> "shit" is much too mild a word to be a censorship target here.
I could imagine this word list was included to please some politician/ gov't who didn't really check into this; a sort of cover-your-ass alibi censorship of Yahoo.it (because lots of nasty words aren't censored). Maybe the Italian gov't has stricter censorship rules? Just guessing here...
Posted by Philipp Lenssen at May 11, 2006 12:22 PMThis is pure paranoia!
Grassroots journalism isn't necessarily going to replace traditional journalism, but I see that the temptation of the attention-grabbing title is just as common.
The difference is that we, the readers, can say so here and/or elsewhere.
Posted by gianni at May 13, 2006 02:36 PMPhilipp: The problem is that many obvious words aren't on the list.
Gianni: Given all that's happened with outright goverment censorship of search engines, I don't think "pure paranoia" is a fair characterization. There's real examples of governments mandating search results be removed. So while I don't think this is such an extreme situation, I can see where people are coming from.
Attention grabbing title - well, guilty, I guess, though I'd say it's *accurate* too.