Censorship by Google is Google's removal or omission of information from its services or those of its subsidiary companies, such as YouTube, in order to comply with its company policies, legal demands, or various government censorship laws.[1] Google's censorship varies between countries and their regulations, and ranges from advertisements to speeches. Over the years, the search engine's censorship policies and targets have also differed, and have been the source of internet censorship debates.[2]

Numerous governments have asked Google to censor what they publish. In 2012 Google ruled in favor of more than half of the requests they received via court orders and phone calls. This did not include China and Iran who block their site entirely.[3]

Google AdSense

In February 2003, Google stopped showing the advertisements of Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting a major cruise ship operation's sewage treatment practices. Google cited its editorial policy at the time, stating "Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations."[4] The policy was later changed.[5]

In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that "At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion '"[6]

In April 2014, though Google accepts ads from the pro-choice abortion lobbying group NARAL, they have removed ads for some anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. Google removed the Web search ads after an investigation by NARAL found evidence that the ads violate Google's policy against deceptive advertising. According to NARAL, people using Google to search for "abortion clinics" got ads advertising crisis pregnancy centers that were in fact anti-abortion. Google said in a statement that it had followed normal company procedures in applying its ad policy standards related to ad relevance, clarity, and accuracy in this case.[7][8]

Google Maps

In March 2007, allegedly lower resolution satellite imagery on Google Maps showing post-Hurricane Katrina damage in the U.S. state of Louisiana was replaced with higher resolution images from before the storm.[9] Google's official blog of April revealed that the imagery was still available in KML format on Google Earth or Google Maps.[10][11]

In March 2008, Google removed Street View and 360 degree images of military bases per The Pentagon's request.[12]

To protect the privacy and anonymity of individuals, Google selectively blurred photographs containing car license number plates and people's faces in Google Street View. Users may request further blurring of images that feature the user, their family, their car or their home. Users can also request the removal of images that feature inappropriate content.[13] In some countries (e.g. Germany) it modifies images of specific buildings.[14] In the United States, Google Street View adjusts or omits certain images deemed of interest to national security by the federal government.[12]

Google Search

In the United States, Google commonly filters search results to comply with Digital Millennium Copyright Act-related legal complaints,[15] such as in 2002 when Google filtered out websites that provided information critical of Scientology.[16][17]

In the United Kingdom, it was reported that Google had 'delisted' Inquisition 21st century, a website which claims to challenge moral authoritarian and sexually absolutist ideas in the United Kingdom. Google later released a press statement suggesting Inquisition 21 had attempted to manipulate search results.[18] In Germany and France, a study reported that approximately 113 White nationalist, Nazi, anti-semitic, Islamic extremism and other websites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google.[19] Google has complied with these laws by not including sites containing such material in its search results. However, Google does list the number of excluded results at the bottom of the search result page and links to Lumen (formerly Chilling Effects) for explanation.[1]

Lolicon content

As of April 18, 2010 Google censors the term "lolicon" on its search results, stopping users from finding meaningful results regarding lolicon material, even if the user types words along with the term which would typically lead to explicit content results; the terms "loli" and "lolita" also suffer from censorship when it is attempted to find meaningful results on the subject.[20][21]

Removal of SafeSearch options

As of December 12, 2012, in the U.S., U.K., Australia and some other countries Google removed the option to turn off the SafeSearch image filter entirely, forcing users to enter more specific search queries to get adult content. Prior to the change three SafeSearch settings—"on", "moderate", and "off"—were available to users. Following the change, two "Filter explicit results" settings—"on" and "off"—were newly established. The former and new "on" settings are similar, and exclude explicit images from search results. The new "off" setting still permits explicit images to appear in search results, but users need to enter more specific search requests, and no direct equivalent of the old "off" setting exists following the change because adding additional explicit search terms alters the search results. The change brings image search results into line with Google's existing settings for web and video search.[22][23][24]

Some users have stated that the lack of a completely unfiltered option amounts to "censorship" by Google. A Google spokesperson disagreed, saying that Google is "not censoring any adult content," but "want to show users exactly what they are looking for—but we aim not to show sexually-explicit results unless a user is specifically searching for them.".[25]

Online pharmacies

Following a settlement with the United States Food and Drug Administration ending Google Adwords advertising of Canadian pharmacies that permitted Americans access to cheaper prescriptions, Google agreed to several compliance and reporting measures to limit visibility of "rogue pharmacies". Google and other members of the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies are collaborating to remove illegal pharmacies from search results, and participating in "Operation Pangea" with the FDA and Interpol.[26][27]

Search suggestions

In January 2010, Google was reported to have stopped providing automatic suggestions for any search beginning with the term "Islam is", while it continued to do so for other major religions. According to Wired.com, a Google spokesperson stated, "this is a bug and we’re working to fix it as quickly as we can."[28] Suggestions for "Islam is" were available later that month. The word "Bilderberg" and the family name "Buchanan" were also reportedly censored in the auto-complete results,[29] but were available by February 2010 as well. Nonetheless, Google continues to filter certain words from autocomplete suggestions,[30] describing them as "potentially inappropriate".[31]

The publication 2600: The Hacker Quarterly has compiled a list of words that are restricted by Google Instant.[32] These are terms that the company's Instant Search feature will not search.[33][34] Most terms are often vulgar and derogatory in nature, but some apparently irrelevant searches including "Myleak" are removed.[34]

As of January 26, 2011, Google's Auto Complete feature would not complete certain words such as "bittorrent", "torrent", "utorrent", "megaupload", and "rapidshare", and Google actively censors search terms or phrases that its algorithm considers as likely constituting spam or intending to manipulate search results.[35]

In September 2012, multiple sources reported that Google had removed bisexual from the list of blacklisted terms for Instant Search.[36]


In 2013, the Swedish Language Council included the Swedish version of the word "ungoogleable" ("ogooglebar") in its list of new words.[37] It had "defined the term as something that cannot be found with any search engine".[38] Google objected to its definition, wanting it to only refer to Google searches, and the Council removed it in order to avoid a legal confrontation.[39] They also accused Google of trying to "control the Swedish language".[40]

Leaked celebrity content

On August 31, 2014, almost 200 private pictures of various celebrities, containing nudity and explicit content, were made public on certain websites. Google was criticized for linking to such content after some of them became popular enough to reach the front page of some search results.[41] Shortly after, Google removed most search results that linked users directly to such content from the incident.[42]



In January 2010, Google Australia removed links to satirical website Encyclopedia Dramatica's "Aboriginal" article citing it as a violation of Australia's Racial Discrimination Act.[43] After the website's domain change in 2011, the article resurfaced in Google Australia's search results.


On 19 June 2014, it was reported that Google had been ordered to remove search results that linked to websites of a company called Datalink by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The websites in question sell network device technology that Datalink is alleged to have stolen from Equustek Solutions. Google voluntarily removed links from google.ca, the main site used by Canadians, but the Court granted a temporary injunction applying to all Google sites across the world. Google argued that Canadian law could not be imposed across the world and was given until 27 June 2014 to comply with the Court's ruling.[44]


Google adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China,[45] enforced by means of filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China" until March 2010. Google.cn search results were filtered so as not to bring up any results perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC).[citation needed] Google claimed that some censorship is necessary in order to keep the Chinese government from blocking Google entirely, as occurred in 2002.[46]

Google claimed it did not plan to give the government information about users who search for blocked content, and will inform users that content has been restricted if they attempt to search for it.[47] As of 2009, Google was the only major China-based search engine to explicitly inform the user when search results are blocked or hidden. As of December 2012, Google no longer informs the user of possible censorship for certain queries during search.[48] The Chinese government has restricted citizens' access to popular search engines such as Altavista, Yahoo!, and Google in the past. This complete ban has since been lifted[when?]. However, the government remains active in filtering Internet content. In October 2005, Blogger and access to the Google Cache were made available in mainland China; however, in December 2005, some mainland Chinese users of Blogger reported that their access to the site was once again restricted[who?].

In January 2006, Google agreed that the China's version of Google, Google.cn, would filter certain keywords given to it by the Chinese government.[49] Google pledged to tell users when search results are censored and said that it would not "maintain any services that involve personal or confidential data, such as Gmail or Blogger, on the mainland."[50] Google said that it does not plan to give the government information about users who search for blocked content, and will inform users that content has been restricted if they attempt to search for it. Searchers may encounter a message which states: "In accordance with local laws and policies, some of the results have not been displayed."[47] Google issued a statement saying that "removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission" but that the alternative — being shut down entirely and thereby "providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission."[49] Initially, both the censored Google.cn and the uncensored Chinese-language Google.com were available. In June 2006, however, China blocked Google.com once more.[50]

Some Chinese Internet users were critical of Google for assisting the Chinese government in repressing its own citizens, particularly those dissenting against the government and advocating for human rights.[51] Furthermore, Google had been denounced and called hypocritical by Free Media Movement and Reporters Without Borders for agreeing to China's demands while simultaneously fighting the United States government's requests for similar information.[52] Google China had also been condemned by Reporters Without Borders,[52] Human Rights Watch[53] and Amnesty International.[54]

On February 14, 2006, protesters organized in a "mass breakup with Google" whereby users agreed to boycott Google on Valentine's Day to show their disapproval of the Google China policy.[55][56]

In June 2009, Google was ordered by the Chinese government to block various overseas websites, including some with sexually explicit content. Google was criticized by the China Illegal Information Reporting Center (CIIRC) for allowing search results that included content that was sexual in nature, claiming the company was a dissemination channel for a “huge amount of porn and lewd content”.[57]

On January 12, 2010, in response to an apparent hacking of Google's servers in an attempt to access information about Chinese dissidents, Google announced that “we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.”[58]

