• On GameFAQs: Is it OK to lay my Wii down on its side?
September 27, 2008 11:14 AM PDT

Google opposes anti-gay marriage measure

by Natalie Weinstein

Google has taken a public stand against Proposition 8, an anti-gay marriage measure on the November ballot in California.

Co-founder Sergey Brin, who made the announcement in a blog Friday afternoon, acknowledged that it is unusual for his company to take stands on issues outside the tech realm. The company "especially" avoids taking stands on social issues, he said, because of the diversity of its workforce.

However, Brin said, "it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8."

"We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love," he said.

Brin did not mention whether Google will do anything else to oppose the measure, other than taking a stand.

The official site opposing the proposition includes a long list of backers. No companies are listed there. However, on Thursday, Levi Strauss & Co. and PG&E became co-chairs of the No On Prop 8 Equality Business Council. And in July, PG&E donated $250,000 to the campaign.

Natalie Weinstein is an associate editor who works out of Austin, Texas. She spent a decade as a reporter and editor in the newspaper industry before joining the CNET News staff in 2000. E-mail Natalie.
Recent posts from Digital Media
Judge halts BlueBeat's sale of Beatles tunes
EMI to offer instant concert recordings
Sesame Street, Droid get Google's love
Jimmy Wales on what's next for Wikipedia
eBay's Skype sale gets go-ahead with settlement
No Doubt says 'no' to Band Hero depiction
Beatles copyright case down a legal rabbit hole
Getty and Flickr deepen photo-licensing ties
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 5 pages (174 Comments)
by Empoor September 27, 2008 11:45 AM PDT
Why Google? I was happily hating you, and now you go and do something socially responsible and extremely righteous... Sigh. I guess I should love you now, right? Come here, I have a hug with your name on it!
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto September 27, 2008 4:36 PM PDT
Funny enough - I think Google did the wrong thing here. Not because of the position they advocate, but because they, a corporate entity, advocated for any position at all on the issue.

There's no better way to anger at least half your customer base on any given issue than to take a stand on one. There's no better way to give your competition ammunition than to meddle in politics and political affairs. Yahoo and Microsoft can now say publicly that they do not take political stands, and that they accept everyone.

Just because folks disagree with Google's statement does not make them "bigots", and just because folks agree with the issue does not make them "marriage-cheapening". To a corporation, a customer is a customer. Google (like any other publicly-traded company) has one duty first and foremost: to create and promote their products as best they can. Anything that detracts from that is irresponsible.

/P
by sigzero September 27, 2008 11:53 AM PDT
There is a whole lot more to the issue than a simplistic "marry for love" statement.
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight September 27, 2008 9:47 PM PDT
True. I love my friends and family. I'm not going to marry them.
by ravewulf October 29, 2008 1:40 PM PDT
@Renegade Knight

Yes, there are many types of love. Love for icecream, computers, friends, family, and partners. In this particular context love is for two partners who wish to form a deep relationship over their lives.
by sigzero September 27, 2008 11:56 AM PDT
Also let us not forget that the majority of Californians voted to keep marriage between one man and one woman. Activist Judges reversed it when they had no authority to do so. Then AG Brown puts bad language on it seeking to sway voters right away. I hope it passes with a landslide.
Reply to this comment
by ibeetle September 27, 2008 3:01 PM PDT
Who care what the majority of any state wants. The Constitution is for giving rights to people not taking them away or excluding people.
Your ignorant narrow minded argument was made in the 1950's when it was illegal for whites to marry blacks. When those laws were repealed the moon did not turn to blood, the U.S. was not struck with plagues, nor did the heavens open and God himself thrust the North American Continent into the ocean.
by Penguinisto September 27, 2008 4:39 PM PDT
@ibeetle: Please look up the term "democracy", and its sister, "Republic".

The judicial bench is no place to make laws. I have no problems with legalized gay marriage by a secular state, but I do have problems with government officials who think they can simply make laws without popular consent or even permission.
by Lerianis September 27, 2008 5:13 PM PDT
The fact is, sigzero, that the 'majority' has no right to deny rights to the minority, as long as they are not physically harming someone else. The courts did the right thing, making it VERY clear that the wishes of the majority did NOT preempt the Constitution of the United States.
by Penguinisto September 28, 2008 7:58 AM PDT
@Lerianis:

The US Constitution has no amendment or section defining marriage.

