And even weirder, their email (mentioned in that post) doesn't work.
$ Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
$ googlehealthadvertisingbloggoogle.com
$ Technical details of permanent failure:
$ PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 553 5.5.3 ... Invalid
Is it possible that they have been hacked? Wouldn't be a first time on blogspot... [:-)]

Making political statements is so unlike Google, I also would not be surprised if they had been hacked. If this is genuine, this would be a all-time low in sucking up to prospects and customers.

I have seen the movie, and that statement sure reads like written by a shill from the mentioned health insurers, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies.

> connecting them to isolated and emotional stories of the system at its worst.

Not at all, he show the systemic flows of the private healthcare system.

> Moore’s film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven

Which they are.

> and fails to show healthcare’s interest in patient well-being and care.

Which they surely have, as long as they don't have to pay any significant amount for the patient's care.

Lauren Turner
AP, Google Health

Current: AP, Google Health, Google

Past: Healthcare analyst at The Advisory Board Company
2004-2005 Luce Scholar, Pan-Asia SNP Initiative (Legal research and Initiative Coordinator) at Genome Institute of Singapore & Singapore Agency for Science, Technology, and Research

Education: English, Bioethics, Bio-policy, American Studies, B.A., Princeton University

What kind of a blog is that? It doesnt even allow comments.
No dialogue with the readers, nothing. I think they should call it a pulpit, not a blog.

Unimaginable.

I wrote the following to their email address.

---

Google should be steadfastly embarrassed to offer Healthcare and Insurance companies a way to defuse the fallout of Moore's 'Sicko'. Moore's film highlights the increasingly shoddy care and downright illegal activities that the Health Insurance industry has hoisted upon American Citizens for decades.

Moreover, your offer to the industry to defend their indefensible policies and actions in matters such as these is implies that Google quietly endorses the industry practices of denying healthcare on the basis of the ability to pay.

This, coupled with Google's other recent actions, such as the censoring of the Chinese Internet and some rather dubious privacy policies have me asking the question:

Is this in accordance with your informal corporate motto "Don't be evil?" (http://investor.google.com/conduct.html)

--

My email to the blog address bounced as well, so I sent an email to the Press Center via their feedback form.

http://www.google.com/support/contact/bin/request.py?press=1

you haven't seen the movie yet? but you posted a link to the movie a while ago :P

"Posted by Lauren Turner, Mealy-Mouthed, Forgettable"

I don't understand the problem. They aren't panning the movie, that's exactly what Michael Moore is doing. It's not a negative review.

> The New York Times calls Sicko a “cinematic indictment of the American health care system.”

Read: not us. This is a well-respected, well-read reviewer's opinion which might influence the viewers or potential viewers of the movie.

> The film is generating significant buzz and is sure to spur a lively conversation about health coverage, care, and quality in America.

Nothing negative.

> While legislators, litigators, and patient groups are growing excited, others among us are growing anxious. And why wouldn’t they? Moore attacks health insurers, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies by connecting them to isolated and emotional stories of the system at its worst.

If I worked in the health insurnace industry, I would be anxious too. It's because I work for an industry which is not best serving the American public and once people wake up to that fact (through showing some of the emotional stories of what's happening) my job might be in jeopardy.

The only word in this whole post which might sit on the borderline of a problem is "isolated." But, frankly, if every single interaction with the health industry was as bad as the worst case, the system wouldn't have existed this long. I believe the real issue Michael Moore's taking is that privatized health care creates an incentive toward bad coverage/behavior.

> Moore’s film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcare’s interest in patient well-being and care.

That's exactly what the film does. And for good reason. The industry is money and market driven (they're public companies) and those things trump patient's well-being and care. Good for Michael Moore for pointing it out.

So Google is saying, there's a movie out there (which we're not giving an opinion on) that might make you anxious. If you want to get out the word to help counteract the negative message, you can advertise with Google.

You don't think health insurnace companies are going to try and counteract the negative publicity? You don't think advertising companies are going to try and capitalize on that? This strikes me as totally benign and exactly what someone selling advertising on Google should do.

Nowhere does Google say, "Michael Moore's untrue movie," or "Michael Moore's terrible new movie," or "No one see Michael Moore's new movie."

This is all much ado about nothing.

What Matt says is fair enough, but it doesn't refer to the part that makes me uneasy:

   "Whatever the problem, Google can act as a platform
   for educating the public..."

This is not about "educating the public", it's about using a campaign of spin to boost corporate image.

> You don't think health insurnace companies are going to try
> and counteract the negative publicity? You don't think
> advertising companies are going to try and capitalize on that?

Yes they will do that. But if I was paying money to a health insurer, I would want them to spend my contributions on healthcare and not on image management. Sure, the ad companies will try and capitalize on that, but it doesn't mean it's good for society.

I wonder if Google has any suggestions on how large an ad buy the health care companies should go for? Does Google recommend that they spend the equivalent of breast cancer treatment? Or just psychiatric counseling for a suicidal teen? Perhaps a finger replacement?

F*uck google, f*ck the medical industrial complex

"Sicko" was not a movie about the "philanthropic" activities of HMOs or what they might do right (when they choose to do it), as our faithful blogger hoped the movie would be.

That said, I would prefer the HMOs pay for my prescriptions and many others necessary care rather than be "philanthropic".

