There are a bunch of news on Google's reporting of on governments that request Google to remove content from their website.
One of the interesting things I find is how a traditional news organization will report vs. a Web2.0.
The BBC has their article here.
Google reveals 'terrorism video' removals
This article doesn't say who the author is or provide any links to the original content. Trust us we are the BBC. We know the facts.
GigaOm has a post its post here.
Google says US government takedown requests have doubled in last six months
New data released by Google shows that US government requests to remove search results, YouTube videos and other content has increased by 103 percent in the last half year. The company also released takedown information from around the world that show countries targeting everything from social network profiles to a citizen peeing on a passport.
This post has the name of the author, multiple links, stats on sharing through Twitter, Facebook, etc.
The original Google post is here.
More transparency into government requests
June 17, 2012 at 8:23 PMAbout two years ago, we launched our interactive Transparency Report. We startedby disclosing data about government requests. Since then, we’ve been steadilyadding new features, like graphs showing traffic patterns and disruptions to Google services from different countries. And just a couple weeks ago, we launched a new section showing the requests we get from copyright holders to remove search results.
The traditional way is trust us our brand, our publication. The Web2.0 is show us where you get your information from and who you are.
Which do you trust more to read? BBC or GigaOm. How about your kids or nephews/nieces?
(Disclosure: I work for GigaOm Pro as an analyst.)