http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574549 … ensorship/
"Google reports it has seen an "alarming" incidence in government requests to censor Internet content in the past six months."
"The Web giant said it received more than 1,000 requests from governments around the world to remove items such as YouTube videos and search listings. The company, which said it complied with more than half the requests, released a catalog of those requests as part of its biannual Global Transparency Report."
I am all in favour of censoring some internet materials available generally. Why do I have to put up with child porn appearing on my computer screen when I google search "childrens bed" or some other 'normal' phrase. Why do I have to put up with krazy kristian blather appearing when I google search almost anything not specific.
The citizens of some countries are deeply offended by certain images and content, why should they be subjected to it ? Why should the remarkable lack of moral and ethical values that swill around the cess pit of US materials be imposed on everyone else?
There is an important difference between ensuring that people don't accidentally stumble on something some would find offensive and censoring things so that even people looking for them can't find them, the first is fine and makes sense, the second not so much.
Absolutely agree - and generally I am not in favour of censorship. However, the normal barriers to obscenity in civilised society have been detroyed and so some other protection is needed.
I think Google are as much to blame in this regard by not using their obvious technical abilities to work on it sooner and finding ways to corral this stuff out of the general stream but where the perverts and sexually inadeqauate can find it.
Yes, I can't understand why this is even an issue...I mean it seems simple, if the word "porn" is not part of the search request then porn sites should't pop up...doesn't that seem simple enough, non-censorship and non-smut for the ordinary viewer...
Not really. Any string of any combination will bring up matching results - so if you put in "Essex child" Google could also return results for "sex child" which can occur somewhere within many different titles that I can leave to your own imagination.
I know, A short while back I was searching for pictures of young women for a hub I was working on, all porn sites! Eventually I used high school children to get what I was looking for, but my point is it should be the other way around...it should be harder to find the smut...just typing in girls goes straight to porn, that is ridiculous and fixable...
I was wondering if you, or anyone else on the thread, followed through the links of the transparency report? I noticed the conversation has been mainly about China when there was so much to see about places such as Iran and Russia...also that while governments and court orders have fought against porn, it has been to a tiny degree(under5%), while 405 of government requests/court orders have been under the title "defamation," Now, I know there has been a lot of truth to the internet being used in that way, but I wondered what else might fall under that category? I was also impressed that google said no to most request from most countries unless provable to be unlawful to not comply...but apparently the US was able to convince them a lot more having greater success of banning material, strange.
You can set an adult filter on your Google search. I have it set off at home but on at work.
Most porn is legal and searching for it is a valid use of a search engine. If the result came up fort, that meant the majority of people using those search terms were in fact looking for porn.
The adult filter removes pretty much every site I try to search for and they are not porn, just not mainstream.
Most porn is legal in the US, not in most of the rest of the world. I would suggest that the rest of the world is right and the US is wrong.
Most porn is legal in most of the developed world--Europe, Scandinavia, Australasia etc etc. Maybe the adult filters need work. But maybe you need to realize that adults like myself have every right to view legal porn. Which I do, on a regular basis. I also write erotica, and sell it online.
Fictional works should be unconstrained in terms of the themes they address, including sex. And search engines should accommodate those who want to read or view those works. The internet would be a sad place if it was puritan.
Believe it or not, I agree with that. Besides, most SE's offer opportunities to filter the results of what a user is searching for. There's also filter software out there for parents and others who wish to protect their children (and themselves) from content they feel is objectionable.
I agree with you as far as censorship being wrong, I do think hwever, that if the word porn is not part of the search then porn should not show, I think that is easy enough...So someone, like yourself, will have no problem finding what you are looking for and people like me don't have to see it at all, ever...
The thing is a hell of a lot of people think my erotic romances are porn and I don't necessarily disagree. They have sexy sex in them. But my readers aren't going to use that word to find them online any more than they do at Barnes and Noble. So requiring that word would be restraint of trade.