Personally, and IMHO, government should be out of the marriage business entirely. At all levels. This way the issue would resolve itself.
by Gromit801 September 29, 2008 12:21 PM PDT
Activist judges? You must be a member of one of the right wing groups, as they're the only ones that use that phrase. Do some research, 6 of the 7 judges on the CA Supreme court making that legally correct ruling, are REPUBLICANS.
by gbelk08 September 27, 2008 11:57 AM PDT
Companies need to stay out of social issues and public votes because it just isn't their place.

But this is the exception; Sergey said it perfectly. I hope more companies in general stand up to this injustice. Especially when this issue affects at least one of their employees. This gives me hope for America! GO GOOGLE!
Reply to this comment
by jag0 September 27, 2008 12:02 PM PDT
Thats great and all but California (a state that always goes to the democrats) has already voted once before to ban gay marriage...so because Google & San Francisco want doesn't mean the rest of the state wants it.
Reply to this comment
by cmsense September 27, 2008 12:09 PM PDT
It does not matter what side of the issue you fall on, the danger is that eventually the weight of large corporations will be on the side opposing you. This is a slipery slope; I give google kudos for having the guts to take this huge step.
Reply to this comment
by LabakTheOnslaught September 27, 2008 12:19 PM PDT
no to gay marriage, it's against God's laws
Reply to this comment
by sebastien.kalonji September 27, 2008 1:53 PM PDT
God is a product of the human imagination!
by Lerianis September 27, 2008 5:15 PM PDT
Sebastien, I couldn't have said it any better myself. 'god' is a product of the imaginations of weak human beings who cannot live with the fact that there is no real thing as 'good' or 'evil' (outside of killing another person or forcing someone into a sexual situation against their will) and that there is no one 'guiding' their lives and that THEY THEMSELVES have to decide what they want to do and don't want to do, as long as they are not physically harming someone else.
by imrightyourwrong September 27, 2008 7:40 PM PDT
God... really... wow...

It's amazing to me how people fall back on what "God says". People have done horrible things in the name of gods since even before the Crusades. I can't believe how narrow minded individuals, or even the masses, can be. We as a people should rely on ourselves, do what is right for the common good of us all.

Neither the government, nor any church, should interfere with peoples lives when it comes to marriage. Marriage is a unity of people who love each other. It doesn't matter if it's a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. The impact of people in love, celebrating life together is a positive one, unlike the impact of those others who would rather have them live their lives differently.

I grew up in the Bay Area, I'm not homosexual. But as a human being, I was shocked how homosexuals were treated up until a certain point in our recent history. People should be celebrated for their difference, their individuality, not beaten or killed because of their choice of lifestyle. These are a large group of individuals that prefer the company of another of their own gender over an opposite one, they are not criminals or rapists or killers. They are people that live their lives each day just like any other person.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and "gay" marriage was the norm, despite what any law states or deity supposedly states, wouldn't the heterosexual marriage supporters feel the same way that homosexual marriage supporters feel now? Or better yet, if those that worship "God" were forced to not worship "God", or not given the right to do so, is this fair?

This is the 21st Century, and everyone needs to realize that the churches are not always right, how many hundreds of years did it take for them to admit that the world was round and that the Earth was not the center of the universe? It could be pointed out that it was man that made those mistakes, not "God", but was it not man that wrote the Bible, translated from God's word, but still written by man?

Marriage is not wrong. It is not right. "Gay Marriage" is not wrong. It's not right. It's not for me to decide for someone else how to live their lives. It's for the individuals that want to make that commitment to decide. Neither of these two ideas harm anyone but those that are afraid of what they've been taught to be afraid of.
by kibeom September 28, 2008 7:07 AM PDT
If it's against God's laws, God's laws are against fundamental rights of human.
by merelogic September 28, 2008 11:09 PM PDT
True, I guess the next move would be to support marriages between us and the animals we love, and then maybe the non-living objects we love and so on...
by percyp420 September 29, 2008 9:46 AM PDT
merelogic:

Be reasonable, animals and inanimate objects??? One thing does not mean it will continue down that path (slippery slope)... Unless of course you think it does, which means we should revoke interracial marriages, because they obviously lead to this movement for gay rights, which will ultimately lead to the marriage of a man and his sheep.... right? did I hit the nail on the head?

