Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Google censors xenu.net?

By arcade in Internet
Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 10:39:49 AM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

I just discovered that Google has chosen to block Operation Clambake from their search results. Operation Clambake is a group of people who exposes Scientology for what it is.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT

Operation Clambake has been in existence for many years. I first came across it when doing a project about religion (I chose Scientology) in High School. It was popular back then, and still is. It used to top googles search for the term "Scientology". Now it seems like Google has decided to block the site xenu.net entirely from their results, no matter what you search for. There are, however, several returned sites that links to xenu.net

Try to search for the phrases Scientology "Operation Clambake" xenu baloney on google (click the link). xenu.net does not appear among the seven returned links.

This may be a response from google to googlebombs where sites try to increase their ranking in google. There has been attempts to increase xenu.net's ranking in google, by using scientology's own tactics against them.

Also, please check out the Usenet discussions on alt.religion.scientology, especially the threads that start with Message-ID: <h3lf9u0k5ts29h0u01qbhveiu2dt1ii3jq@4ax.com>, and the thread I started there when discovering this: Message-ID: <slrna9gk6j.15s.arcade@dill.uio.no>

Please also note, this is not due to a robots.txt or a meta-html tag on xenu.net, and that it was indexed in google under a week ago, and had been for years. Mail sent to google at 10:00CET has not been responsed to as of 14:15CET, except for an autoresponse.

Now, if this is an answer to lots of people trying to 'bomb' xenu.net (Not the folks running xenu.net, though) to get a higher ranking in google, is this the correct way for google to 'solve' this problem?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Shold google block 'googlebombed' pages?
o yes 21%
o no 29%
o depends on what kind of pages 8%
o depends on who did the "bombing" 40%

Votes: 87
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Google
o Google [2]
o Operation Clambake
o Scientolog y
o Scientolog y "Operation Clambake" xenu baloney
o googlebomb s
o Also by arcade


Display: Sort:
Google censors xenu.net? | 72 comments (57 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
Legal pressure? (4.00 / 3) (#2)
by gastro on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 08:36:25 AM EST

Could the Church be pressuring Google to do this under threat of legal action?

The legal case for linking would be weak but the legal fees to prove that could cost Google a lot.

If I were Google... (4.50 / 6) (#8)
by CokeBear on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 08:52:11 AM EST

I would be more worried about setting a precedent for removing sites based on content that a small group objected to. If they never removed anything, they can always say they are just a search engine, and never mess with the results, but as soon as they remove one, they demonstrate that they are willing and able to remove sites from Google, and that opens up a very large legal can of worms for Google.

[ Parent ]
too late (none / 0) (#72)
by micmatic on Tue Sep 24, 2002 at 01:39:57 PM EST

...

[ Parent ]
Google seems to have been DMCA'ed (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by SweenyTod on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 06:00:03 AM EST

The site owner has posted to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology about what is happening. The (hah!) google.groups link is here.
There is even a website devoted to Google and Scientology.

[ Parent ]
Hrmm, seems true (4.33 / 3) (#3)
by brunes69 on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 08:38:49 AM EST

Even according to a google seatch on site:xenu.net Scientology, there are no hits. This does seem kind of suspicious, although if it is in response to Google floodbots I see no problem with it. They have a right to discourage that sort of foolishness.



---There is no Spoon---
A better all-domain query (4.00 / 1) (#35)
by srichman on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 11:41:23 AM EST

FYI, I always search for site:host.com -asddcwrthcdh (or any nonsense word guaranteed not to appear) when I want to get all the results for a domain. It's a bit more complete than a positive search.

[ Parent ]
search for http:// (none / 0) (#63)
by sgp on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 08:21:29 AM EST

Google for "http://www.xanu.net" (like this). Compare that to googling for http://www.kuro5hin.org (like this). It's a handy way of finding what Google has about a site (cache, etc).

