Eff Google

[falgore]

founding father intention was to block tyranny of any kind whether government or corporate.
from link which I suspect you ignored when disagreeing.

Quote "The United States of America was born of a revolt not just against British monarchs and the British parliament but against British corporations.

We tend to think of corporations as fairly recent phenomena, the legacy of the Rockefellers and Carnegies. In fact, the corporate presence in prerevolutionary America was almost as conspicuous as it is today. There were far fewer corporations then, but they were enormously powerful: the Massachusetts Bay Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, the British East India Company. Colonials feared these chartered entities. They recognized the way British kings and their cronies used them as robotic arms to control the affairs of the colonies, to pinch staples from remote breadbaskets and bring them home to the motherland.

The colonials resisted. When the British East India Company imposed duties on its incoming tea (telling the locals they could buy the tea or lump it, because the company had a virtual monopoly on tea distribution in the colonies), radical patriots demonstrated. Colonial merchants agreed not to sell East India Company tea. Many East India Company ships were turned back at port. And, on one fateful day in Boston, 342 chests of tea ended up in the salt chuck.

The Boston Tea Party was one of young America's finest hours. It sparked enormous revolutionary excitement. The people were beginning to understand their own strength, and to see their own self-determination not just as possible but inevitable.

The Declaration of Independence, in 1776, freed Americans not only from Britain but also from the tyranny of British corporations, and for a hundred years after the document's signing, Americans remained deeply suspicious of corporate power. They were careful about the way they granted corporate charters, and about the powers granted therein."

There is a good chunk more, but trying to respect the red flagged rule not to quote whole documents.. I would agree with you if history actually occurred based on a delusion that "British East India Company", Hudson bay Company, Etc, didn't exist. These companies at the time our constitution was formed were the conglomerate corporations of the time.


http://history.howstuffworks.com/europe ... uence2.htm
tea act occurred in 1773

Quote from wiki: "The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789.[1] The first ten constitutional amendments ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791 are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended seventeen additional times (for a total of 27 amendments) and its principles are applied in courts of law by judicial review.
We wanted to protect ourselves from the British government and British Corporations, few local ones, who were using their power to control every aspect of our lives."

something We need to remind ourselves about the Hudson bay company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company
It was defacto government before our constitution was written. People who wrote the constitution, at the time, remembered well the damage and corruption done by Hudson bay company.

people at the time of writing were using the experiences they were living through at the time which included for some being ruled by Hudson bay Company. Along with the grievances of king George the 3rd. Hudson bay represented King George the 3rd
http://firstpeoplesofcanada.com/fp_furt ... rade3.html This link shows connection of king George the 3rd and Hudson bay, which later lead to the "declaration of independence" and our constitution was based on the experiences with Hudson bay and king George the 3rd but was directed at king george the 3rd. In the declarations the some of the abuses were committed by hudson bay in the name of King George 3rd but the company name was left out, to simplify it. I can't point out which of the specific grievances was directly linked to hudson bay , because I was not there.

The declaration of independence influenced our constitution against tyrannical rule "Hudson bay company/ king George the 3rd"

As time went by, things were purposely blurred by corporations to hide their connection to the grievances the people had against tyranny, who wanted to rule the masses, as Hudson bay company did all those many years ago. As time went by Corporations eroded the restrictions that were placed on them that prevented their return to power, and abuses.

We have forgotten our history and we are now repeating it. thus Google is doing what Hudson did. CONTROL/Tyranny/power. To which NO company should EVER have.

At first companies had VERY FEW rights if any at all. People were terrified and extremely suspicious of them because of previous abuses/experience with corporate/government tyranny . Hudson bay being chief among them


http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-a ... ations-us/

In the beginning corporations were NOT people They were an entity only and did not have any protective statis, and was not allowed to influence society in any big way they were limited to providing services and nothing else.

[falgore]

google provides "access" that is their business By not doing business with them, You loose the level of "access" Google provided.

The core of American with disability act is to provide equal access to disabled people.

Google is blocking my ability to get access to businesses other people can get access to by simply going there physically. Thus I do not have the same level of access as you do.

Normal people have NO "real experience on how big this kind of blocked access has on a disabled or poor person.

For you it may be an inconvenience not doing business with google, but for me its a total block out to get to the resources you do with only little inconvenience.

People who are poor or disabled need to find alternative access as part of adapting to their situation Google use to provide the "ACCESS" That leveled the playing field between normal people and the disabled/poor.

I can tell you now I want to go up to the cities to shop for firearm I can't get their due to lack of transportation/money
Normal people have no such limitations and can go with impunity or only little inconvenience.

Google was our leveling of the playing field by bringing the stores and deals to our computers. Which we now lost due to ban regarding purchasing of firearms using google.

layman terms American with disability act is "Shall not deprive access" google is blocking access Therefore depriving access

[Lunchbox]

It's not really any different then a brick and mortar business banning firearms... If you choose to no longer do business don't do business with them. There is other search engines then google, you won't loose access.

[xd ED]

google provides "access" that is their business By not doing business with them, You loose the level of "access" Google provided.

The core of American with disability act is to provide equal access to disabled people.

Google is blocking my ability to get access to businesses other people can get access to by simply going there physically. Thus I do not have the same level of access as you do.

Normal people have NO "real experience on how big this kind of blocked access has on a disabled or poor person.

For you it may be an inconvenience not doing business with google, but for me its a total block out to get to the resources you do with only little inconvenience.

People who are poor or disabled need to find alternative access as part of adapting to their situation Google use to provide the "ACCESS" That leveled the playing field between normal people and the disabled/poor.

I can tell you now I want to go up to the cities to shop for firearm I can't get their due to lack of transportation/money
Normal people have no such limitations and can go with impunity or only little inconvenience.