On March 22, 2010, after talks with Chinese authorities failed to reach an agreement, the company redirected its censor-complying Google China service to its Google Hong Kong service, which is outside the jurisdiction of Chinese censorship laws. However, at least as of March 23, 2010, "The Great Firewall" continues to censor search results from the Hong Kong portal, www.google.com.hk (as it does with the US portal, www.google.com) for controversial terms such as "Falun gong" and "the June 4th incident" (Tiananmen Square incident). ”[59][60][61]

European Union

In July 2014 Google began removing certain search results from its search engines in the European Union in response to requests under the right to be forgotten. Articles whose links were removed, when searching for specific personal names, included a 2007 blog by the BBC journalist Robert Peston about Stan O'Neil, a former chairman of investment bank Merill Lynch, being forced out after the bank made huge losses.[62] Peston criticised Google for "...cast[ing him] into oblivion".[63]

The Guardian reported that six of its articles, including three relating to a former Scottish football referee, had been 'hidden'.[64] Other articles, including one about French office workers using post-it notes and another about a collapsed fraud trial of a solicitor standing for election to the Law Society's ruling body, were affected.[65][66]

Skynews.com reported that a story about Kelly Osbourne falling ill on the set of Fashion Police in 2013 had been removed.[67][68]

The Oxford Mail reported that its publishers had been notified by Google about the removal of links to the story of a conviction for shoplifting in 2006. The paper said it was not known who had asked Google to remove the search result, but there had been a previous complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in 2010, concerning accuracy and claiming that the report was causing "embarrassment", requesting the story to be taken off the paper's website. The paper said two factual amendments were made to the article and the PCC dismissed the complaint.[69][70]

An article about the conversion to Islam of the brother of George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was removed after a request to Google from an unknown person under the right-to-be-forgotten ruling.[71]

The Telegraph reported that links to a report on its website about claims that a former Law Society chief faked complaints against his deputy were hidden.[72][73] The search results for the articles for the same story in the Guardian and the Independent were also removed.[74][75] The Independent reported that its article, together with an article on the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and one on new trends in sofa design in 1998, had been removed.[76] The Telegraph also reported that links to articles concerning a student's 2008 drink-driving conviction and a 2001 case that resulted in two brothers each receiving nine-month jail terms for affray had been removed.[77]

The Spanish newspaper El Mundo reported that some results were hidden over a 2008 news report[78] of a Spanish Supreme Court ruling involving executives of Riviera Coast Invest who were involved in a mortgage mis-selling scandal.[79]

On 5 July 2014, German news magazine Der Spiegel reported removal of a search result to an article about Scientology.[80][81]

On 19 August 2014, the BBC reported that Google had removed 12 links to stories on BBC News.[82]

Germany and France

On October 22, 2002, a study reported that approximately 113 Internet sites had been removed from the German and French versions of Google.[19] This censorship mainly affected White Nationalist, Nazi, anti-semitic, Islamic extremist websites and at least one fundamentalist Christian[83] website. Under French and German law, hate speech and Holocaust denial are illegal. In the case of Germany, violent or sex-related sites such as YouPorn and BME that the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien deems harmful to youth are also censored.

Google has complied with these laws by not including sites containing such material in its search results. However, Google does list the number of excluded results at the bottom of the search result page and links to Lumen (formerly known as Chilling Effects) for explanation.[1]


In September 2016, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare revealed that Google had agreed to censor search results and advertising of prenatal sex discernment, which is illegal in India.[84]


In 2015 and 2017, Google removed certain search results from its search engine in Israel, following gag orders.[85]

United Kingdom

On 21 September 2006,[18] it was reported that Google had 'delisted' Inquisition 21st Century, a website which claims to challenge moral authoritarian and sexually absolutist ideas in the United Kingdom. According to Inquisition 21, Google was acting "in support of a campaign by law enforcement agencies in the US and UK to suppress emerging information about their involvement in major malpractice", allegedly exposed by their own investigation of and legal action against those who carried out Operation Ore, a far reaching and much criticized law enforcement campaign against the viewers of child pornography.[86][87] Google released a press statement suggesting Inquisition 21 had attempted to manipulate search results.[18]`

United States

Google commonly removes search results to comply with Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)-related legal complaints.[88]

In 2002, "in an apparent response to criticism of its handling of a threatening letter from a Church of Scientology lawyer," Google began to make DMCA "takedown" letters public, posting such notices on the Chilling Effects archive, which archives legal threats made against Internet users and Internet sites.[89]

In mid-2016, Google conducted a two-month standoff with writer Dennis Cooper after deleting his Blogger and Gmail accounts without warning or explanation following a single anonymous complaint. The case drew worldwide media attention, and finally resulted in Google returning Cooper's content to him.[90][91]