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[ Parent ]

But... (none / 0) (#70)
by srichman on Fri Mar 22, 2002 at 09:55:32 AM EST

...this doesn't give you a list of pages on the site, which is what we wanted.

[ Parent ]
No, but (none / 0) (#71)
by sgp on Fri Mar 22, 2002 at 10:45:38 AM EST

it shows whether or not the site is indexed. This showed (at the time I posted the previous comment) that www.xenu.net was not in the Google archive at all. It now shows that it's been reinstated.

It's more accurate than just saying "These search terms don't find it."

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[ Parent ]

works for me! (none / 0) (#57)
by kubalaa on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 03:13:06 AM EST

About 1,300 hits, it says! Wonder what changed?

[ Parent ]
If it is as you say.. (4.00 / 4) (#10)
by rcarver on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 08:56:15 AM EST

Then I think it's correct to block the site if it is an issue with googlebombing.. As long as they treat everyone equal.

blocking is harsh (3.00 / 2) (#13)
by gastro on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 08:59:40 AM EST

Googlebombing is essentially exploiting a flaw in Google's ranking algorithm. Instead of blocking googlebombed sites, surely it would be better for Google to adjust their rules to prevent googlebombing.

[ Parent ]
I agree.. (3.00 / 2) (#26)
by rcarver on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 09:33:16 AM EST

But I think blocking is an acceptable short term solution.

[ Parent ]
but what if? (4.00 / 1) (#46)
by TCaptain on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 02:20:00 PM EST

If google chooses to ban sites that are google-bombed...what stops unscrupulous competitors from bombing a competing site to get it banned?


Hello, my name is PID 12759. You "kill -9"ed my parent. Prepare to die. - ENOENT


[ Parent ]
Temporary.. (none / 0) (#61)
by rcarver on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 06:47:18 AM EST

That's why it should be a _temporary_ solution.

[ Parent ]
What "adjustment" would you propose? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by srichman on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 12:03:26 PM EST

The problem is, this isn't an incidental flaw in google's ranking algorithm. PageRank is the core of google's ranking and was the reason the company was started. It was one of the most effective new ideas in information retrieval in the last decade.

[ Parent ]
However.. (4.00 / 3) (#15)
by arcade on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 09:01:18 AM EST

I agree somewhat. If that is the case, they should remove scientology.org from the results too, as scientolgy practically _invented_ googlebombing. :)

However, I don't think a site should be removed from google if it isn't the siteowners themselves that has done the 'bombing'.

I read an article about how scientology googlebombed their way into first position on google, reducing xenu.net to number six, a couple of weeks ago. I _think_ it was linked to from here, or from slashdot, but I couldn't find it when searching for it. Probably so new a story that it hasn't been added to neither google nor altavista yet. Or I simply didn't remember enough of the article



--
arcade
[ Parent ]
Well.. (3.00 / 2) (#22)
by rcarver on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 09:16:52 AM EST

Googlebombing is still a problem, no matter who does it.

However.. Blocking sites should be a temporary solution, and only done if it is a major problem... IMHO, of course.



[ Parent ]
You were probably referring to.... (3.00 / 1) (#32)
by jacoplane on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 10:32:57 AM EST

this

[ Parent ]
Why I rated you down (none / 0) (#65)
by mcherm on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 09:27:51 AM EST

Your comment is useful and interesting, but misleading. Googlebombing is NOT the reason for the removal of the anti-scientology pages from Google, Scientology's pernicious legal practices are.

http://www.operatingthetan.com/google/ahl.txt

-- Michael Chermside
[ Parent ]

OTOH (4.33 / 3) (#11)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 08:56:32 AM EST

Search for Operation Clambake does return lots of sites that mention, and link to, xenu.net. So if it's an attempt by ToS to block google from searching that info, it's failed.

Peoples Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: "Stop the Laurasian Separatist Movement!"
ToS lawyers (3.50 / 2) (#17)
by gastro on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 09:01:55 AM EST

Maybe Google were doing the bare minimum to be in compliance with a legal request.

