Regarding censorship via filtering software and Internet search-engines, just now I posted a comment at The Rights of Man. The reason for doing so was an article by John Kimble, Thursday, 14 March 2013, “NOW OFFICIAL – O2 AND SYMANTEC BELIEVE HELPING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEX ABUSE IS HATEFUL”.
John, I am running one of the websites you listed and commented on in your article, http://fathersforlife.org
I am also using Google Analytics, to track and analyze traffic volumes over time for specific subjects, pages and areas of interest covered by my website. I have been using Google Analytics since late October 2006.
The filtering and blocking of websites is not all that is going on to influence and regulate the information that the general public gets access to. I have good reasons for believing that some form of filtering of individual pages or subjects of interest has been at work since at least 2006. It is being done through changing ranking algorithms used by Internet search engines.
As disgusting as the censoring practices are for individual owners and operators of specific websites, it is far more worrying to see the extent to which public opinion is being affected by those practices. That public opinion is being affected is evident on account of the fact that the traffic volume trends I see for specific web pages at my website are closely correlated with overall search trends identified through an excellent tool that Google made available, Google Trends (it is available for free and very easy to use: http://www.google.com/trends/ ).
Some will say that it is not too surprising that there is a close correlation between the changing levels of interest of the general public in a specific subject and the traffic trends reflected for specific web pages that discuss the very same subject, but things are not that simple.
I have seen on numerous occasions that when visits to specific pages exhibited pronounced exponential growth, there was a sudden drop in traffic to the web page. That has happened often, time and again on individual pages that cover controversial subjects. It defies all logic to reason that those sudden drops (in the space of one day) are due to natural trends. They can only have happened on account of deliberate actions that were taken by Internet search-engine providers.
Moreover, it makes absolutely no sense (other than to attribute it to deliberate interference) that web pages dealing with unrelated subject (e. g.: anorexia nervosa and sex education) should each see large drops in traffic volumes on the very same day, from as many as thousands of page hits a day over extended intervals down to virtually no traffic in the space of a few hours). The magnitude of the impact of those changes is far greater than what you estimate the impact of filtering and blocking software to be, as reasonable and worrying as that estimate is.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not so much worried about the fate of individual web pages at my website as I am about the fact that, when projected to the access to information on all of the Internet, the impact of those successful attempts at censorship takes on massive proportions.
My argument is that the trends in the number of searches for specific subjects do not reflect so much what the public is interested in and looks for, as that what the public is interested in and looks for is being influenced by what the search-engine providers decide the public shall be interested in, just as it is with the filtering and blocking issue you have become interested in and worked on so hard during the past few weeks (and many thanks for doing that).
My concern is that, without any doubt, with the censoring that is being done, we see social engineering in action on a massive scale. People are being driven and handled like cattle, their opinions steered and influenced as easily as a goose-herder drives a gaggle of geese; with a wave of his hand he drives the geese to where he wants them to go. They follow directions, instantly, all of them.
Update 2013 06 13:
This posting is closed for commenting, but there does not seem to be a better place to to put what I just found but right here, therefore:
You think that Internet censorship by search engine does not exist? This is what the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has to say, recounting his experience with it:
Climate skeptics have come under intensive attack from various quarters, and the attacks have too often been as unpleasantly dishonest as those of the caveman. Also, there is evidence that someone has been spending a lot of money on trying malevolently to discredit those who dare to ask any questions at all about the party line on climate.
For instance, after a speech by me in in the US in October 2009 went viral and received a million YouTube hits in a week (possibly the fastest YouTube platinum ever for a speech), a Texan professor who monitors the seamier side of the internet got in touch to tell me that someone had paid the operators of various search engines a sum that he estimated at not less than $250,000 to enhance the page rankings of some two dozen specially-created web-pages containing meaningless jumbles of symbols among which the word “Monckton video” appeared.
These nonsense pages would not normally have attracted any hits at all, and the search engines would normally have ranked them well below the video that had gone platinum. The intention of this elaborate and expensive artifice, as the professor explained, was to ensure that anyone looking for the real video would instead find page after page of junk and simply give up. The viral chain was duly broken, but so many websites carried the video that more than 5 million people ended up seeing it, so the dishonestly-spent $250,000 was wasted.