Your statement was nothing but a logical fallacy... but paper beats rock and God beats logic, right?
by ogaj999 October 26, 2008 5:22 PM PDT
@ percyp420

Interracial marriages have nothing to do with the issue of procreation. Merelogic gave examples of things that can't procreate and therefore should not get married... (like gay marriage). Your post is the fallacy, unless you want to believe marriage is based on a sole reason of love, but then, most people arguing under the original post, including you, wouldn't believe in "love" because there's no way to prove that it isn't just a "product of the human imagination."

@ lerianis

Wow, you want to refute a possible objective truth and give exceptions?

@ imrightyourwrong

You'd have to prove that love exists and that homosexuality is not a mental choice but a pure genetic disorder to prove your points. Why prove the latter? Because otherwise, homosexuality can be influenced on others, which could then have many arguments for how it "hurts" certain things, such as the continuity of a procreating society. It comes down to the same reasons we have obscentiy laws.


Everyone likes to make the point that opposing gay marriage is attacking civili liberties. Give homosexuals the rights they deserve as humans, that's fine, but allowing them to be married is most certainly redefining a widely accepted and historical function of society with additional variables, that can, if homosexuality is not entirely a genetic disorder, harm the common good of our society - to continue to exist... unless of course you believe in no true evil or good, in which case, even killing wouldn't be "evil."
by ravewulf October 29, 2008 1:49 PM PDT
@ogaj999

By what you stated old people shouldn't be married because they can't produce children anymore and any straight couple that doesn't have kids can't get married either.

Stop refering to your fictional God, it has no basis in fact and can not be used as an argument. All people deserve equal rights.
by christ618 November 11, 2008 3:49 PM PST
Remember that the bible was written by man not god, from many different people at different times and put together to create the bible by the church. They were also written in different languages and translated. Some of the meanings were lost in translation and some of the writings were deliberately changed by the church. Remember also that not everybody believes in god and all that do, believe differently as in Buddism, Hinduism, Islam Catholic, Lutheran etc,. All have different beliefs. Has God himself spoken to you devine one? That thou knowest the will of the "Lord". Be a little more open minded.
by wango2007 September 27, 2008 12:24 PM PDT
Society gains nothing by allowing homosexuals to marry. Homosexuals are only deperately seeking acceptance of their malady by straight society.

Show you're straight, boycott Google for their anti-social views.
Reply to this comment
by imrightyourwrong September 27, 2008 7:47 PM PDT
Society gains everything by allowing homosexuals to marry. Society is all about diversity, about different people and ideas coming together. Homosexuals deserve every right that heterosexuals do. It doesn't matter what sexual preference an individual has, they are still human, and do not deserve to be discriminated against.

Google's views are not anti-social, in fact, they are very much social.

Many people had similar feelings and views regarding the Civil Rights Movement, and Women's Rights. We're all people. Some of the most powerful people in the world are not white, some of them are women, some of them are homosexual. Get over yourselves and accept groups of people for who they are. Individuals, that's a whole different subject.
by wango2007 September 27, 2008 12:27 PM PDT
No homosexual marriage. It's against Darwin's Law!
Reply to this comment
by paflorida September 27, 2008 4:02 PM PDT
Based upon your logic, then infertile couples should not be allowed to marry.
by imrightyourwrong September 27, 2008 7:56 PM PDT
Sorry, your statement regarding Darwin's "Law" is flawed. First, it's a theory, an incredibly good theory, but not a law. Second, Darwin does not talk about **** and heterosexualities being wrong or right. Third, animals in the wild have homosexual experiences as well as heterosexual experiences. Heterosexual experiences traditionally result in offspring, where as homosexual experiences do not. Homosexuality is not going against nature, it is part of nature. Some humans only feel that it is against nature because of their own interpretation.
by Renegade Knight September 27, 2008 9:50 PM PDT
Good point. Evolution would tend to weed out the individuals of a species that can't figure out how to procreate.
by Migraine September 28, 2008 8:16 AM PDT
I have to agree with you there! I had no idea the "G" in Google stood for "GAY" but looks like it does...