[ Parent ]
as I mention above (3.50 / 2) (#19)
by streetlawyer on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 09:07:50 AM EST

It is most likely an attempt to avoid having the reams of copyrighted CoS material on that site contained in the google cache.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
(c) (none / 0) (#62)
by sgp on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 08:18:12 AM EST

All the stuff on the net is somebody's copyright... if they were worried about that, they wouldn't have a cache at all!

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[ Parent ]

There is an obvious explanation (3.30 / 13) (#18)
by streetlawyer on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 09:04:27 AM EST

Xenu.net has material on it which is copyrighted by the Church of Scientology.

Google caches the content of the pages it indexes.

Therefore, so long as google indexes Xenu.net, google is at risk of being sued by the Church of Scientology.

Indeed, the business risk to google is massive. If a case relating to the google cache came to court, it would obviously alert the world to the fact that the google cache (wonderfully useful though it is) is an awe-inspiringly massive monument to copyright violation. Vast amounts of copyrighted material is currently residing on google's servers, and there doesn't appear to be anything they can do about it without removing the cache.

So, google must have basically been faced with the choice of messing around with their system to make it possible to index xenu.net without cacheing it, or to take the easier step of just not indexing it.

We ran a story on the difficulties relating to the google cache on adequacy recently.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever

Then just don't cache it (4.16 / 6) (#25)
by hardburn on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 09:31:56 AM EST

In that case, Google could just flush their cache of that page. They don't need to block it from search results. Certainly, Google has not blocked several other sites that contain copywrited material. Just search for "warez" sometime.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


[ Parent ]
Google can't work without caching the sites. (3.00 / 1) (#30)
by Robert Minichino on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 10:09:32 AM EST

Google can't work without caching the sites. It's required for the way it indexes; also, they may have been threatened by the copyright holders, too. *shrug*

[ Parent ]
Cache without access. (4.50 / 2) (#34)
by Kyle on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 11:17:35 AM EST

Maybe they could cache the site for purposes of their own systems but not provide the cache to users. From a copyright perspective, they're fine as long as they don't redistribute what they've cached. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[ Parent ]

Might still be bad (4.00 / 1) (#37)
by srichman on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 11:50:09 AM EST

Sure, google can do this. They do it for many sites and even provide support for a META tag to prevent caching.

But (IANAL) it seems like they might still be legally in the wrong. If I have the document in my browser cache, I might be in violation of copyright law. It's like me having gigs of illegally-obtained mp3s and software on my harddrive: even if I'm not redistributing the content, my possession of it constitutes a copyright violtion, right?

[ Parent ]

I thought of that too... (3.00 / 1) (#53)
by EraseMe on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 05:57:53 PM EST

But I don't think it is a copyright violation if you save personal copies of what you find on the web (i.e. in your browser cache). Fair use, and all that.

IANAL either, but I think Google's problem might be that they share their cache with other people. See, now they are distributing material that doesn't belong to them, and that sounds like a copyright violation.

[ Parent ]
Duh? (2.00 / 1) (#41)
by PigleT on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 12:20:24 PM EST

Why the fsck should Google have to do ANYTHING when it's the "CoS"' fault for putting "copyright" material up on the Web?

FFS, the point of the Web is that anyone can point any device complying with the definition of a "browser" at it - and that says nothing about cacheing or otherwise. Hence, it's the CoS' fault for putting "copyright" shit on their sites and they should stop blydi complaining, and stop behaving like such jerks that everyone else expects them to complain.