As soon as you make a porn ghetto there will be a war about what goes in it. The only bright line is the law, and the law is often an ass.
You have every right because it is the law in the US, this is not the case in 'most' of the world; the world is a bigger place altogether.
Your right to view pornography can be amply satisfied through purchased literature and DVD - where even in your newsagents it will be on the top shelf, or under a plain wrapper. I don't think I should be forced to see it on the internet because you are too embarassed to face a real person to buy it.
Why? Because you are using a free service provided by someone you don't control.
"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire
You want to leave specific results out of search results, build your own SE. Or provide strong evidence that what you don't want to see actually causes personal harm to people, whereupon I might join you in asking it be removed.
Child porn, I'm with you.
Krazy Kristian blather not at all. I could not care less that certain peoples are "deeply offended" by certain images or that you (or anyone else) finds the US to be a moral and ethical cess pit of objectionable images. You don't like it, build your own SE, as I say.
We are talking WWW here - World Wide Web - the whole point of the internet is that it is global.
Here in China the recent expulsion of Google were certainly motivated by many things - but on the issue that they used (of unrestricted pornography) they were completely right.
So now I can use the Chinese version of Google, or the unreliable Google HK, or most other services - and incidentally I can use Google through my VPN.
BUT this censors half the world from using Google, the half that do not have access to VPN etc, and makes it a Half World Web - and that is censorship in itself.
The Chinese government's gratuitous censorship is kind of a given. As wilderness said, we don't control any of the major sources from which we receive anything, be it news and information or food. I miss the high seas days of the Internet, too, but unless you're willing to risk your life by exposing classified government documents and whatnot, elevating people like Julian Assange to little folk hero pedestals is about all you can do. Imagine how much was hidden from people before we were able to instantaneously transmit information to the other side of the planet. People are simply more aware of more things these days, which is why there are also so many paranoid conspiracy theorists about.
But that is not the fault of either Google, or the U.S. CHINA made the decision to censor it's search engine results. I would think that you might take issue then with the Chinese government. Oddly enough, I'd venture to say that child pornography can be found on many sites that neither originate nor are maintained in the U.S.
Of course it is the fault of Google - they are the gatekeepers to much of the internet information. I could take issue with the Chinese government but I live here, earn my money here, and abide by their rules as only polite in their country with their culture and requirements.
Every country censors the information it's citizens sees, including your own. You do not see any of the 'other' side of anything - have you ever seen in mainstream media the Syrian side of that particular dispute ?? Did you ever see the Chinese human rights report on the US, using the exact same criterion as the US used for China, did you see how you fall even shorter than China on many issues - Did you see all across your news that China sent rescue and reconstruction teams to Haiti after their (fairly) recent devestation, pretty much equal to the US contribution ?
In respect to child pronography, of course it is worldwide, but Google is the biggest gatekeeper and with all its resources and abilities it is clearly making no effort to exclude it from its search and find machine.
Has it occurred to you that most individuals who use the web are capable of tuning into multiple news sources - including other national media streams such as Al-Jazeera? BBC?
Did you speak as highly of the U.S. when you lived here? Or as passionately in support of our government?
Most individuals do not look for alternative news.
IK never lived in the US, I am UK.
I do not passionately support the Chinese government - you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote.
I was posing news that you will not have heard, I could just as easily used news from any other country.
I apologize for misrepresenting anything. If I did, it was unintentional.
I'm glad you're aware of most people's news consumption habits. Almost every friend I have online seeks out alternative news sources - and they come from all over the world, not just the U.S.
I guess I'm just confused by what you're saying.
Google used to count incoming links to determine the value of a site. Unfortunately that was "gamed" to the point that we saw Panda.
The point is that anything google might do to eliminate these things is going to be quickly got around by suppliers and viewers. Google can try (and perhaps is - who really knows?) but it will never work in the long run.
Although I personally think G owes it to the world to try and eliminate such things a child porn, it is ultimately up to the people themselves to eliminate the source. Only in that manner can any effort be actually effective for more than a few days or weeks.
I think the control of child porn belongs to law enforcement. The illegal act is on the server, not the search engine.
Google already deindexes illegal sites by jurisdiction when they are reported. I know this because they deindex pirate site urls offering my novels illegally. I just have to send in the request.
You're absolutely right in that it belongs to law enforcement.
I do have a problem with tasking a private company to become a moral policeman. It's one thing to ask Google to shut down a pirate site; it's quite another to ask them to police the web for immorality. If they try, Google will never succeed in the slightest; if two neighbors cannot agree on what is moral how can two people in different cultures across the world from each other? What can Google use to determine what should be allowed? Matt Cutt's personal opinion? Do we really want that?
Absolutely wrong !!! Stopping child porn is everybody's business.
Which is why the tangible job of stopping them falls to the tax payer funded police system. Private enterprise should make reports and cooperate fully, not start trying to take the place of police. Google is powerful enough without getting delusions of cop-hood.
On the issue of child porn? It is everybody's business to stop it.
Why stop there? Pornography doesn't belong on the internet at all. It is exploitative on every level. Viewers are nothing more than degenerate voyeurists.
And here we see why trying to police the net for morality won't work.
One man's porn is anothers beauty. One man's declaration of "degenerate voyeurism" is anothers indication of a "nosy busybody" wanting everything their way. One man's "exploitation" is anothers job and livelihood.
It just isn't possible to find very much at all that the world will agree is immoral or perversion.
A pro-porn proponent? Give me a break. Everyone knows the difference between art and smut.
Sure they do. That's why we find some cities that allow certain magazines to be displayed openly while some don't.
It's why there is never an argument about what is accepted and what is not in art museums.
It's why some beaches are topless, or nude, and some aren't.
It's why some locations allow topless, or nude, dancing and some don't.
It's why some states allow partial nudity in public and some don't.
It's why some countries require women to be totally covered and some don't.
It's why communal bathing is accepted some places but not others.
While these aren't all about pictures on paper, they are all about sexual depravity. perversion and/or repression, depending on your personal viewpoint. As we can see, the entire world always agrees on these kinds of things. Not.
I have to agree with wilderness on this, everyone's concept of p0rn is slightly different and culturally the gaps can be huge as an extreme example I traveled in the Amazon and we visited tribes where women did not cover their breasts at all but found someone other than their husband seeing their hair to be very shameful.
The Marquis de Sade is another such example, art or the vilest smut?
I ain't talkin' indigenous tribes people. Marquis de Sade? I think it is becoming obvious who likes to get jiggy around here.
OH lord I have been caught out?!
The fact is from culture to culture from age to age what is porn is never the same, great Greek nude sculptures were one p0rn in brothels.
No doubt, it seems all the greatest cultures are perverted as hell.
Who said they were great? The Native Americans have never practiced such perversions. The First Nation is a great culture. It has been supplanted by the Greco-Roman ideal, and now we have perversions of all sorts.
I must amit I have little knowledge of Native American culture, but the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, Feudal Japan and post Feudal Japan, The Chinese dynasties etc. etc. Sexuality and "perversion" seems to be tied heavily to cultural progress, when a society oppresses sexuality it does not advance, for example even the Renaissance saw a growth of libertinism that had been completely absent during the culturally stagnant dark ages.
Really? You, then, consider polygamy and wife swapping (for periods of as much as a season!) to be moral and correct?
Both were practiced by the native American Inuit tribes and wife swapping, or "swinging" is also known in the Native American Arawete tribe in Brazil.
Well, yes and no, Recommend. While I would certainly report any site I came across to anyone that would listen (FBI, local police, state police, CIA - everything I could think of) I would draw the line at trying to track down the location and going in with guns blazing.
That's the job of police, and I think that's all that Psyche and I both mean.
