Internet Censorship Explodes - Google Receives 250,000 "Removal" Requests

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages, to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and in the side wall, within easy reach of Winston’s arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.


He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.


- From George Orwell’s 1984

The reason Big Brother and his band of technocrat authoritarians spend so much time and effort erasing history in the classic novel 1984, is because they are a bunch of total criminals and they know it. Their grip on power is made so much easier if the proles are kept ignorant, confused and in the dark. This strategy is not just fiction, it is the philosophy of tyrants and authoritarians throughout history.

While the internet is an amazing tool for communication and free speech, we must also be aware of how it can be abused by those in power who wish to whitewash history. For more on this epic struggle, read the post, Networks vs. Hierarchies: Which Will Win? Niall Furguson Weighs In. In it, Mr. Furguson explains that the biggest threat to networks overcoming hierarchies is if government technocrats are able to gain a hold of the technological tools we now use to communicate with each other. He fears this is already happening with the NSA’s PRISM program and the complicity of all the major tech companies in the agency’s unconstitutional spying.

So it appears Orwell’s feared “memory hole” has begun to emerge in Europe. This shouldn’t be seen as a surprise considering the region’s devastating youth unemployment rate and angst throughout society. The way censorship is gaining a foothold in the region is through something known as a right to be forgotten” ruling issued by the European Court of Justice. This ruling states that Google must essentially delete “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” data from its results when a member of the public requests it.

Of course this is incredibly vague, and who is to decide what it “no longer relevant” anyway? Seems quite subjective. This is clearly an attempt to take a tool designed to decentralize information flow (the internet) and centralize and censor it. As such, it must be resisted at all costs.

So far, we know of two major media organizations that have been informed of deleted or censored articles, the BBC and the Guardian. The BBC story is the one that has received the most attention because the content related to former ex-Merrill Lynch CEO Stan O’Neal, who received a $161.5 million golden parachute compensation package after running the Wall Street firm into the ground and playing a key role in destroying the U.S. economy. The BBC reports that:

A blog I wrote in 2007 will no longer be findable when searching on Google in Europe.

Which means that to all intents and purposes the article has been removed from the public record, given that Google is the route to information and stories for most people.

So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?


Well it has responded to someone exercising his or her new “right to be forgotten”, following a ruling in May by the European Court of Justice that Google must delete “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” data from its results when a member of the public requests it.


Now in my blog, only one individual is named. He is Stan O’Neal, the former boss of the investment bank Merrill Lynch.


My column describes how O’Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made.


Is the data in it “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”?




Most people would argue that it is highly relevant for the track record, good or bad, of a business leader to remain on the public record – especially someone widely seen as having played an important role in the worst financial crisis in living memory (Merrill went to the brink of collapse the following year, and was rescued by Bank of America).


To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling.


Maybe I am a victim of teething problems. It is only a few days since the ruling has been implemented – and Google tells me that since then it has received a staggering 50,000 requests for articles to be removed from European searches.


I asked Google if I can appeal against the casting of my article into the oblivion of unsearchable internet data.


Google is getting back to me.


Since the original post, the author has provided an update:

So there have been some interesting developments in my encounter with the EU’s “Right to be Forgotten” rules.


It is now almost certain that the request for oblivion has come from someone who left a comment about the story.


So only Google searches including his or her name are now impossible.


Which means you can still find the article if you put in the name of Merrill’s ousted boss, “Stan O’Neal”.


In other words, what Google has done is not quite the assault on public-interest journalism that it might have seemed.


I disagree with his conclusion, and here is why. As is noted on this Yahoo post:

We don’t know whether it was O’Neal who asked that the link be removed. In fact, O’Neal’s name may be being dragged through the mud unnecessarily here. Peston believes it may be someone mentioned by readers in the comments section under his story about the ruling.


He suggests that as a “Peter Dragomer” search triggers the same disclosure that a result may have been censored, that perhaps it was not O’Neal who requested the deletion. In an amazing coincidence, the person posting as “Peter Dragomer” claims to be an ex-Merrill employee.