In June 2017 the Canadian supreme court ruled that Google can be forced to remove search results worldwide. Civil liberties groups including Human Rights Watch, the BC Civil Liberties Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation argue that this would set a precedent for Internet censorship. In an appeal Google argued that the global reach of the order was unnecessary and that it raised concerns over freedom of expression. While the court writes that "we have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods" OpenMedia spokesman David Christopher warns that "there is great risk that governments and commercial entities will see this ruling as justifying censorship requests that could result in perfectly legal and legitimate content disappearing off the web because of a court order in the opposite corner of the globe".[92][93]


YouTube, a video sharing website and subsidiary of Google, in its Terms of Service, prohibits the posting of videos which violate copyrights or depict pornography, illegal acts, gratuitous violence, or hate speech.[94] User-posted videos that violate such terms may be removed and replaced with a message that reads, "This video has been removed due to a violation of our Terms of Service."

In September 2007, YouTube blocked the account of Wael Abbas, an Egyptian activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations under the Mubarak regime.[95] Shortly afterward, his account was subsequently restored,[96] and later also 187 of his videos.[97]

In 2006, Thailand blocked access to YouTube for users with Thai IP addresses. Thai authorities identified 20 offensive videos and demanded that Google remove them before it would unblock any YouTube content.[1] In 2007 a Turkish judge ordered access to YouTube blocked because of content that insulted former president Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a crime under Turkish law.[1] On February 22, 2008, Pakistan Telecommunications attempted to block regional access to YouTube following a government order. The attempt subsequently caused a worldwide YouTube blackout that took 2 hours to correct. Four days later, Pakistan Telecom lifted the ban after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a Dutch government official concerning Islam.[98][99]

In October 2008, YouTube removed a video by Pat Condell titled Welcome to Saudi Britain; in response, his fans re-uploaded the video themselves and the National Secular Society wrote to YouTube in protest.[100] The video was eventually restored.[101]

During the December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, YouTube temporarily removed videos of air strikes against Hamas "after viewers, apparently supporters of Hamas, flagged it as objectionable and asked that it be taken down." YouTube restored the clips several hours later, with a warning that it was inappropriate for minors.[102]

In 2016, YouTube launched a localized Pakistani version of its website for the users in Pakistan in order to censor content considered blasphemous by the Pakistani government as a part of its deal with the latter. As a result, the three-year ban on YouTube by the Pakistani government was subsequently lifted.[103][104]

Advertiser-friendly content

YouTube policies restrict certain forms of content from being included in videos being monetized with advertising, including strong violence, language, sexual content, and "controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown", unless the content is "usually newsworthy or comedic and the creator's intent is to inform or entertain".[105]

In August 2016, YouTube introduced a new system to notify users of violations of the "advertiser-friendly content" rules, and allow them to appeal. Following its introduction, many prominent YouTube users began to accuse the site of engaging in de facto censorship, arbitrarily disabling monetization on videos discussing various topics such as skin care, politics, and LGBT history. Philip DeFranco argued that not being able to earn money from a video was "censorship by a different name", while Vlogbrothers similarly pointed out that YouTube had flagged both "Zaatari: thoughts from a refugee camp" and "Vegetables that look like penises" (although the flagging on the former was eventually overturned).[105] The hashtag "#YouTubeIsOverParty" was prominently used on Twitter as a means of discussing the controversy. A YouTube spokesperson stated that "while our policy of demonetizing videos due to advertiser-friendly concerns hasn't changed, we've recently improved the notification and appeal process to ensure better communication to our creators."[106][107][108]

In March 2017, a number of major advertisers and prominent companies began to pull their advertising campaigns from YouTube, over concerns that their ads were appearing on objectionable and/or extremist content, in what the YouTube community began referring to as a 'boycott'.[109][110] YouTube personality PewDiePie described these boycotts as an "adpocalypse", noting that his video revenue had fallen to the point that he was generating more revenue from YouTube Red subscription profit sharing (which is divided based on views by subscribers) than advertising.[111] On April 6, 2017, YouTube announced planned changes to its Partner Program, restricting new membership to vetted channels with a total of at least 10,000 video views. YouTube stated that the changes were made in order to "ensure revenue only flows to creators who are playing by the rules".[112]

In July 2017, YouTube began modifying suggested videos to debunk terrorist ideologies.[113] In August 2017, YouTube wrote a blog post explaining a new "limited state" for religious and controversial videos, which wouldn't allow comments, likes, monetization and suggested videos.[114]

In March 2018, The Atlantic found that YouTube had de-listed a video where journalist Daniel Lombroso reported a speech by white nationalist Richard B. Spencer at the 2016 annual conference of the National Policy Institute, where they celebrated Donald Trump's win at the presidential election.[115] YouTube re-listed the video after The Atlantic sent a complaint.

Censorship of LGBT content in Restricted Mode

In March 2017, the "Restricted Mode" feature was criticized by YouTube's LGBT community for unfairly filtering videos that discuss issues of human sexuality and sexual and gender identity, even when there is no explicit references to sexual intercourse or otherwise inappropriate content for children.[116][105][117] Rapper Mykki Blanco told The Guardian that such restrictions are used to make LGBT vloggers feel "policed and demeaned" and "sends a clear homophobic message that the fact that my video displays unapologetic queer imagery means it's slapped with an 'age restriction', while other cis, overly sexualised heteronormative work" remain uncensored.[117] Musicians Tegan and Sara similarly argued that LGBT people "shouldn't be restricted", after acknowledging that the mode had censored several of their music videos.[118]

Critics have stressed that LGBT content should not be seen as inherently sexual or inappropriate for children. The availability of this content to LGBT youth, such as information about coming out, is vitally important. A study by GLSEN Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network found that LGBT youth are "five times as likely as non-LGBT youth to have searched information online on sexuality," and that "81% of LGBT youth search for health and medical information online."[119] YouTube later stated that a technical error on Restricted Mode wrongfully impacted "hundreds of thousands" LGBT-related videos.[120]

Dennis Prager lawsuit

In October 2017, conservative commentator Dennis Prager sued YouTube, arguing that the site was systematically discriminating against conservative viewpoints.[121]

2007 anti-censorship shareholder initiative

On May 10, 2007, shareholders of Google voted down an anti-censorship proposal for the company. The text of the failed proposal submitted by New York City's Office of the Comptroller (which controls a significant number of shares on behalf of retirement funds) stated that:

  1. Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet-restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
  2. The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.
  3. The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.
  4. Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.
  5. Users should be informed about the company's data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.
  6. The company will document all cases where legally binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.

David Drummond, senior vice president for corporate development, said "Pulling out of China, shutting down Google.cn, is just not the right thing to do at this point... but that's exactly what this proposal would do."[122]

CEO Eric Schmidt and founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal. Together they hold 66.2 percent of Google's total shareholder voting power, meaning that they could themselves have declined the anti-censorship proposal.[123]