On the issue of child porn it is google that crawls the site for it to be on their pages, google who knows where it is being hosted and the hosting company. It is google who know how much child porn is on which servers and it is google who know that it is not only illegal but severely damaging for those involved and to society in general.
The guns blazing is the last and least part of the situation.
Dunno. While I would think writing a program to differentiate between an infant and an adult would be too hard (but what about dwarfs?), recognizing the difference between a 14 year old and an 18 year old would seem a lot more difficult. I don't know anything about facial recognition programs (it seems related, anyway) so can't answer that.
Do they really know where the porn is located? What would a no-index tag do? What if the actual porn isn't available to the net (just carefully worded ads or not even that), but sold via email off a hard drive? I know the seller recently caught near here was found via buyers, not the internet. Google probably had no idea what was on his server.
Of course they know where everything is located - they google bot it to get it into their index.
every email is scanned by government departments looking for keywords, so adding one or two more would not be hard, but then they would have to admit they are looking at every bit of electronically transmitted information that they care to take an interest in.
Porn by email must start with an online ad.
It is all possible, but the will and funding is absent - aggravated by the insidious idea that pornography is not harmful to society.
Don't know that I can agree with that. G certainly has no idea of what is on a hard drive disconnected from the web, and probably not on those that are in a computer connected but not as a server, either.
Govt. may be reading every email, but I've seen nothing to confirm that. Just conspiracy theories with no backing. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
Porn by email does not necessarily begin with an ad; the one caught here apparently "advertises" only by word of "mouth" (or email between buyers, pointing each other to places to buy).
There have actually been quite a few caught around my area recently. It coincides with construction of an "internet crime" unit at the state police building I worked on - makes me wonder if I've played a small part in catching these creatures. Hope so, but in any case there IS at least some money being spent on the problem - a hopeful sign.
Google actually co-operated with the censorship for a long time, so it was Google's fault to some extent.
The World Wide Web doesn't physically exist - it's simply a contact between two or more computers that are privately owned, and it's your relationship with the other owners that decides what you see and what you don't see, not the government.
Recommend, you've left me totally befuddled here. We often disagree in these forums, but I've always found your posts to be well thought out and with reasoning that I can follow whether I agree or not. Somewhere this time, though, the gremlins have twisted what I see from what you mean into something unrecognizable.
Here, you want child porn (and, I think, all other porn as well) removed from Google. You want the Kristian blather gone. You want anything that might offend other cultures or peoples left out. You don't want to see results from the cess pit of American morality on the web. You want the private, third party that provides a search function that you voluntarily use free of charge to conform to what you think should be on it.
OK - I obviously disagree, but I can follow the reasoning. With this post, though, you decry the fact that the Chinese government has censored what you see. Someone has censored your results and you don't like the fact that only half a web is available in your country.
While it sounds like we may agree on censorship of material that will harm another person, I'm completely in the dark as to what you think of material that is merely offensive to some segments of the world. You can't be claiming that only you are competent to determine what people see (that negates my impression of a thoughtful person able to reason their way through life), so where do you stand?
Do you wish the web censored, according to whatever a government or particular group wants? Do you want it open to everything that might be offensive? Do you believe that humanity throughout the world is close enough in ideology that they could agree on what should be shown? Should government provide it's own SE, barring all others in that country and thus satisfying the censorship wants of each govt.? Should the world force every private search engine to provide a "G rated" version as well as one for adults?
What is your version of a correctly designed search engine in regards to censorship?
I do not object to the Chinese government censoring the net here, it is not my business and I respect the rules and customs of wherever I live. It pisses me off that I have to use a VPN to use the google toos etc but hey . .
I do not think it is so hard to decide what to censor, this is a social issue, not political. My guess would be that the far greater proportion of the world population do not want to see child porn - probably what is becoming for the US 'normal' porn. You would object to seeing some young girl being 'banged' by several large guys around your streets and in the bars so why is it ok on the net ?