Of course, it’s not an amazing coincidence. In fact, going forward someone else can just post a comment below an article on a high profile person to get the article removed so that the person in the article can pretend it wasn’t his doing. In any event, someone who voluntarily leaves a comment should have zero say under this law. They went ahead and made the comment in the first place. Now you want an article article removed because of a comment you made? Beyond absurd.

Now here’s the Guardian’s take:

When you Google someone from within the EU, you no longer see what the search giant thinks is the most important and relevant information about an individual. You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide.


Stark evidence of this fact, the result of a European court ruling that individuals had the right to remove material about themselves from search engine results, arrived in the Guardian’s inbox this morning, in the form of an automated notification that six Guardian articles have been scrubbed from search results.


The first six articles down the memory hole – there will likely be many more as the rich and powerful look to scrub up their online images, doubtless with the help of a new wave of “reputation management” firms – are a strange bunch.


The Guardian has no form of appeal against parts of its journalism being made all but impossible for most of Europe’s 368 million to find. The strange aspect of the ruling is all the content is still there: if you click the links in this article, you can read all the “disappeared” stories on this site. No one has suggested the stories weren’t true, fair or accurate. But still they are made hard for anyone to find.


As for Google itself, it’s clearly a reluctant participant in what effectively amounts to censorship. Whether for commercial or free speech reasons (or both), it’s informing sites when their content is blocked – perhaps in the hope that they will write about it. It’s taking requests literally: only the exact pages requested for removal vanish and only when you search for them by the specified name.

But this isn’t enough. The Guardian, like the rest of the media, regularly writes about things people have done which might not be illegal but raise serious political, moral or ethical questions – tax avoidance, for example. These should not be allowed to disappear: to do so is a huge, if indirect, challenge to press freedom. The ruling has created a stopwatch on free expression – our journalism can be found only until someone asks for it to be hidden.


Publishers can and should do more to fight back. One route may be legal action. Others may be looking for search tools and engines outside the EU. Quicker than that is a direct innovation: how about any time a news outlet gets a notification, it tweets a link to the article that’s just been disappeared. Would you follow @GdnVanished?

This last idea is actually a great one. Every time an article gets censored it should be highlighted. If we could get one Twitter account to aggregate all the deleted stories (or perhaps just the high profile ones) it could make the whole censorship campaign backfire as the stories would get even more press than they would have through regular searches. Ah…the possibilities.

Interestingly, due to all the controversy, a European Commission spokesman has come forth to criticize Google for removing the BBC article. You can’t make this stuff up. From the BBC:

Google’s decision to remove a BBC article from some of its search results was “not a good judgement”, a European Commission spokesman has said.


A link to an article by Robert Peston was taken down under the European court’s “right to be forgotten” ruling.


But Ryan Heath, spokesman for the European Commission’s vice-president, said he could not see a “reasonable public interest” for the action.


He said the ruling should not allow people to “Photoshop their lives”.


The BBC understands that Google is sifting through more than 250,000 web links people wanted removed.

Perhaps it wasn’t in “good judgment ” to issue this idiotic ruling in the first place. Just another government shit-show. As usual.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Duffy's picture

and who controls google?

Hugh G Rection's picture

It rhymes with Zionists.

Hugh G Rection's picture

The Mayans are a red herring for the Imperial Eskimo Reptilians that run the whole show from their lunar base.

Fukushima Sam's picture

"The EU."  Give me a fucking break.  No one should do anything those fucking idiots say.

falconflight's picture

That's why I so despise the Amerikan leftists, and their homosexual adoration of anything European.  The founders certainly had a deep seated contempt for them.

Duffy's picture

Why is this purported predilection for anything European strike you as "homosexual"?

Repressing, are we?

I suspect you don't like them because they sporadically have the testicular fortitude to criticize Israel for committing war crimes, etc. 

And for you, if Israel does it, it ain't a crime - isn't that right, Peaches?

GetZeeGold's picture



Have him bring me back something from Chick-Fil-A.

old naughty's picture



Right to be forgotten, Rothc.....Rocke.....Hit...Sta...Ob...Bus...

Gone ! 

