Censoring Search
March 7, 2009
The Japan Today Web site ran “Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft Urged Not to Censor Search” here. The article does a good job of summarizing the hoo hah over various Internet filtering efforts. The most interesting paragraph to me was:
RSF [Reporters without Borders] and Amnesty said that currently, “there are more than two dozen countries restricting Internet access on a regular basis.” They said they “understand the challenges of operating in countries that restrict Internet access; these countries are trying to pressure you to obey local laws that do not comport with international law and standards that protect freedom of expression. “But complying with local demands that violate international law does not justify your actions,” they said.
The point that struck me was the implicit assumption that Web indexes are not now filtered or in some way shaped. The broader filtering is not so much new as it is in the public eye. Consequently write ups that want a free Internet with sites available may want to do a bit more digging into what has been done by Web indexing and directory outfits for a long time.
At The Point (Top 5% of the Internet) in 1993–yep, that’s 25 years ago, folks–we built a business on filtering out porn, hate, and other types of sites we defined as inappropriate in our editorial policy. Since those early days of online directories and indexes, content is either not processed, skipped by the crawler, or blocked in the indexes.
Free and open. Sounds great. Not part of the fabric of most indexing operations. If you can’t figure out why, you qualify as an azure chip consultant, fully equipped to advise government entities, non profit institutions, and commercial entities about search, online access, and content. For me, filtering is the * only * way to approach online content. I filter for behind-the-firewall search with a vengeance. Why? You want the stuff in your laptop’s folders in the organization’s index? I filter with the force of legal guidance for eDiscovery. Why? You want to run afoul of the applicable laws as they apply to eDiscovery and redacting? I filter for libraries. Why? You want the library to create problems for patrons with problematic Web sites or malware? No, I didn’t think so.
Free and open. Silliness. Poke around and find out what the guidelines are for content at some of the high profile Web indexing and content companies. If you find a free and open index other than a dark net, shoot me an email at seaky2000 at yahoo dot com. I will check it out.
Stephen Arnold, March 7, 2009
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