If you believe that child porn is alright in the US you are very sadly mistaken. It may be that the concept is promoted by those that hate the US throughout the world, but there isn't a shred of truth in it.
Yes, it happens here, just as it happens everywhere in the world. The man in the street, though, is intensely against the practice. Child molesters that hit the prison environment are in for a very rough time as even the criminal element detests the practice. My local area has, in the last few months, caught and sentenced a half dozen child porn cases. It might be a part of the problem, but people here find the practice so detestable that it is seldom discussed, except to say "shoot the ba***** and be done with it".
Sites that promote harm to others should, in my opinion, be shut down immediately and child porn is probably at the very top of that list. Others might (might) include listing names and addresses of undercover agents, plans for bomb making, military plans or instructions for causing a riot. All cause harm and should absolutely be censored.
Ordinary pornography, depictions (satirical or otherwise) of famous figures (including religious ones), discussions of homosexuality - all of these and thousands of others fall, in my opinion, under the category of offensive but not harmful and there should be no censorship. They are also what makes it impossible to ever find a consensus as to what should be censored as world wide, country wide and even city wide agreement will never be reached. Many, for instance, would demand that any ads or discussion of the Harry Potter books be censored from the net. Book burning is always popular with some, and the WWW is no different in that respect.
Party pooper panda pandering to the party.
Child-porn should be illegal and it should be easier to catch up to these persons and charge them with the grotesque crimes they are perpetrating...this is not considered "normal" in this Country, not by a long shot!
So? When you find one in Nigeria, or South Africa or Denmark, what then?
Not defending child pornographers (my solution is a bullet for anyone found running a server with child porn on it), just pointing out that control of an international assemblage of data streams isn't easy OR universally accepted.
You make a great point, my thoughts have always been that if the garbage can not cater to such a large audience it may become less lucrative to the perps...
True, and I cheer when I see the law has caught someone with it on their computer. Buyers, I mean, not sellers. Not only do we get them out of society and away from kids, but we decrease the market (and profit) of the sellers as well.
I helped build an internet crime section into our local state police building, and I wonder if the recent spurt around here of arrests for child porn isn't one of the results. I hope so - I'd feel good about doing something to help stop that vile practice.
That is great news wilderness! Anything that can be done to shut down proffitability will surely make an impact...This is completly off subject but the same "proffit" perspective, One of the states legalized marijuana in this last election, I watched this man speaking about the effects being likened to that of alcohol, I thought about the huge excise tax on cigerretts...Maybe a regulated and taxed marijuana could not only be a huge revenue explosion, as tobacco, but would it have the same "profitability effect" creating less business to cartels and drug lords...just a thought, what do you think?
I'm sure legalizing marijuana will shut down most of the dealers of that drug. I doubt it will help much with the drug problem, though and could make it worse. Will those dealers in marijuana only, finding their income drying up, go into the harder drugs, lowering the price through competition and promoting heavier usage? Will those already pushing multiple drugs put more effort into pushing meth, crack, etc. to make up for the lost profit?
I have to say as well, that I am very much against such things as the "sin" taxes on cigarettes, alcohol or any other tax aimed at a small population with the proceeds going to the general fund and not used to help primarily those paying the tax. If a govt needs additional general funding, let it come from the general population and not a small targeted group that simply doesn't have the political power to fight it.
If you want to legalize and then tax marijuana, fine. Set the tax just high enough to cover the costs of regulation and not a dime higher. Merely because a state wants more income in their general fund is not a reason to add to the inevitable inequities in our tax code, whether they are "voluntary" or not.
Good point, it actually could back fire causing "dealers" to focus on the harsher meth type drugs...However, If mariguana were legal a lot of people would be released from jail which live on the tax payers dime...I had no idea of this "general" fund, I was under the impression the excise tax on cig were used to fund healthcare funds such as medicaid, same with alcohol...that would be a much smarter tax policy, same with tanning beds,etc. the price is passed on to the customer anyway when taxes rise, and those very customers are "risking" health...