See also


  1. ^ a b c d e Rosen, Jeffrey (November 30, 2008). "Google's Gatekeepers". New York Times. Retrieved October 15, 2016. 
  2. ^ "National Legal and Policy Center Challenges Google's Hypocrisy on Censorship Issues". Biotech Weekly: 3302. July 29, 2009. 
  3. ^ Sonne, Paul (June 18, 2012). "Google's Censorship Juggle". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 25, 2018. 
  4. ^ "Google Somewhat Lifts Oceana Ad Ban". webpronews.com. May 17, 2004. Archived from the original on January 30, 2009. 
  5. ^ "Google AdSenseTM Online Standard Terms and Conditions". Google AdSense. Retrieved May 9, 2007. 
  6. ^ Simon, Caldwell (April 9, 2008). "Christian group sues Google after search engine refuses to take its abortion adverts". London: Daily Mail. Retrieved April 8, 2008. [Google's] Dublin-based advertising team replied: At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content.' 
  7. ^ Hayley Tsukayama (April 28, 2014). "Google removes "deceptive" pregnancy center ads". Washington Post. Retrieved August 29, 2017. 
  8. ^ Steven Ertelt (April 28, 2014). "Google Bans Ads From Pregnancy Centers After Lobbying From 'Pro-Choice' NARAL". LifeNews.com. Retrieved August 29, 2017. 
  9. ^ "Google accused of airbrushing Katrina history". NBS News. Associated Press. March 30, 2007. Retrieved September 26, 2013. 
  10. ^ "Post-Katrina images of New Orleans on Google Maps". Google. September 2, 2005. 
  11. ^ "About the New Orleans imagery in Google Maps and Earth". Google. April 2, 2007. 
  12. ^ a b Zeman, Eric (March 7, 2008). "Google Caves To Pentagon Wishes". Information Week. 
  13. ^ "Google Maps Privacy and Security", Goggle Inc. Retrieved August 12, 2014.
  14. ^ "German foreign minister joins criticism of Google's mapping program", Catherine Bolsover, Deutsche Welle, August 14, 2010. Retrieved August 12, 2014.
  15. ^ "Keyword: Google and the DMCA" Archived 2008-06-20 at the Wayback Machine., Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
  16. ^ "GOOGLE, Censorship and Scientology?". F.A.C.T.net. March 21, 2002. Archived from the original on May 15, 2006. 
  17. ^ "Google bows to Scientology's DMCA request, yanks critics' site", Declan McCullagh, Politech (politics and technology) mailing list, March 21, 2002
  18. ^ a b c Sherriff, Lucy (September 21, 2006). "Google erases Operation Ore campaign site". The Register. 
  19. ^ a b Zittrain, Jonathan; Edelman, Benjamin. "Localized Google search result exclusions: Statement of issues and call for data." Harvard Law School: Berkman Center for Internet & Society. October 22, 2002.
  20. ^ Matyszczyk, Chris (January 31, 2010). "Google censors 'Lolita' but not 'bestiallity'". CNET News. Archived from the original on 2 March 2017. Retrieved 2 March 2017. 
  21. ^ Jura (18 April 2010). "Google censors lolicon sites". Anime Gerad. Archived from the original on 22 April 2010. Retrieved 2 March 2017. 
  22. ^ Casey Newton (December 12, 2012). "Google tweaks image search to make porn harder to find". CNET News. Retrieved February 3, 2013. 
  23. ^ Matthew Panzarino (December 12, 2012). "Google tweaks image search algorithm and SafeSearch option to show less explicit content". TNW. Retrieved February 3, 2013. 
  24. ^ Josh Wolford (December 16, 2012). "Google No Longer Allows You to Disable SafeSearch, and That Makes Google Search Worse". Web Pro News. Retrieved February 3, 2013. 
  25. ^ Whittaker, Zack (December 12, 2012). "Google.com now 'censors' explicit content from image searches". ZDNet. Retrieved June 14, 2013. 
  26. ^ Sophie Novack (March 5, 2014). "How Google Is Trying to Protect Your Drug Supply". NationalJournal. 
  27. ^ "Pharmaceutical Crime/Operations". Interpol. 
  28. ^ Singel, Ryan (March 28, 2013). "Is Google Censoring Islam Suggestions? Wired Business". Wired.com. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
  29. ^ "Google Discussiegroepen". Google.com. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
  30. ^ "Sex, Violence, and Autocomplete Algorithms: What words do Bing and Google censor from their suggestions?", Nicholas Diakopoulos, Future Tense (Slate), August 2, 2013. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
  31. ^ "Google Instant doesn't work", Google Search Help. Retrieved December 3, 2013.
  32. ^ "Google Blacklist – Words That Google Instant Doesn't Like". 2600.com. Retrieved August 4, 2012. 
  33. ^ Samuel Axon, Mashable (September 29, 2010). "Which words does Google Instant blacklist?". CNN. Retrieved August 4, 2012. 
  34. ^ a b "Google Instant Censorship: The Strangest Terms Blacklisted By Google". The Huffington Post. September 29, 2010. Retrieved August 4, 2012. 
  35. ^ "Google Starts Censoring BitTorrent, RapidShare and More", Torrent Freak, January 26, 2011
  36. ^ "Google Removes 'Bisexual' From Its List of Dirty Words", Michelle Garcia, Advocate.com, September 11, 2012. Retrieved March 14, 2014.
  37. ^ Fanning, Sean (March 26, 2013). "Google gets ungoogleable off Sweden's new word list". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved April 5, 2013. 
  38. ^ "Who, What, Why: What is 'ungoogleable'?". BBC News. 2013-03-27. Retrieved 2017-04-18. 
  39. ^ Williams, Rob (March 26, 2013). "'Ungoogleable' removed from list of Swedish words after row over definition with Google: California based search engine giant asked Swedish to amend definition". The Independent. London. Retrieved April 5, 2013. 
  40. ^ Irvine, Chris (March 25, 2013). "Sweden rows with Google over term 'ungoogleable'". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved April 5, 2013. 
  41. ^ "Search giant criticised after link to video appeared on first page of searches". The Daily Mail. September 2, 2014. Retrieved September 6, 2014. 