Talk about pandering to assholes.
~Tim -- We stood in the moonlight and the river flowed
[ Parent ]
Just out of curiosity... (4.50 / 2) (#44)
by trhurler on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 01:02:15 PM EST

If the Church of Scientology(everyone knows they're a bunch of wackjobs,) shows up in court against Google trying to eliminate their cache, just who do you think might get involved? Here's a small list based on guesswork:

First, the FBI, CIA and NSA, and probably other federal agencies too. I bet they love search engine caches, and cases a lot more serious than this have just been thrown out for no apparent reason when the NSA decided it had an interest in the matter. Eliminate those caches, and from these guys' perspective, the Internet becomes a lot more opaque. (No, they do not likely have any comparable means of acquiring data about what people read, where they're coming from, and what's out there TO read. There isn't a publicly accessible "NSA search engine.")

Second, basically every "internet" company in existence. That probably includes IBM and Microsoft. They wouldn't be directly involved, but boy isn't it funny what happens when you get a few thousand mid to large size companies all saying in chorus that "this is a disaster."

Third, literally tens or hundreds of thousands of people who rely on search engine caches. They might not be as important, but they'd be visible, and they'd lend an air of credibility to the corporate claims.

Law or no law, we all know that "five guys, a dog, and a ham sandwich trying to piss off the whole world" doesn't fly in most courtrooms.

Also, the CoS has a history of threatening, starting, and then losing or "settling" lawsuits. Nobody sane is afraid of them. You could probably send a parakeet to represent you in court for all the difference it would make.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Are you sure? (4.00 / 1) (#45)
by streetlawyer on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 01:12:54 PM EST

Also, the CoS has a history of threatening, starting, and then losing or "settling" lawsuits. Nobody sane is afraid of them

Are you sure? Every text on the subject which I have read seems to be of the opinion that the Church of Scientology has an enviable win record in those cases it has taken to court (I have no idea why you have put the word "settling" in scare-quotes, by the way). Most of the precedent relating to copyright on the internet relates to the CoS; the cases they have lost have been genuine test cases like whether linking constitutes publication, where the law was very unclear. In a case like google's cache, the law is very clearly on their side.

I've ignored your bizarre rant about the CIA out of respect for you; I'll charitably chalk it up to alcohol.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Um... (3.00 / 1) (#51)
by trhurler on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 05:19:41 PM EST

Caches aren't quite as clear cut as you seem to think. People have lost cases like this, because there is no clear cut distinction between the "copy" that my browser is viewing right now(which clearly is NOT the original,) and the copy in my local cache(which again is not the original, but appears not to really be different from the viewing copy in any legally important way,) and the copy in a cache my local proxy server keeps(same story,) and so on. There's no real reason to believe that Google's cache is magically different.

Also, the CoS has "won" a great many cases by simply spending so much money that they caused the other guy to go broke, but that was prior to the days when there were lawyers interested in such matters as career builders, prior to the EFF, and so on. Their record of actually obtaining decisions against people is nearly zero, and their record of lawsuits in the last 3-5 years, since internet law became an interesting field - well, what lawsuits? They've had a long, long time to go after the various people who still to this day run operations they claim are illegal, and they aren't doing it.

Also, you need to look into the NSA's history of meddling in other peoples' business. I'm not trying to claim they're listening to your phone calls or the other usual Slashdot kiddie crap; we all know their resources are finite, after all. What I'm saying is, yes, they do meddle in court cases and send people to intimidate or "work with" various companies and so on in order to advance their own interests. If you don't believe it, you haven't looked into it. These are the same people who, for over half a century, managed to backdoor or cripple essentially every publicly available cryptosystem that was worth using, including most foriegn ones. They even had Swiss companies voluntarily making 'design adjustments.' They know how to lean on people, and they're not shy about doing it. I've seen dozens of claims of cases where the NSA supposedly just "didn't like" certain things that either were going to happen in a court case or else that were going to become public record because of one, and suddenly, things changed. They do that.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
trhurler, you're sitting on a goldmine! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by streetlawyer on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 08:15:52 PM EST

These are the same people who, for over half a century, managed to backdoor or cripple essentially every publicly available cryptosystem that was worth using, including most foriegn ones

Since this would imply that you're aware of a backdoor in DES, why aren't you putting this knowledge to use?

