Google has a new logo and updating its image – but under the surface it’s still that pre-2010 half-evil censor
Eight years after Google pulled out of the censored Chinese internet, they’re back. It’s been reported that the company is working on a mobile search app that would block certain search terms and allow it to reenter the Chinese market.
Google has engaged in the China-controlled internet space before: but in 2010 it pulled out, citing censorship and hacking as reasons. It didn’t pull out completely – it still offered a number of apps to Chinese users, including Google Translate and Files Go, and the company has offices in Beijing, Shenzhen and Shanghai – But the largest of its services – search, email, and the Play app store – are all unavailable in the country.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin told the Guardian in 2010 that his opposition to enabling censorship was motivated to his being born in Soviet Russia. “It touches me more than other people having been born in a country that was totalitarian and having seen that for the first few years of my life,” he said as Google exited the Chinese market after 4 years of cooperating with the authorities.
But now they’re back, working on a mobile search app that would block certain search terms and black-listed material. The app is being designed for Android devices.
According to tech-based news site The Information, Google is also working on a censored news-aggregation app too. The news app would take its lead from popular algorithmically-curated apps such as Bytedance’s Toutiao – released for the Western market as “TopBuzz” – that eschew human editors in favour of personalised, highly viral content.
Patrick Poon, China Researcher at Amnesty International, called Google’s return to censorship “a gross attack on freedom of information and internet freedom.”
In putting profits before human rights, he said, Google would be setting a chilling precedent and handing the Chinese government a victory.
This is important because many computer users will set a search site as their homepage and even find content by entering key-words into the url bar of their browser. Because of Google’s ubiquity, it is frequently set as default search engine on browsers, meaning that millions of users will find that their experience of the internet is that delivered through the lens of Google. If that lens is smudged or cracked by censorship, all these users’ internet experience is skewed. So it is essential to highlight the fact that Google is not the neutral, trustworthy agent that many users think it to be.
GreatFire, an organisation that monitors internet censorship and enables circumvention of the “Great Firewall of China”, said the move “could be the final nail in the Chinese internet freedom coffin” and that “the ensuing crackdown on freedom of speech will be felt around the globe.”
As everyone knows, people go to the beach to leer at scantily-clad folk, or to be leered at while scantily-clad. So how dare anyone go to the beach without flashing their bits at everyone?
The burkini is obscene and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere! At all!
Wow, that burkini is really offensive! It’s got a hood. And it covers the woman’s legs. How obscene…
Ok, so burkinis look stupid. But lots of clothes look stupid, should they be banned? Like those caps with cupholders so you can drink through a straw without having to carry the can in your hand. Shall we ban them too?
Spot the dickhead
(Actually, maybe we should ban the cup-holder cap. And French people. If we just banned France and fizzy pop, all the world’s problems would be solved, in one (two?) fell swoop.
Now, if you wear clothes on the beach, it’s absolutely appropriate for the police to come and make you strip. In public. At gunpoint.
I know France is all tense and stuff after the terrorist crap going on there. But when terrorists attacked the London Tube did the British government ban hijabs and turbans and white baggy trousers? Answer: No. Cos although the Brit government is really really stupid, reactionary and anti-human rights, it wasn’t that really really stupid, reactionary and anti-human rights. (I hope our present government hasn’t got that stupid yet…).
Oh yeah… don’t forget that the thought police know what you’re thinking:
Psi-Judge Cassandra Anderson: the acceptable face of thought crime control…
Movies based on comics are a big deal nowadays. So, to show how up-to-the-minute I HATE HATE!!! really is, here’s a review of a 3 years old film!
Back in 2012, I wrote a post about the then-soon-to-be-released movie Dredd and my thoughts on the concept of a new Dredd movie, sight unseen. Although comics producers have far more respect and even control in the movie industry than used to be the case, I still was wary. The ghost of Sylvester Stallone’s 1995 crap Judge Dredd had to the struggle with the “A new 2000AD movie? Cool!” components in my brain. I ended that piece with a note of wary optimism. And I was right to be happy (yeah yeah, not so happy that it didn’t take 4 YEARS to write this piece here, but what can I say to placate any comics fans out there? I got a life beyond I HATE HATE!!! and comics-based movies, y’know? On second thoughts, you probably don’t know. But anyway.
“There’s ten of us and only two of you.”
One point in the movie’s favour is the fact that Karl Urban. who plays Dredd, doesn’t take his helmet off once. The uninitiated probably don’t see the significance in this: but it is a big deal. in the near-to-40 years of 2000AD history, Dredd has hardly ever been seen by readers with no helmet. I seem to remember from my childhood days that there was once a picture of him taking a shower with his helmet on! Comics-illiterate Stallone and his handlers have no understanding of the importance of comics tradition. But someone in the 2012 Dredd production did see the importance – long-time 200AD Judge Dredd artist Carlos Ezquerra was a co-writer, working with SF movie writer Alex Garland (Ex Machina, 28 Days Later, Sunshine) – and Karl kept his hat on throughout. Yay Dredd!
