Monday, April 01, 2002
Google and ScientologyThis is another attempt to restrict freedom of information which has been discussed widely: The Church of Scientology's Supremacy over the search term "Scientology" on Google
And here, what I have been writing about it to Google, and the replies I got.
Mail from me to Google March 27, 2002
I've been a long-term fan of Google - intensive internet user and relying very much on this fast, easy and comprehensive search engine with sympathic add-ons.
But now that I know that Google is giving in to factually incorrect) pressure from Scientology lawyers to censure anti-Scientology sites, this had to change.
I regret the Google toolbar I had to remove from IE, I regret having to edit Opera's search engine feature to get another search engine - but I need results I can trust.
And I need, for my job and for private research, results which cover all sides of an issue - be it bugs in Microsoft software, internal opposition of the gays or conservatives within the United Methodist church, or external opposition to political or religious movements.
And if a search engine can be blackmailed or threatened into removing one of these, I cannot be sure it has not also removed others, and I need to look for another tool.
Aside of this fact, you are doing a great job - it's just the one rotten egg which makes the whole, otherwise excellent, cake inedible.
I am following the issue in the web, and in view of my earlier satisfaction I still am ready to recover my trust in Google's results, if I see valid reasons for it in the future.
But for now I use another search engine - and sure one which does show non-spammed entries regarding Scientology. This is sure neither my only nor my main reason to use search engines, but in view of the activities of Scientology in the net, it serves well as a litmus paper to check how far a search engine can be 'influenced' by a pressure group.
Regards
Irmgard WiesnerReply from Google March 27, 2002
Thank you for writing to us about the DMCA and xenu.net.
Google recently received a DMCA complaint regarding xenu.net, which alleged that numerous web pages from that site infringed both copyright and trademark rights. In light of the number of web pages involved, Google requested a list of just the copyright-related pages and we took the position that we would not remove the trademark-related pages, including the home page, www.xenu.net. We then processed the list we received, and only later discovered that it included some trademark-related pages, including the home page, which we promptly restored.
The DMCA establishes a framework for search engines to use regarding copyright issues, which framework involves the following steps: receive notice of infringement, take down links to the allegedly infringing sites, and reinstate those sites if a counter-notice is received. If we do not follow this framework, we risk being sued for copyright infringement merely for providing links to the allegedly infringing sites, regardless of the merits of such a suit. Congress determined that this approach was fair to all parties involved, and while we may not agree with it, it nonetheless is the law.
You can read the text of the DMCA here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi
dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:h2281enr.txt.pdfFinally, although the DMCA controls on copyright issues, we always seek to improve our process regarding it. Accordingly, in the coming weeks, we intend to make changes on our site that will help webmasters understand when and how they can submit counter-notices and that will make DMCA complaint information available.
Google appreciates your interest in the legal issues surrounding the DMCA. We are also following developments in this area very closely and working to make sure we are serving the best interests of our users while complying with the law.
Regards,
The Google TeamMy Reply to Google's Reply April 1, 2002
Dear Google-Team,
It is by no means a decided issue, if linking to a site infringing copyrights is punishable under DMCA, and even less it is legally clear, how far this affects search engines crawling the net automatically.
From there, it looks like your decision was very much on the careful side - and added to that the current controversy about paid advertisings opposing to someone or something, it does not give the impression that you are above giving in to pressure.
On one hand, I can enter into the feelings of someone who is confronted with a potential legal threat by an as notoriously litigatious organization as Scientology.
On the other hand, it is a very real danger to freedom of information, if people and groups get intimidated into censoring by such a group, even in cases which are not clearly infringing DMCA. And it is known, that Scientology makes ample use of legal pressure even where it is not warranted - relying on their litigatious reputation that people will rather give in than risk a trial against them.
And, in your case, it is also simply a matter of business: your business is providing objective information. Many people selected Google because they don't care for search engines putting the biggest payer on top of the list.
And under this aspect, the impression that Google does give in to pressure by vested interests is bad for your business reputation, no matter how legal it might be - while it is no crime to be seen with a glass of beer in the hand, it is not a good thing for you or your organizations, if you are the general of the Salvation Army.
I'll sure follow the issue further, and I'd be glad to regain my trust in Google - so far, I haven't.