Nope. My state trumpeted proudly and long a couple of years ago that a multi-million dollar statehouse renovation had been done solely on the backs of smokers. No other taxpayer contributed one red penny.
Many found that to be most wonderful - I found it disgusting. The theory, of course, is that the majority will forcibly "help" the ignorant smokers to stop their habit by artificially pricing them out of the market, but I find that questionable. Particularly when a new cigarette tax is voted down because it might result in a lowering of tax revenue as people quit.
It's a paradox for the do-gooders. The love having a captive source of large tax revenues and that it lowers their own tax as a result, but it's pretty obvious that they can't provide the "help" those poor, misguided souls need without cutting their own throat and losing that free source of money. Quite an ethical quandary for them, but money always wins out in the end.
Are you actually equating children's porn and Christian opinion?
If so you have been in China too long.
The equating is things people find offensive, there are in fact people who find both those things offensive so he was absolutely correct.
Whatever....they are not the same thing but when you say that in the same breath you give the impression. I am sorry if you think so but it ain't so.
I took the the time to write a post
yet still there is a topic on porn ,
It will only get worse. We already have red light cameras, traffic cameras, cameras on street corners, and workplace cameras. Won't be long before the government will want them in your home as well. For your own safety of course. Sounds far fetched, but so did the others at one time. When people ask the government to be their nanny, they should realize they may get more than they ask for.
Look at the posts on these political forums. The left wingers want the conservatives to shut up just because Romney lost. A true sign of what leftists stand for. Censorship and submission to their way of thinking. Doesn't sound much like a free society to me.
You are describing "1984," and I see that as well, this is not a leftist thing as you would like to believe, it is all of government and all governments...Where is the fine line between security and invasion of privacy...?
As a general rule I'm opposed to censorship period. I think there are more than enough filtering options available to avoid getting porn if you don't want it... and like being out for a walk, you should be aware of what neighborhood you are in. If you are using the internet.. you should know enough about how it works to protect yourself. Of course.. though I've been online since the late 80s, I haven't stumbled across any child porn yet.. I suppose if I did it might change my mind.. still I've been in some nasty internet neighborhoods and if I haven't stumbled across it.. I find it hard to believe that it's that easy to stumble across... of course.. people might define it differently from each other. If I were going to censor anything.. it would be violence I suppose. I would include child porn as violence against children. I saw on a news show last night a discussion of fascist groups in Greece that are following immigrants and videoing themselves beating them up.. and posting the videos to Youtube. That's pretty twisted and shouldn't be allowed. However.. censoring anything is a slippery slope. While we all might agree that child porn or videos of people being beaten up are a bad thing... there are bound to be some things that we disagree about.. and.. once a mechanism is in place to stop what we agree on.. what is to stop us from using it against each other if we can get a slim majority on our side?
Personally, I would encourage those committing violent crime (or any other crime for that matter) to tape it and post it on Youtube. It makes a conviction so much easier.
You're right that it is a slippery slope. Sounds here like we all agree that SOME censorship is necessary, but we need to constantly be on guard and fight any more than is absolutely necessary for protection. Against actual harm, not hurt feelings or to "protect" the morality we so often project onto others against their will.
I can agree that some censorship is required, this is not about someone being censored for standing on a platform and giving a speech, (though the US and the UK both do that currently) this is about displaying digusting (to someone) images and video in a place where everyone has access to it, and it is displayed randomly on everybody's computer screens when using the google service. (and other similar services but NOT those of Chinese origin)
Unacceptable is quite different to different people, however, cultural preferences are well understood and documented - it is not hard to make a socially agreed list of the few things that fall into this category, I suspect that it would include pornography generally, child porn without doubt, snuff movies, racist videos, anti religion video and images - such as burning piles of koran or pissing on piles of bibles - and not much else.