Google search will not yield any results, all articles mentioned them gone...including ZH's.


falconflight's picture

Well the Europeans have nearly 2,000 unbroken years of blaming Jews for their various societal failures, of which the Europeans have one very long record of brutality against their own populations and their neighbors.  I mean I'm stating the obviously even if you are unaware of European history.  The Europeans surrendered to the Arabs by the mid 1970's after several years of 'terrorist' attacks of Arafat and company, and gee you wouldn't discount the leverage of oil upon their politicians would you?  Cabal is the trade of pseudo intellects.  Historical context is a much thicker book to read, when a flyer answers so many questions and is all the context the demagogue needs.  Hmmmm, demagogues...Europe certainly has a long history of that as well, don't they?

Hugh G Rection's picture

109 evictions throughout history, but I guess the landlord was just an asshole every time.

falconflight's picture

Well, your tool box is certainly consistent and predictable.  

Stifmeister's picture

Since you talk about a record of 2000 years, where were the Americans at that time. Oh wait,Amerians are Europeans.

11b40's picture

We once were, back when America was still America.  When we had real jobs and made real things.  You remember, don't you, befroe the world was "financialized", and the portion of the economy devoted to finance was uner 15%, instead of over 40% like today.

Plato's Law's picture

I don't blame any entire culture or race of people for anything. 

The holiest of all holy books of Judaism is the Talmud.  (Remember Judaism comprises two Torah, one is the OT, the other is the Talmud...the next time a Judaic employs the word "Torah" ask him which one does he refer to.)  I do blame followers of the Talmud for the Talmud's ultra radical extreme bigotry and instutionalized hatred, as portrayed in the Talmudic vs., "Even the best of the gentiles deserve only death."

Monty, don't we normally get to choose one of three curtains? 

That verse leans a bit demagoguegic, no? 


Monty Burns's picture

Is that why Jews have been the drivers of mass Third World immigration into Europe?  The evidence says yes and as a European it makes me feel very pissed off at you people. I'm in Ireland and we never did SFA to any Jews yet 'our' recently departed Jewish Minister for Population Repacement has issued Irish citizenship to more foreigners in two years than other Ministers have done of the previous 22. The evidence can be seen on the streets of any town and city here now. Thank you very f*cking much!

falconflight's picture

Just a comment about European fortitude, funny they showed none throughout the "cold war."  Without the US military in Western Europe, and still we are there, every single one of those socialist  utopias would have been impossible and they would have easily succumbed to Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, or even Gorby.  Your myopia is only exceeded by your exceedingly weak intellectual screed plagiarized from Gobbles and Mein Kampf, as well as your Popes and Martin Luther.  Now your civilization is willingly submitting to another world movement.  

cape_royds's picture

Europe was in the front line during the fucking Cold War. During the 1950's and 60's the USSR's nuclear weapons were too unreliable to credibly attack the USA, so European leaders knew that the USSR's deterrent forces principally targeted Western European cities.

Learn a thing or two, and use your head, before you post silly things about the people of an entire continent.

Hugh G Rection's picture

Forgive falcon.  He is a devout Ziopath with an intense hatred of anyone outside his chosen tribe.  Perhaps you might have a few mental instabilities if a Mohel canabalized your freshly mutilated penis 8 days into this world.

Empathy and understanding are all we can offer the deeply wounded like falcon.

Bay of Pigs's picture

Bunch of shitheads, idiots and trolls on ZH anymore. Its truly sickening for those of us who remember the old days around here.

mvsjcl's picture

Agree. What is all this shit?

DeusHedge's picture

As long as the idiots stay out, I don't give a flying fuck.

TeamDepends's picture

CUT!!!!  Too much uh, mommy-tissue is um, rayciss against those who are less endowed, you know, by God.  NO!  Don't print that.  ISIS likes the ladies   CUT!!!!!!

Dixie Rect's picture

How am I You doing?

Hugh G Rection's picture

Bit of a throbbing headache and a stiff back actually, but it usually goes away as fast as it cums on.

Dr Benway's picture

Australia is way ahead of Europe in regards to censorship and "reputation management". The criminals here already decide what newspapers can write about, and what information you are allowed to access.