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

I said "almost" for a reason. (none / 0) (#68)
by trhurler on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 01:10:35 PM EST

Besides, for less money than I'm putting down on a car, anyone can build a machine(the EFF has plans for you) that will crack DES keys essentially in realtime. DES is no longer useful for ANYTHING except maybe keeping your family from reading your diary. Anyone still using it is a moron.

At any rate, no, as far as anyone publicly knows, they didn't backdoor DES. However, DES is weak enough that governments would have had the resources to crack it back in the early 80s or even late 70s, and maybe prior to that in the case of the US. Therefore, foriegn governments and others the NSA wanted to intercept tended to buy larger key systems with dedicated hardware from outfits in Switzerland, Germany, and a few other places. These systems, to put it mildly, were not secure against the NSA. The other thing to remember about DES is that it was invented by IBM, and all the NSA did was modify the s boxes so that differential cryptanalysis wouldn't work. They wouldn't have bothered doing so if they hadn't thought differential crypto was going to become public knowledge anyway, because the DES is only for unclassified data.

AES is the thing to use now, and the NSA had no hand in it whatsoever; they just said "yeah, looks good." So did a much larger body of academics. Without fundamental advances in mathematics that I'm reasonably certain do not exist in the minds of anyone at present, NSA or otherwise, AES is practically unbreakable. Unlike DES, which heavily relied on the fact that general purpose computers are slow at computing DES functions, AES is secure even against dedicated hardware attacks.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I got a bit curious (none / 0) (#67)
by nutate on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 10:45:13 AM EST

So I looked at the section of the DMCA o' 1998 that google references in their email. Summarizing it, even though it takes up less than a page, is difficult. But as far as I can see, it seems to state that google isn't responsible for damages as long as it doesn't cache the site. It would be different for a squid cache, which caches based on request (at least in the basic implementations I know of). Now if xenu.net/clambake.org could prove that everything they had didn't violate any CoS copyrights, it seems like google could just step out of the way.

In so far as CoS being nuts, they are, but who isn't. The hoopla they brought up over the TIME expose is still vivid in an PR manager's eyes. They made an entire spoof magazine and sent it out to bookstores. This was while L. Ron was still alive I think, and Dianetics and Scientology were still on the bestseller lists (and hence premier shelf space in bookstores (remember those)). Some were saying (including the TIME expose) that the CoS was keeping the books on the shelf by buying them, and then just sending them back to bookstores.

The most interesting scheme that the CoS has, and in my opinion the reason they are still around as a multinational financial entity, is that when you donate money to them, you cannot under any circumstances use legal means to extract that money from them. So, even if you did feel scammed, you enter into a legally binding contract that you can't do anything about it. Except complain about it, but now even the complaints have become harder to find because of the Religious Technology Center's application of the DMCA and Operation Clambake's non-response.

I think Scientology is just another religion. The religion of the dude from Parker Lewis Can't Lose, John Travolta, and Tom Cruise. With the celebrity endorsements, and all of the publicity from the CoS's use of the law to defend its right to exist, I don't expect to see Scientology membership to go anywhere but up in the future. I think it could be a lot worse, when you think about how long established religions arguably influence the very foundations of all the major countries in the world.

Solution, <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">. (From the google help page.)

It seems like that would absolve google and xenu/clambake of all responsibility.

peace,
Rich

[ Parent ]

Just to note (3.40 / 5) (#29)
by RQuinn on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 10:08:33 AM EST

They still return images from xenu.net when you do an image search, such as one for Operation Clambake.

Scientology googlebombing for itself (4.20 / 5) (#31)
by arcade on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 10:32:52 AM EST

This website explains how the CoS googlebombs for themselves. Didn't find it when writing the article, now it was mentioned on a.r.s.

