost defunct legal system.

Save Indian Family Foundation, an international network of individuals and NGOs, is working for promotion of Gender Equality and Family Harmony, makes a pleading before your Excellency/good office on behalf of the bereaved and beleaguered mothers and sisters, victimized under false allegations of dowry harassment by their daughters –in – law and their advisors/parents, to kindly look into this matter. One complaint from the daughter –in – law lands the whole family including ailing senior citizens, minor children, as well as pregnant women behind bars and ruins their life in a whiff of a moment. All this happens without investigation and in most of the cases, hefty ransoms are demanded to settle the case.

As per National Crime Records Bureau, in the last 4 years, (2004 – 2007), 1, 20, 645 innocent women have been arrested without investigation / trial under 498A cases.

1) Is this women empowerment- that on an unverified complaint of one woman, three women are imprisoned (on an average) and deemed “Guilty until proven innocent”?

2) Umpteen numbers of cases have been found where the girls’ side, filing such complaints were found to be hiding vital facts about the girl and they in fact file these cases when the hidden facts(affairs, diseases, unnatural tendencies and preferences, etc.) are exposed. Has 498A been designed to seek revenge from and harass husband’s family legally?

3) Is the pain of a mother / sister less when she loses a son / brother than when she loses a daughter / sister?

4) As per suicide statistics provided by National Crime Records Bureau, for the years 2005 and 2006, close to 52, 483 and 55, 452 married men, respectively, have committed suicide as opposed to 28, 188 and 29, 869 married women. But yet there is no law to protect our brothers and sons. Why?

5) According to a report by Center for Social Research, there is only 2 % conviction in 498a cases, which means the law is misused to the tune of 98 % and yet it has not been scrapped. This clearly shows the inaction of the government and the apathy meted out to men and their family members, be it a man or a woman in India.

Today on Women’s Rights Equality Day we demand that,

1) Mothers and sisters of men too are given equal status and their grievances as women are also heard and redressed by State Women Commissions as well as National Commission for Women and the Women and Child Development Ministry.

2) We demand that all cases registered under 498A be properly investigated by a police officer of the level of DCP before making any arrests or registering any complaint the police has written permission from the DCP- in compliance with 1994 Supreme Court Judgment 1994 AIR 1349 SCC (4) 260 Joginder Kumar vs. UOI. It is to be understood that 498a is a serious criminal offense and registering a criminal offense against any person without investigation can lead to serious degradation of the person’s social reputation and irreparable damage to life and career, apart from unfathomable human rights violation and wastage of governmental resources and hence public’s money.

3) Such acts need strong condemnation and the perpetrators of false cases need to be severely punished as they are maligning the system and blocking the path of justice for genuine victims. The State should initiate prosecution suo motu against those found to be misusing laws affecting families.

Gender Equality cannot come by way of Gender Discrimination and stereotyped, anachronous and generalised assumptions, which can only help to undermine the spirit and definition of any law. Taking the statements of the girl’s side as “Gospel Truth” reflects sheer lack of jurisprudence and grave inefficiency in implementation of laws on the government’s part, which needs to be rectified with immediate effect.

Place: Thanking You

Date: 26 August 2008

PRO (Save Indian Family Foundation)

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Women Protection vs. Women Empowerment

Alimony in divorces is a serious issue these days. Huge alimonies have stripped men of their finances in the West and this trend is slowly catching in India as well with the growing number of divorces. Recent studies in Mumbai showed that 40 % of marriages end in divorce. In Delhi, every day on an average 10 divorce cases are filed. And in majority of these cases men are ordered to pay alimony as they say alimony in divorce is a positive step towards “Women Empowerment” by making them financially independent. But alimony as a provision in divorce is despicable and subject to serious condemnation for many reasons underlined here,

1) Arranged Marriage in India is a communal decision and takes place as a result of the involvement of society elders, common friends and the parents of both the boy and the girl. Hence when the relation fails to work and ends in a divorce, the husband should not be the only one paying.

2) If it is a love marriage then both the adults are equally responsible and the man should not be the only one paying the price.

3) Alimony is the biggest motivator for women to file a divorce and stop making attempts to save the marriage. Also parents of girls, when they see the marriage is not working, encourage their daughters to move towards divorce in lieu of hefty alimony.

4) Due to the overwhelming and impending burden of alimony, married men in India continue to suffer in a bad marriage and refrain from buying a costly piece of paper called, ‘Divorce’ which results in higher stress levels for men and also higher suicide rates among Indian married men.

In line with the feminism that created waves in the 70s in the West, harsh, lopsided and severely anti – male laws were drafted in India in the name of Women Protection. And at the same time alimony was encouraged in the name of Women Empowerment. Today we have six laws quintessentially achieving the same objective of Women Protection and Women Empowerment in tandem.

But the basic ideology where the law makers, the society living with those laws and the media sleeping in deep slumber, not to protest against the loopholes in the laws and their implementation, fluttered is that, Protection and Empowerment can never go hand in hand. We don’t need to protect an empowered lot, hence when alimony was already provided for Women Empowerment, Women Protection was a redundancy. And if that was not the case then alimony as a means to Empower Women has failed miserably and has rather proved as a “Marriage Breaker” as reflected in a recent statement by renowned Supreme Court justice Arijit Pasayath that the Hindu Marriage Act has broken more families than joining them.

The statements seems more than apt. Though Hindu Marriage Act has provisions for saving as well breaking marriage, the one breaking marriage is more famous i.e. divorce. The section for saving marriage, Section 9 – Restitution of Conjugal Rights is a dead letter section of the Hindu Marriage Act which quintessentially trivializes the Indian culture of saving marriage, but sadly enough it is not only a lesser known section, it is non – executable as well, which means the court cannot enforce an order passed in this section.

Due to such reasons divorces are increasing day by day and the institution of marriage is slowly dying out. The government which barely manages to gather oxygen enough to survive in wake of recent turmoil and power tussle at the center has little / no time to look into this matter, impending over the society as a social catastrophe. The society, whose very existence is subject to strict proof with everyone in the society considering everyone else other than oneself as the society, with its paradoxical veil of technological advancement conveniently, chooses to ignore the victims of a bad marriage. The media, whose hunger for sensationalism is self – feeding, considers only the women as humans, raising its voice for women at every sneeze and whiff, is simply catalyzing a gender divide in the society and nothing else.

In view of the all the above contentions and discussions, yet it remains a question, whether Empowerment and Protection can go hand in hand? Let the stalwarts answer this.