Thank You, Jiel! Indeed, the "reasons" are not reasons at all, but arbitrary dictates. The "no cleavage" command seems particularly extreme, the "Policy" would ban Vogue, Elle, Sports Illustrated, as a matter of fact, almost any representation of our human bodies. Under the enormous flow of Internet material flooding us every day, this stupendous policy flows with the general cataract, and its intriguing extremism is lessened in it. Indeed it follows the new "Policy" on sexual material in the UK. For the country of the Magna Carta, the Parliamentary Monarchy before anyone else, the Hyde Park Soapbox where any opinion could be heard, it is extraordinary, and it is a complete about face of all the Tradition of a country which has historically done so much for Athenian inspired Democracy. Since it concerns sex, the people are too embarrassed to protest. Google, and the New Authoritarian England, know this very well. After sexual content, it will be ideas, and, why not, Drama, Literature in general, Art (what would they do with Titian, Picasso, Mary Cassatt, all of Art, as a matter of fact? They would be banned also. Making Google face these simple truths might actually embarrass its Neo Something Potentates and have them reverse this "Policy" which is indeed very, very troubling. Since the Thatcher, an extremely intelligent human being, who also was an extremely bad person, England has never been the same. The 1980's were very clear to whomever was willing to be analytical. Unfortunately, we began to accept very severe restrictions then under the pretext of a huge Trojan Horse which I will not name here, but which was all the more dangerous, that like all good major lies, it contained some truth: a recipe for making the people accept ANYTHING! By the way, are we not all, everything considered, "innocent citizens", who have to be "protected" from "sexual material"...? I hope everyone here sees the derivations. When it seems too good, and too "protective", well, it ALWAYS is. Political Science, and History, do not leave one doubt about that. NEVER.
2 comments:
Here is where GOOGLE gives the reason for its new Policy..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2967200/Google-Blogger-ban-sexually-explicit-content.html
Thank You, Jiel! Indeed, the "reasons" are not reasons at all, but arbitrary dictates. The "no cleavage" command seems particularly extreme, the "Policy" would ban Vogue, Elle, Sports Illustrated, as a matter of fact, almost any representation of our human bodies. Under the enormous flow of Internet material flooding us every day, this stupendous policy flows with the general cataract, and its intriguing extremism is lessened in it. Indeed it follows the new "Policy" on sexual material in the UK. For the country of the Magna Carta, the Parliamentary Monarchy before anyone else, the Hyde Park Soapbox where any opinion could be heard, it is extraordinary, and it is a complete about face of all the Tradition of a country which has historically done so much for Athenian inspired Democracy. Since it concerns sex, the people are too embarrassed to protest. Google, and the New Authoritarian England, know this very well. After sexual content, it will be ideas, and, why not, Drama, Literature in general, Art (what would they do with Titian, Picasso, Mary Cassatt, all of Art, as a matter of fact? They would be banned also. Making Google face these simple truths might actually embarrass its Neo Something Potentates and have them reverse this "Policy" which is indeed very, very troubling. Since the Thatcher, an extremely intelligent human being, who also was an extremely bad person, England has never been the same. The 1980's were very clear to whomever was willing to be analytical. Unfortunately, we began to accept very severe restrictions then under the pretext of a huge Trojan Horse which I will not name here, but which was all the more dangerous, that like all good major lies, it contained some truth: a recipe for making the people accept ANYTHING! By the way, are we not all, everything considered, "innocent citizens", who have to be "protected" from "sexual material"...? I hope everyone here sees the derivations. When it seems too good, and too "protective", well, it ALWAYS is. Political Science, and History, do not leave one doubt about that. NEVER.
Post a Comment