Comments on: Google grapples with increasingly political Web

Online explosion of campaign and voter activity poses difficult information-organizing questions, executive says.

[fcekuahd]

Obviously search technology needs to evolve...

Google has great search technology as far as it goes, but we still need to be able to classify content. It would be great to have some standard meta tags that allow sites to classify content beyond the limited use of keywords now. It would be great to see some simple classification of web content. E.g.:

- Result page is:
- news provider
- blog
- user forum post
- corporate/vendor site
- personal site
- government site
- political party site
- lobby/interest group
- social networking site
- education site
- standards organization

- For blogs and user forum posts, are user's identities verified or not?

- Is the information posted by the vendor or "owner", or is it third party information or opinions?

- Does the search result actually contain the requested information, or does it attempt to sell a product?

I would like to be able to include or exclude results based on classification.

I would like to be able to maintain a list of blacklisted sites that are always excluded from my search results.

I would also like to be able to whitelist sites for which I would like to see search results prioritized.

I would like to be able to report sites that are misclassified or otherwise misleadingly listed in search results.

[RandyLado]

Free speech and America won, John Edwards lost

This is a great story.

It shows how ordinary citizens are bypassing the old media and
are getting involved in the political process and that when folks
like John Edwards and his followers don't like the videos being
posted and try to get them removed - companies like Google/
YouTube stand up for free speech and allow the video to remain.


The Constitution is still alive.

Shame on Edwards hiding in his mansion and his followers
trying to stifle dissent in America.

[chuck_whealton]

Free Speech

You're welcome to your opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, Google is a company with no ethics
whatsoever.

When Google talks about "redefining" bounds, all they really
mean is that they'll let anybody post anything they want, true or
not, demeaning or not, and they'll show it. That's how they're
"redefining" bounds.

John Edward's "late" Son? I won't even bother to go looking for
that video. I can only assume it's something very hurtful to the
Edwards family and they probably have reason for not wanting it
to be shown.

Yet for some reason, you feel this falls under "free speech".

Guess what, if it's ever YOUR late Son, and I hope that never
happens, I doubt you'll be praising Google. If it's ever Google's
resources being used to destroy your life, or the life of
somebody you care about, I doubt you'll be praising them in that
circumstance either. But for the time being, go right ahead and
talk about how great Google is for posting unflattering videos of
a candidates LATE Son.

Now why don't you tell me how an (undoubtedly) unflattering
video of a candidate's LATE Son has anything at all to do with
that candidate CURRENTLY running for office?

Freedom of speech has it's bounds. As far as I'm concerned,
Google is not only criminal in the way it violates those bounds,
but in the way it's twisted people's definition of "free speech".

[fafafooey]

Google needs to be watched

Google needs to be watched.

The head honchos at Google all contribute heavily to the Democrat party, the new "party of the rich".