--
arcade
Oh.. and (4.50 / 4) (#33)
by arcade on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 10:36:37 AM EST

This website may be what has triggered google to block xenu.net. Please note that cubicmetercrystal.com is not owned by Andreas Heldal Lund, the owner of xenu.net, but by someone abviously angry at CoS' selflinking.

--
arcade
[ Parent ]
Laugh... (1.82 / 17) (#36)
by Lelon on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 11:43:54 AM EST

"Operation Clambake is a group of people who exposes Scientology for what it is." Oh, you mean how its just a fradulent as just about every other religion in America?


----
This sig is a work in progress.
How interesting! (4.25 / 4) (#56)
by afeldspar on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 11:21:16 PM EST

You mean, "just about every other religion in America" has:

  • Infiltrated the IRS?
  • Conducted elaborate and illegal plans to frame their opponents for bomb threats, using forgeries and impersonations, with the written-down end goal being the imprisonment, institutionalization, or suicide of said opponents?
  • Bankrupted groups critical of them and then bought up their assets to gain access to private files and add to their roster of front groups?
  • Stated its goal as the takeover of world governments?
  • Stated that extermination of those who will not convert is an acceptable tactic?

Well, how about that. I had no idea that any other American religion/so-called religion had done any of those things. Oh, but since you're the expert, I'm sure you can name at least one other that's done all of the above.


-- For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.
[ Parent ]

Cycles (4.00 / 3) (#38)
by EraseMe on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 11:59:08 AM EST

PageRankTM should detect cycles in the link graph, and discount reference from cycle co-members.

That might too much computation for every site, so perhaps they could just flag "problem" sites like Scientology, porn, etc. that they know are trying to game the system. It seems like a cleaner solution than just outright blocking them.

Of course, Google has like a zillion PhDs, so they'll probably think of a much better idea...



Cycles in the hyperlink graph (4.00 / 1) (#48)
by Sacrifice on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 04:43:30 PM EST

If relevancy is not enhanced by cycles, then you must have a predetermined set of sites from which trust radiates.

In fact, I expect that Google may one day choose to weight their rankings at least partially in this direction, perhaps starting with the dmoz.org volunteer-expert-compiled directory.

I appreciate the spirit of your idea (local, inbred cycles with no outside references should be detected and discounted), but my understanding of the WWW (the accesible portion of it) is that it contains a lot of natural cycles.

Ultimately, no matter what pattern of content/links you propose to detect to prevent gaming PageRank, cheaters will learn to spoof real content enough to avoid matching the profile.

[ Parent ]
After doing some digging... (4.50 / 4) (#39)
by Colol on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 11:59:17 AM EST

While the users pointing the finger at CoS are probably right, it's also possible the Xenu site admin had Google do something to prevent it from returning hits. Head over to the Internet Archive (www.archive.org), and it returns a page stating "Per the request of the site owner, http://www.xenu.net/ is no longer available in the Wayback Machine."

Note that Google hasn't, however, outright removed all traces of OC. If you run a search for "Scientology", you get the "Opposing Views" category link, which still lists OC with the highest PageRank score.

Per the request of the site owner (4.25 / 4) (#47)
by afree87 on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 03:32:37 PM EST

[snorts] More like the CoS made them get rid of it.
--
Ha... yeah.
[ Parent ]
Cults? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by levsen on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 12:33:16 PM EST

Hm. Just noted this: Go to this xenu.net thing, click "Answers for Scientology kids" and read the first question/answer. I could reply "yes" to all of these for a lot of corporations I have worked for. Maybe I should point this out to my boss ...
This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
google now return links to xenu.net again. (3.20 / 5) (#43)
by arcade on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 12:49:14 PM EST

Google seems to have gotten enough complaints now... :-)

--
arcade
However... (4.66 / 3) (#49)
by arcade on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 04:48:54 PM EST

If searching for 'scientology' xenu.net now ranks on page 9, compared to page 1 one week ago. Something fishy is going on. First it disappears, when complaints start rolling in, it appears but re-ranked very very low.