Regards
Irmgard Wiesner
posted by Irmgard Wiesner 6:27 PM
Thursday, October 18, 2001
Scientology Tries to Control ZealA few words on Zeal:
it is a categorized, commented directory created mainly by contributions of volunteers - anyone can volunteer to contribute. The contributions are handled by Zealots which are responsible for smaller or bigger categories - Zealots are also volunteers which have invested some work in the Zeal directory, measured in a point system for quantity and quality.
I am at Zeal the Expert Zealot for the category Debates on Scientology (there is also a category Scientology Religionwhich houses all official Scientology sites - and the Freezone sites, due to Zeal policy regarding religions ;-) ).
The Debates cat, of course, houses all the sites Scientology does not like and also some debate sites from Scientologists - which, actually, give a more realistic picture of Scientology than all the official sites together.
Scientologists at Zeal
There are a few Scientologists volunteering at Zeal - adnila, eldubew, and pohukatawa. adnila is an experienced Zealot (I like her, we are in a state of agreeing to disagree), eldubew published a few sites, pohukatawa one. From pohukatawa is nothing known except the user name - which is anyone's right.Scientologist Wants to Remove Site
Today I got a message from pohukatawa in a category forum regarding the Scientology Kills site: Here the message and my reply:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pohutakawa (0)
Zealot: No
# 1. Start of a discussion. posted on Oct 17, 2001 11:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Zealot,
Can you tell me what Zeal's policy is regarding copyright violations?
I ask as the listing for
http://www.scientology-kills.org/is currently featuring a copyright infringement on the first page.
Also, what are the rules in regards to cloaking or hidden text??
Thanks for your time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irmgard (30,734)
Zealot: Yes# 2. Reply to msg #1 posted on Oct 18, 2001 10:42 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if this is a copyright infriction - there are several versions of OT3 published in the net and in books, and to my knowledge RTC denies in some cases that it is the actual text. I have no chance to ascertain that one way or the other - and I also cannot judge if you are competent to say this is a copyright infriction.What do you mean by cloaking or hidden text - and in which way should this be a problem?
Regards
Irmgard
That's the state so far...
posted by Irmgard Wiesner 12:09 PM
Tuesday, October 16, 2001
Understanding TerrorDifferent Cults - Same Experience
This article struck a chord within me - reading it was a similar experience to reading Steve Hassan: a member of a group I don't know tells about experiences that I do know very well.Sure the teachings of that Christian cult are completely different from Scientology teachings - and yet the "feeling" of being in the group, the demands of the group, the attitude of the group members is very similar. Lack of sleep, no time for oneself, extreme demands regarding work which one cannot permanently fulfill - result is punishment of some sort, which hits everyone sooner or later - and then suffering up to be again in good graces with the group and happy to have reached that state again...
Being in a Cult is the Fault of the Cult Member?
Another similar experience - "something must be wrong with you, else you would not..."Especially hard for former cult members who are, as a rule, indoctrinated that anything wrong is their own fault, problem, sin, or however it is called in the group - it's always your fault and the group is always right. And now they tell you again, that it is your fault... Well, it's the same line as "the girl should not have worn a mini-skirt and walked down a dark alley, then she would not have been raped" - NO, NO, NO. It is not her crime, the criminal is the one who raped her!
Sure, cult members are usually uninformed or a bit too cocky (can't happen to me...), they get a fuzzy warm feeling somewhere when meeting hearty acceptance and being told that they are a bit more important than ordinary people - that's about as unusual among human beings as wearing a mini when mini's are fashionable.
And exploitation, disregard for human dignity, controlling people without respecting their free will - these things are wrong, no matter if done to unwilling slaves or seemingly willing cult victims. And they are wrong, no matter if committed by designing brutes or unknowingly by people who are themselves victimized by the cult. This is not a matter of cultural relativity - if you think so, ask yourself how you would feel about it, if you were the victim...
Can Mental Manipulation Create Terrorists?