The female eye-candy, Olivia Thirlby, doesn’t wear her helmet at all, but the film creates a plausible-sounding excuse for revealing her face: she’s a “psi” judge, meaning she has telepathic powers, and a helmet would affect her brain waves or whatever. 2000AD enthusiasts will blow holes through this in a second – her character, Cassandra Anderson, in the comics is far older than the movie Anderson, and there is no way a judge like Dredd would be overseeing a psi cadet’s final assessment anyway. But this is movieland, not 2000AD, so I feel I can forgive Dredd‘s sins much more easily than the Stallone attempt. And Thirlby is certainly a pleasant-looking “Anderson” rookie.
Instead of creating a colossal event that might destroy Mega City one or even the world unless Dredd manages an edge-of-your-seat mission, the viewer gets a sort of “everyday life of a Judge”. Dredd goes to pick up a wanted perp and ends up in a life-or-death struggle to fight his way out of the Megablock against the forces of the block Queenpin, Ma-Ma (played by Lena Heady, aka Queen Cersei in Game of Thrones)
. There’s some corruption involving a few judges, a fun, over-the-top Ma-Ma (her final scene has a wonderful, dreamlike-yet-visceral feel), a lot of gun-play, but no ominous end-of-life-as-we-know-it threat hanging over our valiant heroes. A proper “this is what judges do” kind of film. Kind of depressed that other 2000AD movies of a similar vein haven’t been made. Or have they? Tell us in Comments if you know of any!
At the London Film and Comic Con in July 2012, Alex Garland claimed he was planning not only a sequel to Dredd but a trilogy! When I read that I emitted a little “ooh” but then remembered the Matrix Trilogy and cried “Nooo…!” like I was a slo-mo addict taking a tumble from the penthouse of a Megablock. But never fear: in March 2015, Garland said that a direct sequel would likely not happen in the near future, “at least not with the crew involved in the original film.” Kind of a shame: a Judge Death-related flick could be good, or one about the pro-democracy terrorists (a contemporary idea that might put some real-life proponents of democracy on the spot). But sequels can kill good ideas (the bloody Matrix, innit?) so let’s leave Dredd alone. But Strontium Dog, ABC Warriors, Slaine… 2000AD is full of wonderful material that any scriptwriter ought to want to kill for. In fact, once I’ve finished this blog post I may unearth my 2000AD collection and look for the Next Big Thing!
The rottentomatoes.com page for Dredd is at www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dredd/ and is interesting. Lots of positive comments. Lovely. Dredd was also nominated for a few film prizes, and won a few – see here for details.
Another one bites the dust, eh? Good on ya, Canada! And not the namby-pamby “medical marijuana” excuse either – full-on legalisation of recreational use! Interestingly – surely not coincidentally – the announcement was made on 20 April: an unofficial holiday among cannabis advocates. Marajuana users celebrated with a spliff outside Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
But what about the UK? When will Brits be able to relax with a cup of tea and a spliff without worrying about stormtroopers battering the door in and hauling them off to some concentration camp? When will the UK government grasp the nettle, poo-poo the US federal government’s ridiculous stance on the issue and do what more and more Western-style democracies are doing: leaving users alone and concentrating on real criminals? Are they worried that if the police delved too deeply into the issue of real crime, they’ll uncover more than a few culprits in the Houses of Parliament?
So: good on ya, Canada! And Cameron, when are you going to wake up and sniff the roses (while your mates are sniffing something far worse than weed)?
Cannabis users celebrating the news with a joint outside Parliament Hill. Image stolen from the BBC.
If you want to contact the Conservative Party about anything, but didn’t want to buy a stamp for the letter (maybe because you don’t earn a living wage, or your benefits have been sanctioned…), fear not! On Facebook I found a Freepost address so you can send mail to the Tories without worrying about the cost of postage. You still have to provide writing paper and envelope yourself… but every little bit helps, doesn’t it?
The address is:
Freepost RTHS-TLXL-XKXK The Conservative Party 4 Matthew Parker Street LONDON SW1H 9HQ
I haven’t actually tried it myself, as I only just discovered it. I think it would be great if anyone who writes to the address reports the success or failure of their attempt; so if the Freepost no longer works I can edit this blog post accordingly. Similarly, if anyone knows of other Freepost addresses, or 0800 phone numbers so we can call them for free, I’ll gladly add them to this post. Information sets us free. And there’s something extra satisfying about sending an actual letter through the post rather than emails, don’t you think?
