As I've mentioned in several of my posts on this blog, the internet has been one of the best tools for independent media: anyone can publish, readers can find new works easily, it's accessible to most people in the world, etc. But what's often overlooked are the subtle censorships brought upon by the internet.
Take journalist Matthew Lee as an example. In 2008, he was exposing corruption and wrongdoings in the United Nations on his founded publication Inner City Press. Lee had the platform of his own website to publish his findings freely — something he most likely could not have brought to a mainstream outlet. The internet allowed him to freely publish stories surrounding the issue, which frequently appeared on Google News where any user of Google could find his stories.
Until Lee received an email from Google:
"We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users," it said. "When we reviewed your site we've found that we can no longer include it in Google News."
Google completely erased Lee from their map — likely because the United Nations didn't like what he was publishing.
It's frightening to think that even the seemingly freest and safest medium to publish content may also be censored by higher conglomerates. Censorship is easier when it's on TV or in print — but going out of the way to censor freely published content? That takes effort, and it's chilling to know such precautions have been taken and likely will be taken in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment