Talk:Google and censorship

Reference for "unwillful" censorship "of google"

The article provides a link to "Google censorship in china" and positions that as "not willful" but where is that reference? Google did business in china of its own volition. No one forced them to enter the country. Maybe a source can show that their censorship in the country was reluctant, but painting a picture that there is "willful" and "unwillful" censorship WITHOUT any references is a lie to the user. All censorship done by google is willful to the extent that they'd rather censor than not censor. saying some is and some isn't is not backed up by a single source I've seen. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking Censorship of Google Search and Censorship and Google

I propose linking these two article. does anyone disagree with this link. I know that user:andyjsmith might disagree with this link if he would like to weigh in his opinion is valued.Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would urge you not to touch these articles while your behaviour is under scrutiny. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Because you think this would be vandalism to link these? Either there is or is not an ambiguity here the article is addressing. You are saying the ambiguity is censorship of or by google. if that is the ambiguity why is linking Censorship of Google Search vandalism when that is exactly the ambiguity we are addressing here. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Because deliberately adding a link that you know redirects to another main link on the same page, when you have been warned not to, is vandalism; moreover your reason for doing so seems to be to support your otherwise bogus claims in the AfD that you started, that one of the links on this page redirects to the other! Andyjsmith (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My claim in AFD is that the article is not delivering a great user experience. I'm trying to improve the article but it may be beyond saving. currently it offers 2 pathways ( 3 since I added a second article about Chinese censorship) path 1 - Cenorship carried out by google , pathway 2 - Censorship of the chineese government. do you truly in your heart of hearts believe this is an ambiguity that needs to be cleared up? I don't think so. on a scale of 1 to 10 I think this article delivers a 3 to users and that's unacceptable. you think this is a good article evidently, and think this is how we should treat our users. I respectfully disagree since I believe they deserve better. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 China censorship of Google services

user:andyjsmith has repeatedly deleted this link. I think this article is useful to people who believe that this article is splitting an ambiguity of Google and Censorship. the link andy has not deleted is Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China which is about more than just google. where as the link I have added and he has deleted multiple times is about China and Google specifically. I suppose having the link 2014 China censorship og Google services part of this page. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Tidying up

I've rejigged this and some associated articles so that all the links point to somewhere meaningful and this dab page is doing its job correctly:

1. Clarified this article to clearly distinguish the meanings of "by" and "of", each of which now points to its own article
2. Created Censorship of Google as a stub, moved some material from this article to there
3. Redirected Censorship of Google Search to Censorship of Google - it previously went to Censorship by Google which is obviously wrong
4. Google Censorship redirects to this article, covering the most likely search terms

I think that should do the trick. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Exellent work. looks a lot better now fits the bill for a classic DAB page. I'm going to withdraw my deletion nomination since the new look is improved a lot and better serves the user. great work. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)