Google was our leveling of the playing field by bringing the stores and deals to our computers. Which we now lost due to ban regarding purchasing of firearms using google.

layman terms American with disability act is "Shall not deprive access" google is blocking access Therefore depriving access

So Google is required by law to provide you with a (free) service, whether they would choose to or not?
What if they chose to chose to shut down, or do something else? Should the government force them to stay in business exactly as they operate now?
What if they never existed?

[tman]

So Google is required by law to provide you with a (free) service, whether they would choose to or not?
What if they chose to chose to shut down, or do something else? Should the government force them to stay in business exactly as they operate now?
What if they never existed?

I could actually see the government mandating exactly that not took far in the future, especially if someone brought an ADA law suit..

[Lunchbox]

So Google is required by law to provide you with a (free) service, whether they would choose to or not?
What if they chose to chose to shut down, or do something else? Should the government force them to stay in business exactly as they operate now?
What if they never existed?

I could actually see the government mandating exactly that not took far in the future, especially if someone brought an ADA law suit..

Sadly enough, I could see it happening. Nor would I be shocked.

[Countryfried Frank]

There's already a mandate that everyone purchase a product (healthcare). It's not a huge step to mandate that someone provide a service. Both ideas with which I disagree.

Respectfully falgore, Google does not provide access; they provide information. IMHO they should be allowed to choose what information they provide and how they provide it. The market will dictate to them if they are doing an insufficient job by taking their consumption of information (and the opportunity for the provider to present them with advertisement) elsewhere. I agree with you that it's a d-bag maneuver to censor the information they provide to the consumer but I encourage you to take a slightly less heavy handed approach. They can't be required to use their freedom of speech (and the complementary freedom not to speak) to support your right to keep and bear just like you cannot be forced to use your right to keep and bear to support their freedom of speech. You can however use your freedom of speech to educate and inform people about their businedd practices and encourage them to take their information consumption to another, less hostile, information provider.

[Holland&Holland]

google provides "access" that is their business By not doing business with them, You loose the level of "access" Google provided.

The core of American with disability act is to provide equal access to disabled people.

Google is blocking my ability to get access to businesses other people can get access to by simply going there physically. Thus I do not have the same level of access as you do.

Normal people have NO "real experience on how big this kind of blocked access has on a disabled or poor person.

For you it may be an inconvenience not doing business with google, but for me its a total block out to get to the resources you do with only little inconvenience.

People who are poor or disabled need to find alternative access as part of adapting to their situation Google use to provide the "ACCESS" That leveled the playing field between normal people and the disabled/poor.

I can tell you now I want to go up to the cities to shop for firearm I can't get their due to lack of transportation/money
Normal people have no such limitations and can go with impunity or only little inconvenience.

Google was our leveling of the playing field by bringing the stores and deals to our computers. Which we now lost due to ban regarding purchasing of firearms using google.

layman terms American with disability act is "Shall not deprive access" google is blocking access Therefore depriving access

Um, you do realize that google has not blocked anything. Go to your google and type in any gun you want to buy, it will still come up in the search results?

Ok, thought so, just arguing to argue I guess?

[Heffay]

There is a difference between their search side and their shopping side. Search is completely unaffected. Shopping is whatever they want it to be.

[xd ED]

google provides "access" that is their business By not doing business with them, You loose the level of "access" Google provided.

The core of American with disability act is to provide equal access to disabled people.

Google is blocking my ability to get access to businesses other people can get access to by simply going there physically. Thus I do not have the same level of access as you do.

Normal people have NO "real experience on how big this kind of blocked access has on a disabled or poor person.

For you it may be an inconvenience not doing business with google, but for me its a total block out to get to the resources you do with only little inconvenience.

People who are poor or disabled need to find alternative access as part of adapting to their situation Google use to provide the "ACCESS" That leveled the playing field between normal people and the disabled/poor.

I can tell you now I want to go up to the cities to shop for firearm I can't get their due to lack of transportation/money
Normal people have no such limitations and can go with impunity or only little inconvenience.

Google was our leveling of the playing field by bringing the stores and deals to our computers. Which we now lost due to ban regarding purchasing of firearms using google.

layman terms American with disability act is "Shall not deprive access" google is blocking access Therefore depriving access

Um, you do realize that google has not blocked anything. Go to your google and type in any gun you want to buy, it will still come up in the search results?

Ok, thought so, just arguing to argue I guess?

Google has blocked/ eliminated firearms in 'shopping' search results.

[Heffay]

Google has blocked/ eliminated firearms in 'shopping' search results.

Yeah, but falgore is complaining that they blocked *all* access, which isn't true.

[Holland&Holland]

Google has blocked/ eliminated firearms in 'shopping' search results.

My point is if we assume for a second that google needs to comply with ADA as they are the largest search engine in the world, if I type in ruger LC9 it comes up with w pethera of places I can purchase it through on-line sources, so how is he not being accomadated?

ADA does not mean that one is not allowed to have steps on the front of their building as long as you provide reasonable accomodations for those who can't use steps.

So, back to my point, if you want to buy something and you absolutely refuse to use anyother service than google, go ahead and type it in the browser and you will get to what you need.

[Heffay]

Can't buy guns on craigslist either. Where's the rage there? I think ebay as well. Or amazon.

[xd ED]

I'm not defending his 'facts' or premise about access, merely pointing out a change in google's apparent policy. If this is an ADA issue, one must then ask: What isn't? It's these stretches that draw negative attention to the value of the ADA.

[Holland&Holland]

Can't buy guns on craigslist either. Where's the rage there? I think ebay as well. Or amazon.

Well craigslist is only for hippies and they are all pacificts so that one is obvious. Ebay is for elitists and snobs so the only think left for your regular 9-5'er is google and they have stolen our last bastion of online freedom....