I can't support that uninstalling there tool bar now!
by bradenisme September 27, 2008 12:42 PM PDT
Marriage is between a man and woman to create families.

People should not be discriminated against for any reason but to me this is like being a medical doctor. Not everyone can become one. Only highly trained people who have gone to years of schooling can be practice. Marriage is the same. That doesn't take anything away from people who aren't doctors it just means we do different things for a living.
Reply to this comment
by superswiss September 27, 2008 1:34 PM PDT
So, which school did you go to in order to become highly trained for marriage? Marriage is a legal institution as simple as that. The whole brouhaha comes in with the chruches making more out of marriage than it is.
by sfspurs September 27, 2008 1:38 PM PDT
"Marriage is between a man and woman to create families", really? Tell that to my aunt and uncle who are married and have no children. If this were the case then we should annul all marriages that don't produce children. Your argument doesn't hold up.
by ibeetle September 27, 2008 3:06 PM PDT
Actually, it is sex between a man and a woman to create families. Marriage is just a ceremony, created by man for two people to proclaim their love and togetherness of each other.

The word marriage never appears in the bible. Jesus never performes a marrage.
by imrightyourwrong September 27, 2008 8:01 PM PDT
Marriage is an institution where two individuals confess their love for each other, and pledge a life of monogamy. Also it would be best for you to define family.
by groovylounge September 27, 2008 12:43 PM PDT
"LabakTheOnslaught" must be omniscient. There's no law God gave that I know of against gay marriage. On the other hand, God did encourage multiple wives. Solomon had 700 plus 300 concubines.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis September 27, 2008 5:16 PM PDT
Exactly right. In fact, 'god' didn't say anything about marriage period and done with, because 'god' never existed, never will exist and does not exist right now.
by KellyVA September 27, 2008 1:01 PM PDT
Tisk Tisk Google! The problem I have is that I don't believe in redefining a word to make it cover anything you want. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. It's in the bible. Prop 8 doesn't strip homosexuals of any benefit rights they already have within California. California has voted and the judges have abused their power. Why doesn't a powerful, rich, gay-supporting organization get "union" or "partnership" recognized legally and define it. I would totally support that!
Reply to this comment
by ibeetle September 27, 2008 3:08 PM PDT
No it is not in the bible. The word marriage never appears in the bible.
And it is the Christian right that has defined the word to mean between a man and a woman. Dictionaries merely say the joining or union between two people.
by KellyVA September 27, 2008 6:17 PM PDT
It would appear that you may be mis-informed. Here is the link to marriage mentioned in the bible. Most references pertain to son marrying a daughter or man marrying a woman:
http://is.gd/3e0q

Or course today you won't find marriage defined as it was written previously. It's been altered to reflect "persons" generically due to minority tolerance. Check your house dictionaries and they'll read: The state of, or relation between, a man and woman who have become husband and wife. Let me know what you find.
by Dylan_Wisor September 27, 2008 7:19 PM PDT
I wish you read Webster's as diligently as you've read the Scripture.

1a) The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. 1b) The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
2) An act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected, especially the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities.
3) An intimate or close union.

The people saying that the Bible says nothing about marriage have obviously never even read the Scripture. Try Genesis 2:24 for starters. Everybody knows that the Bible condemns homosexuality though.
So I think it's a given that if gay people make baby Jesus cry, he'd cry just as hard at gay people getting married.

However, I don't give a d*** what the Bible says. It was written by mortals, just as any law that contradicts it is. If there is a God, He, not us, will judge homosexuals when the time comes.
by imrightyourwrong September 27, 2008 8:09 PM PDT
The idea of marriage only being between a man and a woman was conjured up by the church. The idea of homosexuality being bad was also conjured up by the church. All of these "laws" of "God" were thought up by the church to sway scared people into their congregations. Greeks had homosexual experiences even before the idea of "God" was brought about. The dictionary is a great source, but written by man. The Bible is a great source (for stories), also written by man. But if we look at history, and the timeline of the human race, things like the Bible and the church, even the dictionary, are insignificant resources for human behavior. As humans, we have sex with the opposite sex, we have sex with the same sex; we eat meat, we eat vegetables. It's all a part of life.
by sfspurs September 27, 2008 1:01 PM PDT
Go Google!!! Its a matter of basic equality!

