GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   google bans CNET (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=500446)

TDF 08-05-2005 10:45 PM

google bans CNET
 
take that bitches http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/tech...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Google Inc. has blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year, after the popular technology news website published personal information of one of Google's founders in a story about growing privacy concerns for the Internet search engine, according to a CNET statement.


damn..blacklisted through the whole system

wedouglas 08-05-2005 10:49 PM

Ohhhh snap

wedouglas 08-05-2005 10:50 PM

umm cnet is still on google though

riddler 08-05-2005 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wedouglas
umm cnet is still on google though

have to wait for the next dance for it to show..

leg4 08-05-2005 10:53 PM

If they ban CNET from search results... You have the beginning of a POLICE STATE.

riddler 08-05-2005 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leg4
If they ban CNET from search results... You have the beginning of a POLICE STATE.

why? if you owned google and someone posted your info on a huge news network you would be pissed too, no matter if its public domain or not its a point..

baddog 08-05-2005 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riddler
why? if you owned google and someone posted your info on a huge news network you would be pissed too, no matter if its public domain or not its a point..


If I owned Google I would so manipulate it :thumbsup

Quickdraw 08-05-2005 11:04 PM

I believe they only banned the reporters from talking to Google reps.

Michael O 08-05-2005 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quickdraw
I believe they only banned the reporters from talking to Google reps.

Yeah thats what the story on CNN says.

mikeyddddd 08-05-2005 11:12 PM

They were blackballed.

"CNET on Friday reported "Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story."

They are not banned from listings.

Sheesh! Save the outrage for a real issue.

High Plains Drifter 08-05-2005 11:13 PM

Kind of a misleading title. Google banning anything from their results would be a huge can of worms that they don't want opened.

leg4 08-05-2005 11:14 PM

I agree with Google on this issue, I am not siding with the shitty reporters.

TexasDreams 08-05-2005 11:24 PM

Results as of this minute...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 29,600,000 for cnet. (0.04 seconds)

I wish Google would BAN me in such a way! :Oh crap

GatorB 08-06-2005 12:49 AM

Google is a bunch of hypocites!

Hmmmmmmm let's see

Schmidt is officially Google's chief champion and defender, and has publicly said that there has to be a trade-off between privacy concerns and functionality.

then

To underscore its point about how much personal information is available, the CNET report published some personal information about Google's CEO Eric Schmidt -- his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations -- all obtained through Google searches.

then

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Google Inc. has blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year, after the popular technology news website published personal information of one of Google's founders in a story about growing privacy concerns for the Internet search engine, according to a CNET statement.

So what Google is saying is that WE have to sacrifice privacy, not them.

The Sultan Of Smut 08-06-2005 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB
Google is a bunch of hypocites!

Hmmmmmmm let's see

Schmidt is officially Google's chief champion and defender, and has publicly said that there has to be a trade-off between privacy concerns and functionality.

then

To underscore its point about how much personal information is available, the CNET report published some personal information about Google's CEO Eric Schmidt -- his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations -- all obtained through Google searches.

then

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Google Inc. has blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year, after the popular technology news website published personal information of one of Google's founders in a story about growing privacy concerns for the Internet search engine, according to a CNET statement.

So what Google is saying is that WE have to sacrifice privacy, not them.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Shitheads.

$5 submissions 08-06-2005 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leg4
If they ban CNET from search results... You have the beginning of a POLICE STATE.

Google is a private (ie., not government-owned) company. They can restrict freedom of speech as much as they want. The US Constitution only protects people from STATE (ie., government) actions.

baddog 08-06-2005 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions
Google is a private (ie., not government-owned) company. They can restrict freedom of speech as much as they want. The US Constitution only protects people from STATE (ie., government) actions.


You're right . . . now turn on your ICQ please

High Plains Drifter 08-06-2005 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions
Google is a private (ie., not government-owned) company. They can restrict freedom of speech as much as they want. The US Constitution only protects people from STATE (ie., government) actions.

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I think he's implying that google has so much power over the internet that they're a government-like entity.

Sparks 08-06-2005 01:53 AM

Damn, that's messed up CNET did that.

Manowar 08-06-2005 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB
Google is a bunch of hypocites!

Hmmmmmmm let's see

Schmidt is officially Google's chief champion and defender, and has publicly said that there has to be a trade-off between privacy concerns and functionality.

then

To underscore its point about how much personal information is available, the CNET report published some personal information about Google's CEO Eric Schmidt -- his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations -- all obtained through Google searches.

then

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Google Inc. has blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year, after the popular technology news website published personal information of one of Google's founders in a story about growing privacy concerns for the Internet search engine, according to a CNET statement.

So what Google is saying is that WE have to sacrifice privacy, not them.


so true :upsidedow

Wiggles 08-06-2005 04:31 AM

fuck Cnet is going to lose alot of money from this.

Trax 08-06-2005 06:08 AM

thats typical for gfy
fuckers are too stupid to read lol

XxXotic 08-06-2005 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog
If I owned Google I would so manipulate it :thumbsup

if you owned google you'd have more money then you could imagine spending, why waste your time manipulating SERPS to make what in comparison would be a piss boy's wages to what you're already get....

mardigras 08-06-2005 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostive
Damn, that's messed up CNET did that.

Would be messed up if CNET had published private information gained from a private source, not a Google search :1orglaugh

mardigras 08-06-2005 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB
So what Google is saying is that WE have to sacrifice privacy, not them.

Pretty much what it sounds like to me :upsidedow

xclusive 08-06-2005 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasDreams
Results as of this minute...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 29,600,000 for cnet. (0.04 seconds)

I wish Google would BAN me in such a way! :Oh crap


looks like they did :)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search


Results 1 - 10 of about 2,130 for TexasDreams. (0.26 seconds)

messiah1 08-06-2005 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions
Google is a private (ie., not government-owned) company. They can restrict freedom of speech as much as they want. The US Constitution only protects people from STATE (ie., government) actions.

That is our future - slaves of the corporation, some are already living it. Thanks for the reminder :thumbsup .

pr0 08-06-2005 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riddler
why? if you owned google and someone posted your info on a huge news network you would be pissed too, no matter if its public domain or not its a point..

Yea denny's tried banning all black people for a bit, it didn't work out too well.

Shoehorn! 08-06-2005 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB
So what Google is saying is that WE have to sacrifice privacy, not them.

Are you surprised?

Shoehorn! 08-06-2005 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0
Yea denny's tried banning all black people for a bit, it didn't work out too well.

:1orglaugh

wedouglas 08-06-2005 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0
Yea denny's tried banning all black people for a bit, it didn't work out too well.

haha... not to shabby :1orglaugh

Furious_Male 08-06-2005 09:11 AM

People still aren't reading the entire thread or story.

Oh well. I agree with what GatorB said (http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...&postcount=14). Seems they are getting a taste of there own medicine. Its part of the business they should get back to work they need to keep the stock high and find those 2 chefs.

tony286 08-06-2005 09:41 AM

I spoke to Eric when I was a headhunter, very nice guy.

The Ghost 08-06-2005 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XxXotic
if you owned google you'd have more money then you could imagine spending, why waste your time manipulating SERPS to make what in comparison would be a piss boy's wages to what you're already get....

I was thinkin' the same thing. :thumbsup


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123