I personally would like to see all religion banned from any exposure but I can accept that this is a personal preference and I can accept that this would not be included in the list.
I can also see that the US would like to ban all video and images of the violence it is wreaking in the mid-east in the form of bus-fulls of women being machine gunned (by accident) , dead children from drone strikes etc etc - Oh sorry, they already do this.
In other words loads of stuff out there is already banned or otherwise not available through google - adding socially unacceptable material to the list would be a doddle.
Nope. Never work. Say that the world decides that a worldwide vote of 90% is sufficient to censor something.
You'll probably get child porn banned (I would certainly hope so) and maybe actual snuff films.
You won't get even 50% to agree on what "normal" pornography consists of, let alone get it banned.
Racist videos are popular any time we have two different races living in close proximity. Lip service will be paid to banning such things, but a hidden, private vote would never pass. Far more than 10% of the world population is highly racist - just think of how many black africans hate anything with a white skin. Not to say that whites are one whit better.
Religious icons - few Christians will care about burning a Koran, just as few muslims care one iota about violating Christian sensibilities on the web. Neither will give up their right to violate another religion in return for leaving their own alone. Both have a god given mandate to convert the world, and that means the right to "violate" other religions as necessary to accomplish that goal.
Recognizing that I have a poor opinion of humanities ability or tolerance to leave each other alone to live their own lives, I could be wrong on the religious and racist issues. But I'm not - hate lives strong in most of the human race, particularly in groups as large as an entire culture.
I could not disagree more. Hate is a very American thing which you export to other countries on the backs of drone missiles and exocets.
The world is generally a very peaceful place when left alone, your 10% is more like 90% you would find if you came out here and met actual people rather than the media portrayal of them.
I am sure that the only thing that religions would be able to agree would be to stop putting descration into the media.
OUtside of the US, porn is still seen as unnacceptable by the majority of the populations, even in those places where it is shoved down their throats. In fact any socially unnacceptable activities are still seen as unnacceptable in the media, maybe getting this message back into US culture might be a good idea.
I do think you have a poor opinion of human nature - I guess that is a reflection of where you live and the job you do there ?
I will always think the best about human nature. It has gotten me criticized but I still stand by the argument that the vast majority of people in the world are good and just trying to live their lives in peace.
If you only listen to the news, which is mostly bad, you will never get a true picture of the world.
Its an issue, but its everywere discrimination in everyform exists! If only we learn to better understand eachother, even with opposing ideas. This discussion is ridiculous, poligomy , marijuana, rape, video survaillance, freaks, baby porn, and drugs. If a discussions oppened it should be based on one topic dont ya think. !!everything is personal because we are all individual minds!!
so which is the topic, or are we all listing fuck ups of man kind. . .
by Cory Zacharia9 years ago
"URGENT ACTION APPEAL- From Amnesty International USATo read the current Urgent Action newsletter, go to http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/newslett.html ----------------------------------For a print-friendly version...
by rlaframboise6 years ago
I have an article entitled Freedom of Speech and Censorship in China, it quickly rose to a hubscore of 80 from 50 shortly after posting. It has now fallen all the way to 49 and my analytics account shows that the...
by JKSophie4 years ago
A shocking news came out early this month about a 7-month pregnant Chinese woman who was forced to have an abortion because she already has a kid and cannot pay the fine of £4,000. This is one of the many painful...
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
...and they complain we don't meet our responsibilitieshttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/ … ed-states/the Chinese government (or whoever makes such decisions)have their ancient traditions of keeping face and...
by Susana S6 years ago
There have been several theories about what content Google is penalising and rewarding in the search results but at the moment it does seem a bit random (from my end). Let's compare notes and hopefully we can see some...
by FootballNut11 months ago
With the Ad Program service Hubpages offer, to benefit all writers and Hubpages what is the possibility of allowing Hubpage members access to the hosted Adverts in the Hubpages Ad Program?Is there potential that members...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.