Thanks for standing up against those that would deny basic rights to people.

Folks, If you boycott Google, you'll have to boycott ATT, PGE, Levi Strauss, Wells Fargo and there will be many more companies before this is over.
Reply to this comment
by The_Cinderz September 27, 2008 1:04 PM PDT
Here is my 2 cents. I am very happy and proud that Google has made a stand. For me, it isn't about God or Gods or right or wrong choices in others eyes. Seems to me that Google cares about the well being of their employees. Put away the pitchforks and the torches and ask yourself when the last time your company took a stand for Diversity and Life Choices for their employees outside the workplace
Reply to this comment
by unknown unknown September 27, 2008 1:16 PM PDT
@sigzero. The U.S like many former British colonies has what is called Common Law. Common Law is what is effectively law that results from the decisions judges make. Judges have the authority to review any law passed by the government, with the exception of constitutional amendments, if there is question about it's meaning or constitutionality. State constitutions of course can not take away rights granted by the U.S constitution, so portions can be declared unconstitutional if need be. It's not majority rule in the U.S, there are balances.
Reply to this comment
by fsclconsv September 27, 2008 1:18 PM PDT
Thanks google for standing up for human rights. I'm a fiscal conservative who's darned tired of the social conservatives who want the government to force their religious views on the rest of us. I have yet to see a single proponent of gay marriage who believes these rights should be taken away from straight couples. I really don't understand why some folks are so interested in controlling the decisions of others. Live your life and let others live theirs!!!
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis September 27, 2008 5:19 PM PDT
Why are they so interested in controlling the decisions of others? Easy: it's easier to do that than to admit that you are not very 'moral' yourself and don't adhere to your own 'morality' that you say you do 99% of the time.
by unknown unknown September 27, 2008 1:30 PM PDT
@ bradenisme

"Marriage is between a man and woman to create families."

That rather depends on your definition of family. If you mean children, many straight couples choose not to have children or can't. Some adopt.

"People should not be discriminated against for any reason but to me this is like being a medical doctor. Not everyone can become one."

There is a big difference between becoming a doctor and getting married. First, what doctors do by practicing medicine has real effect on peoples like. Doctors who don't know what they're doing can kill people.


"People should not be discriminated against for any reason but to me this is like being a medical doctor. Not everyone can become one."

No it's not. There is no school for marriage and experience is not prerequisite. There is no shortage of people getting married in their late teens or early twenties. I personally know two couples who got married before they left high school.

@LabakTheOnslaught which god? There are a many "laws" put down by various groups interpretation of god, and many are contradict. The bible says a man can sell his wife and children into slavery. Be careful with that gods law talk, you may get a lot more than bargained for.

"No homosexual marriage. It's against Darwin's Law!"

How so?


I didn't know CNet had so many bigots on their boards.
Reply to this comment
by KellyVA September 27, 2008 5:23 PM PDT
"I didn't know CNet had so many bigots on their boards."

Defined: A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

You are right people should not be discriminated against for any reason and everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's just interesting when the opinion is not your own, the name calling begins. So unfortunate we all can't agree to disagree and respect another's position. That's true tolerance.
by Baroness loraca September 27, 2008 11:23 PM PDT
"I didn't know CNet had so many bigots on their boards."

Neither did I. But I am not surprised. Go Google!
by GardBrown September 29, 2008 4:12 AM PDT
@unknown
"The bible says a man can sell his wife and children into slavery. "

Now THIS is a good idea! Let's vote on it!
by wango2007 September 27, 2008 1:36 PM PDT
fsclconsv -I'm a fiscal conservative who's darned tired of the social conservatives who want the government to force their religious views on the rest of us.