Can mental manipulation make people not only to willing slaves but to terrorists? Yes, I think this is possible. Every cult has some sort of pet enemy - and part of the cult teaching is, that these enemies do not have the right to be treated as human beings - they are too evil. For Bin Laden it's the Americans, for Hitler the Jews, for Scientologists the psychiatrists, the CIA, the Germans. To harm these people is, for a cult member, equal to serving the common good (which is defined as the cult's advantage) - it's a real service to humanity to get rid of these ....Most cults stay within the limits of the law most of the time - but not all always. And some are proud to have their own laws and their own justice and despise the state to a point that they are proud of not keeping the common laws or turning the laws to their own advantage (and the disadvantage of their supposed enemies) - and if "normal people" outside of the cult are shocked, the cult members know for sure, that these normal people don't see the correct priorities.
Once while in the cult I was ordered by a high-ranking senior to pour a bucket of ice water over a guy who had slept too long - in January. I did it, no hesitation, poured despite his protests, a full bucket of water and ice cubes on his bed - I was proud of obeying the orders, doing my share in maintaining discipline, and I was sure I had done the right thing. Only ten years after leaving the cult I came to a point where I was shocked at what I had done - well, if the guy by chance reads this - now I know it was very wrong what I did and I beg your pardon.
Before the cult or now I just can't imagine how I could do such a thing - I'm not the aggressive type at all. And yet I did something that does not fit with me, with the ethical standards I grew up with - and I thought it right. I also thought it right at the time that Scientologists stole papers from the FBI - I remember the whole group clapping hands when we heard about it, clapping hands when someones reputation was denigrated.
What Can be Done?
Ethical attitudes of people can be changed by mental manipulation - people can be made ruthless, can be made to disregard the rights, the dignity or the life of others - and their own.On the other hand - mental manipulation can be undone. People can get free - that I have also experienced. But it needs teaching them about the methods of mental manipulation that have been applied to them - brute force will not convince them.
My wish is, that people get informed that this danger exists, that it is very real - that people are too informed to fall for that sort of snake oil - and that the knowledge of mental manipulation methods is used, to free those who are captive and ready to do any damage.
Learn! Be Aware!
Don't look the other way because you are not directly concerned.
posted by Irmgard Wiesner 11:00 PM
Thursday, October 11, 2001
Religious Consumer ProtectionThis time some remarks on a German article by Georg Schmid from Relinfo.
Today's consumers of religion get so many colorful advertisements on glossy paper, that there is a real need to get informed - before you buy the car / adopt the religion, afterwards the information is of much less use.
Information by the religions themselves is in many cases as objective and helpful as advertisements from Ford or Mitsubishi - you see beautiful pictures which evoke longings in your soul, you might hear about some factual good points of the product / religion in question - but you sure won't read anything about the drawbacks, not from Scientologists, not from Amish, and not from United Methodists.
Some religions, e.g. Scientology, states, that it is enough to read the official texts and ask the present members - well, for me it isn't. Not now. Three years ago, I was looking for a Christian church to join - there are several at my place. I most liked the atmosphere at the United Methodist Church (one of the conservative sort ;-) - next thing was, that I informed myself, about a church I did not know much about. What did objective books categorizing denominations say about them, what are their distinctives, what are their roots, what is their theology - how does it compare to others, what is their relation to other denominations. Sure, I also talked to the people there - I also had a look at their performance in real life, their integration into life outside of the church.
And I was actively looking for critical texts and remarks about United Methodists - generally and locally. Why? Well, there sure is no flawless church (and if there were, I sure would not be a fitting member ;-) ). so, if I join a church, I want to know which warts and wrinkles I'll have to deal with there. Sure, I found some points people did not like about United Methodists and the United Methodist church,and I heard about some controversies in the local community in recent years. Neither did persuade me not to join - on the contrary, it did convince me, that I did not join a cult or totaliarian church (in my country, United Methodists are a small minority and not a mainstream church).
The internet was a real help to me in doing this research and in making my decision - informed and convinced that it is the right decision for me - books tell more about church history and theory than about the presence and life. But if I had found there only that kind of information (on United Methodists) Scientologists see as acceptable information about themselves - well, I would probably not have joined, due to not knowing enough about the church to join it - once burnt, twice shy.
posted by Irmgard Wiesner 9:53 PM
Monday, October 08, 2001
Psychassault.orgAnother Scientology site which does not tell about it's origin. The main thing they want to tell once more, is that psychiatry is to blame for all evils of the world.