  42. ^ "J-Law's pictures to be displayed at an art gallery". Glamour Magazine UK. September 4, 2014. Retrieved September 6, 2014. 
  43. ^ Riley, Duncan (January 14, 2010), Aus Media Gets Encyclopedia Dramatica Story Wrong, Only Some Search Links Removed, The Inquisitr, retrieved February 12, 2014 .
  44. ^ "This company will no longer show up on Google’s search results after court ruling", Business ETC, June 19, 2014.
  45. ^ "Google censors itself for China". BBC News. January 25, 2006. Retrieved January 31, 2008. 
  46. ^ The Great Wall: China Against the World, 1000 BC–AD 2000 Archived March 14, 2015, at the Wayback Machine., Julia Lovell, Grove/Atlantic, March 2007, ISBN 978-0-8021-4297-9
  47. ^ a b "Google move 'black day' for China." BBC News. January 25, 2006.
  48. ^ "Google quietly removed search warning message in China in early December 2012." Engadget. January 4, 2013
  49. ^ a b Google to censor itself in China, CNN (January 26, 2006).
  50. ^ a b Justine Lau, A history of Google in China, Financial Times (July 9, 2010).
  51. ^ "Google: Stop participating in China's Propaganda", Students for a Free Tibet, Yahoo! Groups, February 1, 2006
  52. ^ a b AFX News (January 25, 2006). "Google bows to Chinese censorship with new search site". Forbes. Archived from the original on November 21, 2008. 
  53. ^ "3. Google, Inc." in Race to the Bottom': Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship, Part IV. How Multinational Internet Companies assist Government Censorship in China, Human Rights Watch, Vol. 18 No. 8(C), August 2006
  54. ^ "Google does not censor: take action to defend freedom of information", Amnesty International, May 10, 2006
  55. ^ Fung, Amanda. "Midtown protest targets Google's China site." New York Business. February 14, 2006.
  56. ^ NO LUV 4 Google Website.
  57. ^ "Beijing blocks Google search results over pornography row", Aharon Etengoff, TG Daily (Velum Media), 19 June 2009. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
  58. ^ Official Google Blog. "A new approach to China" January 12, 2010
  59. ^ Official Google Blog. "A new approach to China: an update" March 22, 2010
  60. ^ "BREAKING: Google Pulls Search Engine Out Of China". Business Insider. March 22, 2010. Retrieved March 22, 2010. 
  61. ^ "Google's Chinese Site Redirects to Hong Kong Version". Bloomberg News. March 22, 2010. Retrieved March 22, 2010. 
  62. ^ Robert Peston (29 October 2007). "Peston's Picks:Merrill's Mess". BBC News. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  63. ^ Robert Peston (2 July 2014). "Why has Google cast me into oblivion ?". BBC News. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  64. ^ James Ball (2 July 2014). "EU's right to be forgotten:Guardian articles have been hidden". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  65. ^ Jon Healey (30 August 2011). "Paris's Post-it wars". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  66. ^ Clare Dyer (28 June 2002). "Accused solicitor stands for office". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  67. ^ "Kelly Osbourne Leaves Hospital After Seizure", Sky News via Yahoo! News, 13 March 2013.
  68. ^ "Google Starts Erasing Disputed Search Results", Sky News, 3 July 2014.
  69. ^ "Archaeology specialist tried to steal from shop". The Oxford Mail. 5 May 2006. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  70. ^ Jason Collie (3 July 2014). "Google removes first Oxford story about Robert Daniels-Dwyer's conviction for shoplifting under Right to be Forgotten ruling". The Oxford Mail. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  71. ^ Matthew Holehouse; Rhiannon Williams (4 July 2014). "Google's right to be forgotten hides Islamic marriage of Osborne's brother". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  72. ^ Sally Pook (8 August 2003). "Law Society chief 'faked claims against Asian deputy' ". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  73. ^ Rhiannon Williams (4 July 2014). "Google restores links to Telegraph's deleted articles". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  74. ^ Robert Verkaik (13 July 1999). "'Foul-mouthed' new head of Law Society". The Independent. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  75. ^ Alex Aldridge (3 July 2014). "'Right to be forgotten' ruling sees article about 'foul-mouthed ex Law Society President removed from Google". Legal Cheek. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  76. ^ James Vincent (3 July 2014). "Critics outraged as Google removes search results about top UK lawyer and US banker". The Independent. Retrieved 11 August 2014. 
  77. ^ Matthew Sparkes (18 August 2014). "The EU's 'Right to be Forgotten': Google removes link to Telegraph story about drunk 'Italian Job' stunt". The Telegraph. Retrieved 18 August 2014. 
  78. ^ "Prisión bajo fianza para dos directivos de Riviera" ["Prison on bail for two directors of Riviera"] (in Spanish), El Mundo, 16 September 2008. English translation.
  79. ^ "ELMUNDO.es recibe su primer aviso de eliminación de resultados en Google por el 'derecho al olvido' " ["ELMUNDO.es receive your first notice of removal results in Google for the 'right to be forgotten' "] (in Spanish), Pablo Romero, El Mundo, 16 July 2014. English translation.
  80. ^ "Recht auf Vergessen: Google entfernt SPIEGEL-Artikel aus Suchergebnissen" [Right to be forgotten: Google removed SPIEGEL article from search results] (in German), Ole Reißmann, Spiegel Online, 4 July 2014. English translation. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
