RUMOR. Hillary Clinton To Fire A Crap Load Of Staff After Losing New Hampshire
Hillary Clinton is rumored to be planning a purge of her campaign after she takes a beating in New Hampshire.Read More »
Earlier today while checking up on teh twitter, I saw this tweet from Caleb Howe at 10:49 am Eastern:
Why would Google be marking BigGovernment.com as a page that has malware on it? I have never before received this warning from Google when going to BigGovernment. I suppose it is possible that BigGovernment did have malicious code on it. Of course, I would then also have to believe that in the following two hours BigGovernment isolated the malicious code and removed the code. Why? Well, how else would Google Chrome now be allowing you to go to BigGovernment.com without a warning? Is their product malfunctioning? Also, Safari uses the same system as Chrome for detecting malicious sites, why didn’t Safari give the same warning when I attempted to use it?
I think the the real reason is that Google didn’t like the bad publicity BigGovernment was putting out on their internet.
See, the article that was being flagged by Google Chrome was about Net Neutrality and the duplicitous stance that Google has taken as a proponent of the same. I assume this was the offending text that caused Chrome to flag this article as malware:
Last week, in a post on the official Google blog, the company’s senior vice president for product management, Jonathan Rosenberg, wrote that while Google’s “goal is to keep the Internet open,” it opposes the concept of “openness” where it would apply to its own search and ad products.
Ironically, the rationale behind Google’s opposition to “open internet” policy of this sort sounds remarkably similar to the rationale expressed by ISPs—which Google and other “open internet” advocates have targeted as the enemy in the current fight regarding FCC rules—for opposing net neutrality. According to Rosenberg, opening up Google’s code “would actually hurt users” and result in “reduced quality” for those who rely on the service in question.
That is an end result that net neutrality opponents say could equally well be assured by instituting that specific policy, though they allege that a key difference is that net-only neutrality would help, not hurt, Google, from a financial perspective. Broader openness, by contrast, would strike a major blow to Google—and open internet advocates and major voices in the tech sphere are now calling the company out for dressing up a public policy stance that appears to driven by a pure profit motive as philosophically principled and heartfelt.[Emphasis Added]
Now, I am not well versed on Net Neutrality. I have read the diaries produced by Neil here on RedState and some other blogs on the subject though, and I believe I know enough to see the hypocrisy and pettiness shown by Google in this debate.
All that said, I really think that this is a shame. I love the products that Google has produced, I use them everyday, but if they are making their products bias against dissent from their political beliefs that practice will soon end.
Aaron B. Gardner