------

Homosexuality is not about religon, it's about common sense.Even Darwin recognized homosexials add nothing to the gene pool, are thus not the fittest, and will not survive unless they feed off heterosexual society. There is no reason to inject religion into the debate anymore.

Pedophiles, practioners of bestiality and necrophilia all fell "love" for the objects of their affection, but they don't ask for marrige rights. Homosexuals consenting adults??? That means nothing to a logical person. Consenting adults agree to rob banks, but that does not justify them.

Google, ATT, PGE, Levi Strauss, Wells Fargo are bad corporate citizens. They do not deserve straight dollars for their anti-socail agenda.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis September 27, 2008 5:20 PM PDT
Wrong. The hatred of homosexuality and pedosexuality (yes, even this) is rooted in religion, period and done with. If you don't believe that there is any 'god' or 'devil', then you realize that you have no right to be judging the sexual actions of other people, therefore you have no right to limit their choice of sexual partners.
It has a whole lot to do with religion.
by Nick_Danger September 27, 2008 6:06 PM PDT
If "Darwinism" selects against homosexuals, why has homosexuality lasted through the ages? Because it's a normal aspect of the human condition, just like those who are asexual.

Pedophilia, Bestiality, Necrophilia, Bank Robbers = homosexuals? You need to check you own closet to deal with some personal issues. I can't wait for this election to arrive. Get used to disappointment.
by Dylan_Wisor September 27, 2008 6:54 PM PDT
"Consenting adults agree to rob banks, but that does not justify them."
The bank's not consenting to being robbed. Your analogy doesn't hold up.
by Kwasiowusu September 28, 2008 2:11 PM PDT
Nick_Danger: "why has homosexuality lasted through the ages? "

Prostitution, armed robbery, murder, and every kind of depravity known to man have lasted through the ages as well. That doon't make them right.
Gay marriage is an abomination.
Every single state that has had gay marriage on the ballot has voted AGAINST it.
The American people have spoken.
by percyp420 September 29, 2008 10:21 AM PDT
Kwasiowusu:

Ok... lets just look over the definitions of somethings you've mentioned

*bank robbery- larceny by threat of violence on a bank
*gay marriage- the state of being a same sex married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)
*prostitution- offering sexual intercourse for pay

WHICH ONE OF THESE IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS???

And about the states voting against marriage, I believe we can agree that in the past the united states had social views we now look down upon.... I am just saddened by how so many people can ignore progress and refuse forward thinking(the concept of perpetuity)...

and for the bigot who is going to say gay marriage with lead to animal and inanimate object marriage... seriously??? google(or askjeeves if you're boycotting google) "slippery slope logical fallacy" and get educated before you comment.
by angelsnor September 27, 2008 1:46 PM PDT
Hmmm , lets see... we have a credit crisis, a 490 billion deficit, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, lack of health care, people unable to afford basic things, like food, medications, a energy crisis, etc. etc.
It mystifies me that the subject of gay marriages is what you choose to worry about. Instead of worrying about a life choice that all free people should be afforded without question., spend your time supporting our own Individuality,. you don't to label everything.
Reply to this comment
by sfspurs September 27, 2008 1:50 PM PDT
Google has taken a courageous stand against discrimination.
Reply to this comment
by Penguinisto September 27, 2008 4:44 PM PDT
There's no courage in stating a popular sentiment while residing among friends.

There was a man recently in North Korea who once risked immediate death (of both himself and his family) to do two things:

1) paint graffiti on a major bridge/overpass with a message criticizing the NoKo government, and
2) use a video camera to film the results and smuggle the resulting tape out of the country.

That is actual courage. Google is not courageous.
Showing 1 of 5 pages (174 Comments)
advertisement

FAQ: Buying the right Windows 7 upgrade

Readers still have lots of questions on just which version of the software they need to buy in order to upgrade their PC. CNET News tries to offer some answers.

N.Y. lawsuit details Intel's 'largesse' toward Dell

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's federal antitrust case filed Wednesday alleges a longstanding symbiotic relationship between Intel and Dell.

About Digital Media

The Web is now the place to go for news and entertainment. Look here for the latest on blogs, music, video, virtual worlds, social networking and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Digital Media topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right