Google+ Shuts Down After Vulnerability Secret Exposed


Guess what, I hope the regulations come now. Plus, Google decided to let potential harm live, apparently never fixing it (that's what I get out of this article) Too late for what Google already has done, but needed anyway.

Not only that, but Google has been proven to be politically biased in their search engine results (as Facebook has been proven to be the same way in top story links). I'm among the furthest removed from wanting private companies regulated, but when you have companies like Google and Facebook dictating information (AND spying on account owners then censoring them based on political persuasion), then that's no better than what Nazi Germany did prior to and during WWII on German Citizens. Or Stalin and Russia, or Hirohito and Japan, or Kim Il Sung and North Korea, and... .

AT&T got broken up for a reason in the 1980s as politics got involved with power (and market) projection. It's time for some three decades later to come through the same fruition of the same level of abuse.


Apr 3, 2001

These threats still live on in Android apps and Chrome extensions. Good job, Google, this really reaffirms where your priorities lie. Datamining and political agendas > user rights and transparency.


Jan 3, 2012

Nothing has been proven. Googles news search results primarily returns results of large established news organizations that have more abundant journalists, produce more original content and on scene articles, and are quick to react to events as they unfold. This is known as the main stream media and to date practically the only far right main stream news site is Fox News which gets plenty of hits on political search results.

To optimize the search engines news results to display a larger portion of small newly budding news sites, who primarily circulate each others articles, are slow to react, and have less staff like the ones seen in the far rights news circles would be what's considered tweaking the algorithm to show bias.



Except that article sharing, or at least primary source sharing is still strong in the MSM... i.e. a story done by Associated Press will become a dozen MSM versions or more. Fox, while reporting more right wing angles, still has left leanings under the surface. It's easier to hide smaller news services who won't bury a story (yes, in cases their right wing angle is just as severe as the left wing angle) due to it's of the wrong persuasion or angle. I'd rather have a more neutral position myself, where a story covers both sides more fairly, but in today's society that is more of a pipe dream than reality



I'd rather there be no regulation myself... but this is more a case of regulation for the sake of personal privacy than a case of content/result control. All those regimes you mentioned were the opposite... wanted to know your business, to keep you in line with their way and control information so you don't know how extreme and cruel they actually were (or are.)