Please don’t use this address to send the government any offensive or hate mail. That would possibly be a crime, and in no way do I encourage you to do so! Thanks.
Send the prime minister a letter today! I’m sure Dave is looking forward to a robust conversation with the British electorate!
I’ve always thought that the UK’s status as a “constitutional monarchy” meant that political decisions were made by our elected government and parliament, and that the Queen’s job was to attract the tourists and to rubber-stamp legislation with her truly ceremonial “Royal Assent”.
But it seems that I, and just about everyone else, have been misled. The Guardian has reported that the Queen has powers of veto that are stunningly far-reaching. One small example is the Queen vetoing the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member’s bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament. In effect, it’s the Queen who decides whether to take military action or not, and there is nothing the government can do about it!
Downing Street did what it could to keep all this secret – we only know about it now because of a court order to release details of an internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.
The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.
In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member’s bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.
She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.
In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk “a major plank of the bill must be removed”.
“This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role,” said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales’ hereditary estate.
“It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was.”
This power of veto has been described by constitutional lawyers as a royal “nuclear deterrent” that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.
The guidance also warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation and reveals that even amendments may need to be run past the royals for further consent.
And of course, how is the government supposed to do away with this remnant of absolute monarchy? If a bill was voted through parliament to do away with the royal power of assent, the Queen would simply veto it – and the veto would probably remain secret, just as it has for so long!
The concept of Royal Assent has always been considered as a quaint anachronism that allows the UK to be both a functioning democracy and a monarchy. Now we know that’s a lie. The question is: what the hell are we going to do?
British dictator for life Queen Elizabeth II. Don’t mess with this bitch!” Picture stolen in the interests for freedom from http://guardianlv.com/
First, a truly incomprehensible attack on innocent Jewish men, women and children, using the excuse there are a lot of Israelis “in danger” from “Palestine officials”.
Let’s examine the charges by Israeri concerning the “oh-so-dangerous Militants”:
Here’s the low-down on why Netenyahu is overseeing these brutality. The Israelis have state-of-the-art firearms, whereas the Palestinian community have virtually nothing left.
Sling vs helicopter gunships, automatic rifles, grenades, the rape of Palestinian women and children… how can any sane person see the Israeli response as proportional???
An example (thanks to the Guardian: after Palestinians allegedly killed in a terrorist attack on a Jerusalem synagogue, 2 PFLP suspects (note that word: suspects) killed “in retaliation by Israeli “security” forces. Netenyahu ordered the destruction of the homes of alleged suspects (no judicial oversight, no rule of law, Netenyahu decides these men did the attack, and not only killed the “suspects” but also ordered the demolishment of these so-called “suspects” homes. Was that proportionate action? Making families homeless, even though the people living there would have had no idea of what, if anything, the “suspects” may have been up to. This is not justice: it’s a bare-faced landgrab, designed to make Palestinian families homeless and leave the way clear for more Kibbutzin and other illegal “settlers”.
US leader Obama criticized the attack on the Synagogue, which killed four innocent people, including US citizens Aryeh Kupinsky, Cary William Levine, and Moshe Twersky, and injured several more. He said:
There is and can be no justification for such attacks against innocent civilians.
“The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the victims and families of all those who were killed and injured in this horrific attack and in other recent violence. At sensitive moment, it is all the more important for Israeli and Palestinian leaders and ordinary citizens to work cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence and seek a path forward towards peace.”
So you can see, Obama deplores the attacks on the Jews in Synagogue, but didn’t make any mention of the fact that the families of the alleged killers have had their homes demolished. Isn’t there something in American society about the right for private, family life? Oops, I nearly forgot: Any provisions in the US constitution only apply to US citizens. Palestinians being forcibly removed from their homes is okay as far as Uncle Sam is concerned. Plus Israel is an important ally of the USA’s. Whereas the USA, like Israel, consider Palestinians to be the enemy. Even the children are viewed as terrorists-in-waiting. It’d be funny, if you didn’t realize it was about actual living human beings. Fucking Netanyahu, fucking Obama.
This is a public service announcement… with wrecking balls!!!
Why oh why doesn’t someone put an end to the Israeli’s war on innocents and its seizure of Palestinian property? Can someone explain to me: let’s assume one of the “suspects” did something wrong. Surely the suspect should be arrested and face a fair trial. But no, the “suspects” are killed, or tortured, or similarly disappeared. And an entire family is made homeless. Is this right? I’d love to hear a rational argument from pro-Israeli figures on this subject.
The Israeli government is despicable. Collective punishment, ghettoization, arrest and murder of innocent people. That’s the kind of crap the Nazis got up to. And now the Israelis are up to it. Makes me feel disgustingly sick. I hate the authorities in Israel, and I hate the Western powers (eg USA, UK, France) who support them. Leave the Palestinians alone FFS! Even the Nazis didn’t keep up their war of terror for this long!
