Talk:Censorship by Google

Simple English stub

I've just created it. {{enwp based| url=http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google&oldid=203990 }}

Google censoring "DEIDetected.com"

Recently Kabrutus, a brazilian Steam Curator Creator of "Sweet Baby Inc Detected" (Now - DEI Detected), noticed that his website - deidetected.com has been hidden from search results. In other search engines such as Yandex or DuckDuckGo, the website pointed above being showed in first rows, while Google does not have this website, but Steam and X (Twitter) links instead.

In my opinion, this should be added as separate topic 46.56.181.117 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, has a reporter written about it? 173.197.99.96 (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Linus Tech Tips DeGoogle your Life part 2

This reversion is in dispute. From some points of view, trying to halt the spread of information concerning how to provide services as offered can be seen as evidence of a conflict of interest due to the restriction on trusts which monopolize. Would a prime number based on the text of https://www.jwz.org/hacks/#youtubedown be a forbidden number? On the other hand, creators should be paid for their work; ideally in some proportion to the importance of their contributions. 173.197.99.96 (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The "DeGoogle your Life" video series explores topics like digital privacy (how much about users should their profiles expose?), platform monopolies (are censors acting under one or more conflicts of interest?), and alternative technologies - all of which have broader implications worth considering. While we should be careful not to include original research, there may be reliable sources that discuss the series' impact and the debates it has sparked. Perhaps we could expand the article to include a "Reception and impact" section that covers some of these points more objectively to enhance the article's comprehensiveness without taking sides on the issues? 173.197.99.96 (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

During just the second quarter of 2024, about 8.4 million videos were removed from YouTube.[1] I've had them remove a dozen myself. The removal of one video does not rate inclusion unless the unlikely event of it hitting major reliable sources occurs. Certainly not in three separate articles a few days after it happened. And an encyclopedia cannot presume or speculate about whether Google is lying about the reason. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the first LTT video YouTube has removed. Of course, that in itself would not be noteworthy if LTT hadn't been making a business of reporting on Google, including their recent conviction in a United States federal court of law for violation of the antitrust laws concerning monopolization. Are we in agreement on those premises? 173.197.99.96 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors are free to believe what they want in their personal lives, it's not particularly relevant to what we include in articles. What matters is what reliable secondary sources say. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Linus Tech Tips are releasing a video this weekend explaining exactly why the video was taken down. Breifly mentioning it Violated googles Terms of service "promoting malicious and dangerous content technically". Hinting that is a broad term and joking users who watched the video backwards would get instructions to build a bomb.

Once that video release everyone while get a clear reason why the video was taken down. Linus has also hinted he would not pursue takedowns of reuploads of the video to Youtube. TagKnife (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The video is live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdZ7xmytiQ TagKnife (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This does not at all give a clear reason for anything as he is not a YouTube spokesman. Nor do I see why it matters. Looking through the current contents of the article, blocking China and Iran, deceptive advertising, celebrity nudes, copyright violations, etc., this seems quite UNDUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It does, the video was taken down because he was promoting methods to download video from youtube, which is against the terms of service. TagKnife (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, we cannot takes his word for this. Secondly, if it is the reason, I don't see how that is relevant to this article. Please read the article and see what it is about. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is an additional independent reliable source: Connor, Jak (8 September 2024). "Linus Tech Tips responds to YouTube controversy following anti-Google video takedown". TweakTown. Retrieved 9 September 2024.. While Tweaktown.com has not yet been mentioned in WP:RSN let alone WP:RSP, they clearly meet the WP:RS criteria. 2603:800C:D00:F512:CEDC:1CBB:6C80:F8FA (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this is RS. I also don't see why this minor mention just repeating what LTT said (while criticizing LTT) is useful. Also, you added this to Criticism of Google during this discussion, which is improper. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Protest in China

I am a librarian and have a screenshot of this rumor. It shows when you input, “protest in c” no suggestion for china comes, although it does for other countries. Would this verify the claim? JacobB04 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

On its own, no. We would need a reliable secondary source showing its relationship to this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Inquisition 21

What's the actual deal with "Inquisition 21"? Is mention of it censored in Wikipedia also? I looked for an article and all that shows up is our "Censorship by Google" article. If the site is so insignificant, why bother to talk so much about it in the Google censorship article? Pascalulu88 (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"Offensive content in YouTube" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Offensive content in YouTube has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 4 § Offensive content in YouTube until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 05:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

SafeSearch Timeline

Do we need to have a full timeline of SafeSearch?

Creativeusernamehere (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Google Lens / Image reverse search censorship

As of sometime in May 2025, Google has banned image reverse searches for NSFW content. If you upload a NSFW / porn image, it will often display "Unable to process this search. This search can't be processed due to content guidelines. Please try a different image or keywords". This is shown by the blog post More Google Bullshit, and in this Reddit thread. Do we have any creditable sources for this? MichaelWashboard (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Korea: age verification, Google Map...

This article does not mention Korea. But in Korea (South), some content is censored unless one passes age verificaiton: Internet_censorship_in_South_Korea#Nudity_and_obscenity. Sometimes this is called censorship: [2].

Then there is the Google Map trouble: [3]. I've even written about this in this Wiki article: Restrictions on geographic data in South Korea. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Come on.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/google-admits-censorship-under-biden-promises-end-bans-youtube-accounts

Which starts with:

Google also admitted the following to the House Judiciary Committee:

1. The Biden Administration pressured Google to censor Americans and remove content that did not violate YouTube's policies.
2. The Biden Administration censorship pressure was "unacceptable and wrong."

Anyone feel like adding this to the article?

Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)