Tom Usher wrote or added | Twitter & Digg are recommending whom to follow. "Social networking sites" are driving traffic to the lowest common denominator: "popular." Google ruined much of the Web by selling keywords. The rich get richer. Better, non-greedy ideas, get buried layers down, even though people might actually change if not for the deadly capitalist-herd mentality. It's getting like freeware that's nagware.
You may not think this is so bad, but consider that these capitalist sites are going to reinforce the user's existing greed or violence or depravity if that's where the user is. That's the problem!
Google was selling keywords? Tom, if you have the time, please explain. Or is it that I don't understand it because I am not on twitter? Even so, how can they sell words?
Well, Betty, I don't know when you first got on the Internet, but just in case you weren't on before Google appeared, search engines used to return the most obscure information without any consideration for the sites pockets. Some poor-as-a-church-mouse site could have really good content and be ranked right up there with the biggest sites with the most money backing them.
The two Google boys, were a couple of college-aged Jewish guys, focused on, what else, money. I don't mention that they are Jewish to attach the lust for money to Jewishness. Bill Gates isn't Jewish – enough said. Anyway, these two raised enough money for some 6,000 desktop computers that they linked together and then started offering search results but with a hitch. People could buy sponsored results. If you were a pizza chain and jumped in early, you could buy the term "pizza." If you paid the most for that term, then when anyone had "pizza" in his or her query, your pizza chain's website would pop up at the top of the search results under "sponsored links or results or whatever." I hated the idea right from the start. I knew it would screw things up.
Once the Google boys had enough money from doing that a bit (they still do it of course), they plowed it into more hardware and programming. Their algorithms have been written to return the "popular," which becomes a self-fulfilling thing. It's very difficult without big bucks to break through. Therefore, unless you are really interested in digging, you don't find the sources but rather mostly those who conglomerate – search around and gather other people's ideas and then rewrite them as if original. The name-brand writers get the attention off other people's hard work. It's not fair, and Google is largely responsible for the trend. Now Digg and Twitter are piling on so that the already more obscure will be buried that much deeper under those with money who don't labor nearly so hard and don't often have an original thought in their heads.
Google's algorithms also deliberately bury whatever the corporation deems to be more against the corporations desires, including political and social. My work was trashed in the rankings because I wrote about Zionism so much but also on homosexuality. Throw in the 9/11 stuff, and Google completely removed my blog at a crucial point in its development. I've never been able to regain the lost ground. At one point, I was showing up in the number-one spot on some fairly key terms, all without paying a dime. After about 3 months of being totally blocked, my traffic disappeared. Then when they let me back on, they had changed how they return results. Rather than being listed in real-time on every key word, I was place two and sometime three layers down, meaning someone would have to click special search links to get away from the deep-pocket results to see the likes of me who had more controversial things to say.
The next phase is the end of Net Neutrality and the bringing in of Murdoch's subscription model – turning the Internet into a newspaper stand, where only coughing up the money will get you anything more than a glance at the headlines from a distance. It's a selfish shame. We could have much better news under the nonprofit model and even better, the giving-and-sharing-all model.
Betty Molchany Tom, I believe you. On or about the time that I wrote an op-ed, "The Gaza Holocaust," which went all over the world, ugly things began to appear when a search was done of my name. But it was another search engine which was doing this and not Google. " Throw in the 9/11 stuff, and Google completely removed my blog at a crucial point in its development. I've never been able to regain the lost ground. At one point, I was showing up in the number-one spot on some fairly key terms, all without paying a dime."
What I had asked you about was the sale of keywords.
By the way, I began on the Internet around 1998. A year or so later, a search of my name produced 1,200 hits. Now, it is down to a few.
Betty, you wrote, "What I had asked you about was the sale of keywords."
Correct, and I answered: "If you were a pizza chain and jumped in early, you could buy the term "pizza." If you paid the most for that term, then when anyone had "pizza" in his or her query, your pizza chain's website would pop up at the top of the search results under 'sponsored links or results or whatever.'" That's selling keywords.
You can buy any word or phrase you want. You bid for your placement/ranking.
If you were superrich and a Zionist and wanted the Jewish ADL to pop at the top on the search on "Zionist," you could buy that term and make it happen. Once the ADL has a history of hits, it's ranked high on the unpaid-results too.
However, Google doesn't stop there. They've sunk sites that haven't fit Google's "policies" of political correctness. Mine is an example.
Oh, sorry, I missed that point, Tom. Was reading too quickly, which I cannot do properly at any time. :-) I had thought that the way to get to the top was to keep clicking on a site until its numbers expand to the top of those with hits. But now that you tell me that one can buy a keyword, that should help to direct the flow of traffic to that site. Oh, dear. We can can't [meant: count] on nothing anymore - or could we ever?
No problem, Betty. You're easy to communicate with. Of all my FB friends, you're the best at doing what you just did: just saying you missed something. That signifies with me. Everyone should be that way. Perhaps it's your legal training, but you're also very upfront about seeking needed and reasonable clarifications. That's a good trait too. Some people can't handle it. They take offense too easily. I think it develops better understanding though, so you get kudos from me for that too.
You should watch this, Betty. What they did to Alex, they did to me too.
They've probably done it to tens of thousands with many of those people not even knowing. Who looks at one's Google positioning everyday or week or even month? Many bloggers who write very serious and well researched articles don't. If they write things that really upset the Empire (I do): censored.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)