No doubt most British readers will know about the tragic case of grandmother Stephanie Bottrill, who committed suicide because she could not afford to live with the bedroom tax. Her children had left home, as adult children tend to do, so Ms Bottrill was living alone in her three-bedroom home – a house she had lived in for 18 years, bringing up 2 children as a single mother. So, under the “spare room subsidy” (ie bedroom tax) the 2 “under-occupied” bedrooms reduced her housing benefit by 25%.
In the days leading up to her suicide, Ms Bottrill had told her son she struggling to cope, and she had told neighbours she couldn’t afford to live anymore. left a note blaming the government’s so-called “bedroom tax” for her death.
In a letter to her son Steven, 27, she said: “Don’t blame yourself for me ending my life. The only people to blame are the Government.”
The suicide note blaming the government
Steven added:
“She was fine before the bedroom tax. It was dreamt up in London, by people in offices and big houses.
“They have no idea the effect it has on people like my mum.”
“Hopefully now someone will listen. Someone will realise what has gone on and change things.
“They are all sitting in an office in London thinking of ideas how they can make money, but Mr Cameron has to give the seal of approval.
“They haven’t thought it through properly, how it will affect people. For my mum £80 a month is a huge amount of money but for people who are on huge salaries who have gone to Eton it is a different world.
“She was struggling already, it was a lot to ask for.
She was so poor she used hot water bottles instead of her central heating. Steven added: “She couldn’t afford it. All the winter she didn’t have the heating on.
“She wrapped up warm, she had hot water bottles even when she was watching the telly.
“In 2013 in Britain you can’t imagine this. To live like that…”
She packed all her belongings, tidy and thoughtful until the end, before killing herself by throwing herself under a lorry on the M6.
This is an awful thing to think about, but I can predict a lot more similar cases in the coming months. Poor people in social housing, in homes where they have lived for 20 years or more, are now being forced to pay a lot of money because their children have grown up and left home. The government want old people dragged away from their homes and stuffed into tiny flats where they have no space for the sentimentally valuable possessions they have gathered over the years, stuffed into tiny cells where they can be safely ignored – out of sight, out of mind.
And, while politicians make all kinds of sympathetic noises, the fact is that the government couldn’t care less. Most of these suicides are by poor people, so that’s another Labour voter the Tories need not worry about any more.
No government like poverty in their own backyard, but only the Conservatives could come up with this solution. Kill the poor.
I am a member of online campaign groups like 38 Degrees and Open Rights Group. These are groups that ask members what campaigns it should get involved with, then the group will call on its members to send to local MPs. ministers and other such, so our will is focused and targeted and helps ensure that the government and others can’t just ignore us. Divided we are nothing. United we can do anything… well, the government can’t just ignore us.
My local MP is the Tory Robin Walker. Incidentally, his late father Peter Walker (1932-2010) was MP for Worcester until 1992, when he resigned as MP and was sent to the House of Lords to do his masters’ work. Robin has been a pretty engaged MP – he has replied to every email I’ve sent him (he uses official House of Commons writing paper and envelopes – you would have thought that Parliament had discouraged use of snail mail) but only once has he expressed agreement with my point, about the Defamation Bill). Most recently he sent me a (probably form) letter telling me how important it was that the government keep my communication and other logs for all eternity just in case I were a terrorist or paedophile. He wrote:
Communications data is vital for the police in their fight against crime, including serious offences, such as child abuse, drug-dealing and terrorism.
Note the use of the “big 3″: child abuse, drug-dealing and terrorism”. The suggestion is that opposing the Data Communications Data Bill is, or supports, nonces, pushers and suicide bombers. Thanks Robin; yet another reason to avoid voting for him when the general election comes round.
Right now, I don’t have a clue who’ll get my vote: it won’t be the Conservatives, the Lib Dems are no longer a viable choice…if Ed Miliband can drag Labour back to the left I might put my mark by his name; but how likely will that happen?
Brits are wage-slaves, with mortgages and their children’s educations keeping the populace keeping their nose to the stone, while bankers, corporate directors and other vested interests keep their money in tax havens. But don’t worry: the Conservatives want your personal data, phone logs, emails, bowel movements, whatever, stored for all eternity in a massive computer system that probably fail (as do most government-contracted computer systems do). We’re stuck with this situation unless someone does something about it.
Who’s your MP? Does he care about you? I’d love to see along string of Comments to this post, telling us how our MPs act for our best interests. And my current voting advice regarding the next election: go to the voting station, spoil your ballot (I like to write at the bottom of the voting card “None of the above” and a X in a box next to it), put it in the black box, and be on your way. This is not apathy, this is showing the establishment that the status quo must end.
Posted by Martin X 
I HATE HATE!!! 