tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post1248804602228884904..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Ethics of the Google BombAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-17051232261162211032008-04-07T17:46:00.000-06:002008-04-07T17:46:00.000-06:00BTW, the expelledexposed.com site does not show up...BTW, the expelledexposed.com site does not show up in at least the first few pages of Google "Expelled" search results. Google-bombing in abusive ways can be counterproductive, because Google can detect and engage in punitive measures, as they do when (for example) the "search engine optimization" (SEO) folks create thousands of spam blogs to generate links for Google-bombing.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-23507157183231794652008-04-07T17:41:00.000-06:002008-04-07T17:41:00.000-06:00I wrote a post about the NCSE's "Expelled Exposed"...I wrote a post about the NCSE's "Expelled Exposed" website, which is a website for critical information about the film, because I thought it was worthy of mention and note. I didn't do it as a prank, or to cause Google search results to return anything erroneous.<BR/><BR/>How is that any different than writing a blog post about any other subject, and linking to relevant resources?<BR/><BR/>I think you should distinguish blog posts like mine and yours from those which simply list various "Expelled"-related search terms and link them to the expelledexposed.com website.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-20223116867905601512008-04-04T01:21:00.000-06:002008-04-04T01:21:00.000-06:00This is not merely mistaken, it's a statement with...<I>This is not merely mistaken, it's a statement without a shred of intellectual integrity or<BR/>commitment to the truth.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you are being a little too aggressive here (and fairly surprised at the response). <BR/><BR/>Alonzo's phrase explains what the reaction of Atheists would/should be if creationists google bombed the name of "PZ Myers" so that the first result is an anti-evolution, and libel site.<BR/><BR/>Unless you're doing some kind of inside joke...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47841192396500775072008-04-03T21:05:00.000-06:002008-04-03T21:05:00.000-06:00Sounds like a question of power and control and wh...Sounds like a question of power and control and whether absolute ownership can justly be given to the titular owner.<BR/><BR/>Forbidding links? Running Google sitemap in the hope your site's score will be higher? Should Google pay me to run Google sitemap?<BR/><BR/>My put is, let a million flowers bloom: anything short of theft.Rev. Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15980273904644917114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63750654850830778362008-04-03T19:47:00.000-06:002008-04-03T19:47:00.000-06:00Hi Alonzo!I thought I might drop by and say hello ...Hi Alonzo!<BR/><BR/>I thought I might drop by and say hello since I am the one who started this mess.<BR/><BR/>I enjoyed your post. I like to read different perspectives, it doesn't anger or scare me. Anyway, keep it up!Shirleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02750154554471953308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63356417761317286172008-04-03T18:23:00.000-06:002008-04-03T18:23:00.000-06:00I have no doubt that many of the supporters of PZ ...<I>I have no doubt that many of the supporters of PZ Myers, including those who have created 'Google bombs' for ‘Expelled Exposed’ would protest these underhanded, desperate, and ultimately dishonest tactics of the religious fundamentalists for what would be seen as behavior so obviously unethical that only a fundamentalist would be blind to it.</I><BR/><BR/>Way to "reason" like a Christian, Alonzo. Where's your evidence? You have none.<BR/><BR/>This is not merely mistaken, it's a statement without a shred of intellectual integrity or <BR/>commitment to the truth.<BR/><BR/>Whatever little respect I had for your intelligence and honesty has been completely destroyed.<BR/><BR/>You reason like a Christian and you lie and bullshit like one too. You're a disgrace to atheism, skepticism and free thought.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43354104680444779832008-04-03T01:58:00.000-06:002008-04-03T01:58:00.000-06:00Alonzo,although I participated in this Google bomb...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>although I <A HREF="http://www.wayofthemind.org/2008/04/01/just-doing-my-small-part/" REL="nofollow">participated</A> in this Google bomb (first time in my life I did such something like this, in fact), I can't really disagree with you here. We would <I>certainly</I> be calling them unethical monsters if they did something like this, say, to richarddawkins.net.<BR/><BR/>However, there are still two things that make me think that this is justified.<BR/><BR/>One of them is the one you mention: they have already lied, and are actively trying to deceive people. If we can reduce the effects of that, it's a good thing. To have people google for Expelled and be confronted with <I>the truth about</I> Expelled is, IMO, good. Much like googling about Scientology and getting xenu.net among the first half dozen results.<BR/><BR/>The second is that the point here is not to "stop" people getting a link to the Expelled official site. We'd need a lot more organizing to ever do that... and the official site would still be in the second place. No, the point is to get ExpelledExposed <I>just after</I> ExpelledTheMovie. That way, some people may think "hey, I'd better check out this one as well". We aren't trying to suppress Expelled, just making sure people can easily get to the truth about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-79511058048849219792008-04-03T01:37:00.000-06:002008-04-03T01:37:00.000-06:00Interesting. How would you moraly rate google bomb...Interesting. How would you moraly rate google bombing in order to make a site reappear in the google results when the original site was taken down via law abuse? This is what happened with Wikileaks where a lawyer for a Swiss Bank went to a judge and asked it to be taken down. As an immediate step, the judge asked the DNS provider to remove the wikileaks.org entry from their results which forced this domain name to redirect to a not-found result. The IP addess of wikileaks still worked so people google bombed wikileks so that the result would point to the IP instead (even now, the ip is <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=88y&q=wikileaks&btnG=Search" REL="nofollow">the second result</A>)<BR/><BR/>Even though this action (taking down the domain registration) was done lawfully and the acting party felt it had the right to do so. Many people disagreed (for many reasons) and took actions into their own hands.<BR/><BR/>In this case, we did work with Google's algorithms but I would never accept that it was an unethical action, even if Google were to refuse me to do it.<BR/><BR/>Thus I would argue that, by itself, google bombing is not an unethical action, but it's rather the act that you perpetrate that labels it or not.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I disagree that we would need to seek Google's permission in order to change where and how we link. We are not hacking their site and they have a two-way relationship with everyone is providing correct results. Their search results do not point arbitrarily but rather use our ideas (what we write and how) to calculate correctly. Thus it is perfectly in our rights to link to anywhere we wish.<BR/><BR/>To get right down to it. I did not participate in the Expelled GBomb either because I considered it a lost cause and unnecessary anyway. I did participate in the Wikileaks one though.<BR/>The labeling of the action as ethical or unethical however should be based on the circumstances surrounding it.<BR/><BR/>In this case, the makers of the movie are deliberately unethical and misleading with their film. Making the debunking stand out better, surely is an ethical action. No?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com