--
arcade
[ Parent ]
Last time I searched for "Scientology" (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by afree87 on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 05:18:54 PM EST

before the Googlebombing began, xenu.net was around page 3.
--
Ha... yeah.
[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't (4.66 / 3) (#52)
by afree87 on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 05:22:11 PM EST

Searching for "Operation Clambake" ought to make xenu.net come out on top. Instead, their "A.R.S Week In Review" page comes out on top, and xenu.net itself is not listed.
--
Ha... yeah.
[ Parent ]
NO (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by DarkZero on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 05:18:48 PM EST

No, it isn't back on Google. A few of the pages have reappeared on Google, but the vast majority of the sites are still censored/banned. This is why a search for "Operation Clambake" comes up with only a few obscure pages from deep within the site.

[ Parent ]
Ferengi + Borg = Scientology [ by an ex-member ] (5.00 / 18) (#55)
by lermanet on Wed Mar 20, 2002 at 09:13:45 PM EST

Scientology is no more than a global fraud, and like most criminal schemes generates a large amount of cash... which is used to procure by litigation and intimidation - the silence of those who have figured out how the scam is done.

To keep the scientology scam going they have gotten very good at information control. Current members are given a NET-NANNY style program for "Safe Internet surfing".. My name, xenu.net and many other critical sites are blocked by this software.

After I scanned and posted the Fishman affidavit in august 1995, - bringing the net the story of Xenu... Scientology spent 1,700,000 litigating me for trade secret misappropriation and copyright. I was never fined a dime for the actual posting of the 61 pages now known as the Fishman Affidvit - The story of Xenu and the millions of space cooties that infect your body.

For $360,000 Scientology can get rid of those pesky space cooties.... what a DEAL!

Scientology maintains it's grip on its members by information control, it discourages them in more ways than just the net nanny to not read critical sites. They tell their own members that premature exposure to certain materials cocerning xenu will cause them to die of pneumonia.. A New York Times article describing my posting of the story fo xenu to the net closed with this line; "However, no epidemic has been reported".

Which brings me to the current situation on google. You see, Scientology's purchase of zillions of domain names, for every conceivable department, section and branch, of what is in fact a monolithic deception machine, all pointing at their main site is just one more instance of a continuing 50 year long pattern of conduct of information control.

Their reputation for litigation, character assasination, and the fact that it is not libel to say they are an organization that TERRORIZES ex-members, these are all just part of the Scientology "Truman" show.

It is that part of Scientology which does work - Scientology has gotten very good at controlling information, don't let them win this skirmish...their internal written orders dictate to "fight every skirmish as if it were a battle"

They fooled me for ten years, don't let them fool you for ten seconds


If the Ferengi were to breed with the Borg you would have Scientology


Help get the word out about Scientology
Arnie Lerma
An ex-member of the worlds biggest CON - Scientology
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium
Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Man with no HEAD"


DMCA Used For Censorship, Again (5.00 / 4) (#58)
by Eloquence on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 03:29:51 AM EST

Lookie here. And here.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
article picked up... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by dazzle on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 05:35:13 AM EST

This post has been 'picked up' by Microcontent News

---
the internet: a global network of small minded people


Google claim not to censor (3.20 / 5) (#64)
by sgp on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 08:31:57 AM EST

http://www.google.com/remove.html
Since Google is committed to providing thorough and unbiased search results for our users, we cannot participate in the practice of censoring information on the world wide web.

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

NOT ABOUT GOOGLEBOMBING (4.75 / 4) (#66)
by mcherm on Thu Mar 21, 2002 at 09:32:13 AM EST

The removal of the xenu.net pages have nothing to do with Googlebombing. Rather, they are the result of legal action by Scientology.

Scientology itself is one of the more severe users of Googlebombing.

References:



-- Michael Chermside
Google censors xenu.net? | 72 comments (57 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!