The full version of my blog is banned in Australia. This censorship was done secretly, without affording me any avenue of appeal, although it can be circumvented by adding "/ncr" to the blog address, bypassing the country redirect.

Hugh G Rection's picture

That is certainly the impression I get from Brendon O'Connell.

3 years for "racial villification"? Pfffff!

Dr Benway's picture

There isn't even anything remotely "racial" in my blog, it covers Australian financial crime..

kchrisc's picture

" covers Australian financial crime..."

The assumption must then be that you are anti-semitic.

Kreditanstalt's picture

Good blog, very informative BTW!

Dr Benway's picture

Thanks for that, Kreditanstalt!

Colonel Klink's picture

So in other words, history rhymes again.

Hugh G Rection's picture

The hasbarats love patrolling youtube and flagging my videos.

It would be better if we hadn't invented the internet - Sen Jay Psychofeller

Hugh G Rection's picture

I would miss the death threats and name calling.

disabledvet's picture

Meh. "No biz ness like shoe biz ness" and nothing sells like Uncle Adolph.

Economy's tough. People need more than "escapism." They're yearning for a more normalized view of reality "plus big titties."

Hugh G Rection's picture

There's no business like *Shoah business

Duffy's picture

they patrol wiki too

but it turns out wiki's founder, Jimmy Wales, is Jewish -nothing wrong with that - but has met with Israeli government officials and been Zioquoted basically absolving Israel of any blame in the various conflicts where it, you know, bombed apartment buildings with white phosphorus and used DU shells [as has the US] deliberately for what amounts to genocidal purposes...

and there is something wrong with that....

I mean, I get wanting to patrol it to correct text supplied by people who might be overzealous in their criticism, and antisemitism, the genuine kind, is still a real thing - but they're there to whitewash as various entries prove.


The USS Liberty Incident page most of all.  'Why' can't be proven for sure, but 'that' they knowingly tried to sink a US vessel is beyond intelligent dispute.  Not so, on wiki...  for which any government commision finding is beyond political machinations.


Honestly, Jewish/Zionist influence in the internet and MSM is breath taking, and not limited to the United States.  One is very hard pressed to find a major social media or news or entertainment site that does not have, at a minimum, a disproportionate number of Jewish managers/execs. 

It's no wonder the Pals don't get anything like a fair shake and Israel's obvious intent to ethnically cleanse and annex "Judea" {which would have been a more sensible name for 'Israel' - the term used to fool the Scofield Christian Zio useful idiots} and "Samaria"  hides in the open - like a pair of glasses resting on your own forehead.

It also helps explain how the US gets away with sending ultra Zionist Jews to negotiate a peace on behalf of the American people...  and no one objects that this gives, at a minimum, the appearance of bias....





Hugh G Rection's picture

That they do.

I'm friends with Phil Tourney who was aboard the Liberty.  If you ask him whether the attack was intentional he leaves no room for doubt.  A botched false flag to blame Egypt that turned into a coverup.  Just like the attempted frameup of Palestinians with Mossad truck bombs on 9/11.  Proactive police work from the NYPD stopped them from blowing the GW Bridge, caught 2 more on King and 6th, as well as the more well known "Dancing Israelis" that were caught after filming and celebrating the first plane impact.

I put everything I could find on Urban Moving Systems into a video:

disabledvet's picture

I'm still trying to figure out what happened to Harvard actually. I'm mean seriously...Massachsetts used to matter. They really need to bring the Bin Ladens back.

Tall Tom's picture

Thank you for the information.


I agree that Zionism sucks.


It is not that Judaism sucks. It does not. Most Jews are honorable people.


But this bullshit warfare needs to stop.

Hugh G Rection's picture

Thankss Tom.  I have 3 good friends that are Jewish (secular), and they are good guys.  Ordinary, decent Jews are the victims of Zionism as well. 

falconflight's picture

Fasting over for the day?  Ramadan bloodlusting after dark?

Hugh G Rection's picture

Do you assume everyone that doesn't enjoy an Israeli dick in their mouth is a Moozlem?