I won't go through the whole site, but some comments to some quotes:
Quotation:
"Psychiatry or psychiatric treatments have also been employed to facilitate the execution of totalitarian and terrorist objectives. The Japanese "kamikaze" pilots who suicidally attacked allied ships during World War II, used psychiatric drugs called amphetamines to get charged up.1 Amphetamines are addictive and can cause personality changes, psychosis, euphoria and combativeness.In the 1980s, such "pep pills" were provided for suicide-bombers in the Middle East.3 Today, Dr. Ariel Merari, a psychologist at Tel Aviv University, tells us that suicide-bombers undergo "psychological indoctrination, intended to motivate them to move past 'the point of no return.'"
End QuotationAmphetamines were up to the fifties used routinely by pilots of all nations (including the US) if they wanted to stay awake with little sleep - also by students before exams and by housewives who wanted to loose a few pounds. Only in the last decades the substance has been restricted (and rightly so) for its addictive potential - in this point Scientology is right. But the subtle equation they infer: "addictive - can facilitate terrorist objectives" is not evidenced by medical literature.
And the inferred equation "pep pills = psychological indoctrination" is plainly wrong. Any hobby psychologist can tell a Scientologist that psychological manipulation is not done by drugs (Scientologists do not use drugs either - but they sure use, if unknowingly, psychological manipulation).
Quotation:
"� MEHMET ALI AGCA, a Turk, attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul on May 13, 1981. Immediately prior to this, Acga was being traced by Israeli Intelligence who suspected him of KGB links. They lost track of him after he entered East Berlin. Acga's blood samples confirmed traces of amphetamines, and Italian intelligence service physicians said that he behaved like someone who had been "brainwashed." "
End QuotationWell, amphetamines are today street drugs - sure no evidence for psychiatric treatment. And if the guy has been brainwashed by KGB (which is just inferred and not proven), does sure not permit the conclusion that psychiatry is behind the attempted assassination.
The logic of the site is generally flawed, specially in two ways:
"after the fact" in interpreted as "because of the fact": He got sick after visiting his grandmother - grandmother was the reason for his sickness.
A person's motives and qualities are equalized to the (alleged) motives of a person he associated with at a time, however loosely. He went as a student to bars which were also frequented by communists - therefore his motives are the same and sure as sinister as those of any communist.
Well - read and judge yourselves...
posted by Irmgard Wiesner 6:04 PM
Saturday, October 06, 2001
An Auditor Writes about PsychiatryI have a deep sympathy for auditors - they belong sure to the most well-meaning people I know.
I am less convinced of the technology they apply - sure, there are some results to show, I've seen some myself, but having now seen and experienced other methods of dealing with problems, I don't think these results are very extraordinary.
I have tackled personal problems with auditing and felt fine about them, only to see them recur - the same problem tackled with Christian lay counseling got solved for good. Scientology says otherwise - but that's what I experienced.
For other problems, I had to learn to adjust myself and reorganize my life to take account of my weaknesses - another thing Scientology would never permit, as weaknesses are there all handled by Scientology (and if not, it's the persons own fault - but never, ever, try to handle it with non-Scientology methods and say it works better than Scientology).
And again other problems were not solved by Christian nor by Scientology counseling but needed medication, to get handled for real - again my experience is contrary to what Scientology says. And neither do I experience any of the negative effects Scientology tells me I'll have from the medications.
Most Scientologists who speak badly about psychiatrists and psychologists (and look at both of them as about the same thing, which shows how informed they really are) have never had any closer contact with any of them - they just believe, what Hubbard tells about them and the official party line tells about them (probably seasoned with what Hubbard tells in his science fiction about them).
I was, as a Scientologist and still for some years after my Scientology time, afraid of getting close to any of these people - afraid I would loose my gains in Scientology through simple contact with them. Sure, Scientologists don't admit such a fear - they just avoid any psy...like the devil the Holy Water. An average Scientologist would not talk to a psychiatrist at a party - he might influence him negatively. Well, psychologists call such an attitude phobia... ;-)
Luckily for me I found a flat in the same house as a psychiatrist - and during the years there, I found her a warmhearted, healthy and sane woman - and a woman who could help people. My real live observations did not at all match what I was told in Scientology.
Being well-meaning does not mean, someone is right - especially not, if the person took over uncritically the opinion of others.
posted by Irmgard Wiesner 7:42 PM