  81. ^ "Wie tausend Metastasen" [Like a thousand metastases] (in German), Der Spiegel, 15 May 1995. English translation. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
  82. ^ "Google removes 12 BBC News links in 'right to be forgotten' ", Edwin Lane, BBC News, 19 August 2014.
  83. ^ Error page, Google France, (in French), "Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (site:jesus-is-lord.com). En réponse à une demande légale adressée à Google, nous avons retiré 391 résultat(s) de cette page. Si vous souhaitez en savoir plus sur cette demande, vous pouvez consulter le site ChillingEffects.org." ("No documents match the specified search (site: jesus-is-lord.com). In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 391 result(s) from this page. If you want to know more about this application, you can consult the ChillingEffects.org site."). Retrieved 27 September 2013.
  84. ^ "Google, Microsoft, Yahoo Will Block Indian Gender-Selection Ads". Bloomberg. Retrieved 19 September 2016. 
  85. ^ Articles in HaAyin HaShevi'it (in Hebrew): [1], [2], [3].
  86. ^ "Contact and about", Inquisition 21st century, 8 May 2009. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
  87. ^ "Chapter 16. Our raid on Texas", Inquisition 21st century, 11 March 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
  88. ^ Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Notices > Keyword : Google and the DMCA Archived 2008-06-20 at the Wayback Machine.
  89. ^ Marti, Don (April 12, 2002). "Google Begins Making DMCA Takedowns Public". Linux Journal. 
  90. ^ Gay, Roxane (2016-07-29). "The Blog That Disappeared". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-08-28. 
  91. ^ Sidahmed, Mazin (2016-07-14). "Dennis Cooper fears censorship as Google erases blog without warning". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-08-28. 
  92. ^ "Google can be forced to pull results globally, Canada supreme court rules". Retrieved 29 June 2017. 
  93. ^ Deahl, Dani. "Canada's Supreme Court rules Google must block certain search results worldwide". Retrieved 29 June 2017. 
  94. ^ "YouTube Community Guidelines". YouTube. Retrieved 2007-05-09. 
  95. ^ "YouTube shuts down Egyptian anti-torture activist's account". CNN. November 29, 2007. 
  96. ^ Johnston, Cynthia (December 3, 2007). "YouTube restores account of Egypt anti-torture blogger". Reuters. 
  97. ^ Diehl, Jackson (December 17, 2007). "Egypt's YouTube Democrats". Washington Post. 
  98. ^ Pakistan Drops YouTube Ban CBS News.com
  99. ^ Pakistan welcomes back YouTube Tech news blog - CNET News.com
  100. ^ Beckford, Martin (October 3, 2008). "YouTube censors comedian's anti-Sharia video called 'Welcome to Saudi Britain'". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved April 14, 2010. 
  101. ^ Welcome to Saudi Britain
  102. ^ Israel Brings Battle with Hamas to YouTube, Associated Press (December 31, 2008).
  103. ^ Network, The Dawn/Asia News. "YouTube back in Pakistan with vague transparency". technology.inquirer.net. Retrieved 2016-03-01. 
  104. ^ "What will Pakistanis see on YouTube?". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2016-03-01. 
  105. ^ a b c Robertson, Adi (September 1, 2016). "Why is YouTube being accused of censoring vloggers?". The Verge. Retrieved March 19, 2017. 
  106. ^ "YouTubers protest 'advertiser friendly' policy". USA Today. Retrieved September 2, 2016. 
  107. ^ "A bunch of famous YouTubers are furious at YouTube right now – here's why". Business Insider. Retrieved September 2, 2016. 
  108. ^ "Pause the #YouTubeIsOverParty: YouTube isn't pulling more ads from stars' videos". CNET. Retrieved September 2, 2016. 
  109. ^ "Google Ad Crisis Spreads as Biggest Marketers Halt Spending". Bloomberg. Retrieved March 23, 2017. 
  110. ^ "YouTube: UK government suspends ads amid extremism concerns". BBC News. Retrieved March 23, 2017. 
  111. ^ "New YouTube Rules Restrict Ads to Vetted Channels as PewDiePie Declares The 'Adpocalypse'". Advertising Age. Retrieved April 9, 2017. 
  112. ^ "YouTube will no longer allow creators to make money until they reach 10,000 views". The Verge. Vox Media. Retrieved April 6, 2017. 
  113. ^ Hatmaker, Taylor. "YouTube launches its counter-terrorism experiment for would-be ISIS recruits". TechCrunch. Retrieved 16 September 2017. 
  114. ^ Brown, Jennings. "YouTube Has a New Naughty Corner for Controversial Religious and Supremacist Videos". Gizmodo. Retrieved 16 September 2017. 
  115. ^ YouTube Removes the 'Hail, Trump' Video From Search - Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic, 20 March 2018
  116. ^ Hernandez, Patricia (September 1, 2016). "YouTubers Are Freaking Out About Money and 'Censorship'". Kotaku. Retrieved March 19, 2017. 
  117. ^ a b Taylor, Trey (December 16, 2016). "Battle of the bulge: how streaming censorship is affecting queer musicians". The Guardian. Retrieved March 19, 2017. 
  118. ^ The Guardian. "YouTube changes restrictions on gay-themed content following outcry". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved March 31, 2017. 
  119. ^ Ahmad, Meher (July 12, 2013). "The Internet: A Source of Bullying and Coping for LGBT Youth". Jezebel. Gizmodo Media Group. Retrieved March 31, 2017. 
  120. ^ Duffy, Nick (April 22, 2017). "YouTube tech error censored 'hundreds of thousands' of LGBT videos". PinkNews. Retrieved April 24, 2017. 
  121. ^ http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/06/dennis-prager-lawsuit-against-google-youtube-restricting-conservative-videos
  122. ^ Larkin, Erik (2007-05-10). "Google Shareholders Vote Against Anti-Censorship Proposal". PC World. 
  123. ^ PC World:Google Asks Shareholders to Permit Censorship

External links