Really, the movie was about the nearly 50 million Americans without coverage, the millions who are under insured, and the rest of us who have coverage and then forget about the rest.

(I use the word coverage because the word ins&%#nce was blocked).

All of which is true. I just saw the movie and I thought it was actually very straight-forward.

Sometimes "negative press" is earned and deserved. Sometime it's just spin. This Turner blog post is for sure spin... just trying to keep her clients happy, which I suppose is her job.

I agree with Matt. There's no criticism there. The title of this post is inaccurate.

I agree with Matt above. Unfortunately, the title of this blog post easily creates a bias to think of the Google post as a negative review or criticism of Michael Moore's film. However, the post was more a statement of fact, and then a sales pitch to the health industry.

First, let's keep in mind the context. The blog is meant to reach out to advertisers in the health history. All the blog post did was acknowledge the *fact* that Michael Moore's film is an attack .on the health industry. This is not bad on Moore's part, and Google did not say it is. What Google is saying is that, hardly anyone in media or press focuses on the positive things in the health industry (another fact caused by all the failures of the health industry), and so the health history should use google's advertising system to build its reputation. While there are many truthfully negative things in the health industry, there are some positive things, that the health industry can point out in its defense using advertisement.

So Google was not giving an opinion of the film, but making a sales pitch to use advertisement to defend all the negative things being portrayed about them.

Well someone may say, why don't google lend its voice against all the negative things the health industry is doing. Well, maybe that's for another department at google. But given this is a advertising team focused on the health industry, possibly it wouldn't be best to expect that department to do that. What the blog post did is what any one should reasonable expect from the health ad sales team at google.

it is in boingboing now
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/30/google_to_hmos_pay_u.html

I have yet to find a factual, well-written rebuttal to Mr. Moore's film. Can someone point me in that direction? The "sickened by sicko" reviews are just so terribly thought-out and so poorly written, they made me lose my lunch.

I feel like joining a large mob with torches and pitch forks to deal with the monster Google has become.

How will we buy any of the other products and services blipverted on Google when all of our money is being thrown down the insurance hole to keep our antidepressant perscriptions filled. You wouldn't want me to run out of antidepressants would you Google? You wouldn't like me when I get depressed.

I'm posting from Ireland where our government is on the point of destroying our health system by converting it to the American model. In order to get this done they sought the 'advice' of US insssance (blocked work but you know what I mean) and private healthcare providers – a number of whom are now being invited in to make as much profit as possible out this situation. We absolutely do not want the American model – the whole world knows it doesnt work. I dont agree with Matt at all. I think he is reading a distinction into what Google are doing with this sales pitch that doesn't exist. Sorry Matt, but I think you are hair-splitting in order to let Google off the hook for what is really some rather sicko exploitation of the situation. In fact, its worse than that – they are now directly contributing to the problem Moore sought to expose – by offering these sharks a platform from which to pedal advertising that disguises the truth. The ordinary word for it is lying of course but plain speaking around people who put profit before everything is usually horrifying to them.

I am 24 and loosing teeth because I am disabled and Medicaire doesn't cover Dental. So next week I will be hospitalized due to inflamtory toxic problems due to tooth decay. Medicare will pay in full for that. If I spend 2 weeks that will be 100 grand. Then after a few months again I will be hospitalized, then again. Boy if they just give me 5 grand I can fix my teeth, and save millions in hospital bills.

But they won't give a dime fr the teeth saving.

I would argue that this demonstrates the whole problem with corporate media, of which google is now part. Its function is to sell readers or viewers to advertisers, as Matt correctly points out, but this compromises its role as an impartial information giver.

> Unfortunately, the title of this blog post easily creates
> a bias to think of the Google post as a negative review
> or criticism of Michael Moore's film. However, the post
> was more a statement of fact, and then a sales pitch to
> the health industry.

Or, I agree Google is very *polite* in criticizing the movie... but how is the following *not* criticism towards it (my emphasis)?

"Moore attacks health insurers, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies by connecting them to *isolated* and emotional stories of the system at its worst. Moore's film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and *fails to show* healthcare’s interest in patient well-being and care."

Stating that the cases Moore portrayed were "isolated" is a matter of opinion, as is the movie's alleged "failure" to show other aspects of the health system. So whether or not you agree with Lauren – who goes on to criticize media in general, calling it "a shame" they fail to show the good sites of the health system – she does state some opinions on the movie, and we don't even have to resort to between-the-lines interpretation to show it (and for that, we might thank Lauren because it gives us a clearer view on the Google ad sales departments).

And we agree on one thing Or, Lauren's post was only a weak criticism and hardly fleshed out, because Google has another agenda to push through: in the end they want to sell ads to the health industry. Critizing Sicko is not their original intent, it was a mere means to an end in this case. But that doesn't make it any better... or less noteworthy. (It actually makes it a little more creepy if you ask me.)

ZDnet got a statement from Google:

"Google has no official opinion on Michael Moore or his movie ‘Sicko.’"
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5549

Again a reason to be grateful Lauren stated openly what wasn't supposed to be stated like that – it was a message for the health industry, not the general public, and for the sake of Google's image Google would want that message to be made only in private meetings, phone calls, conferences, health industry newsletters and what-not. This goes to show that while the Health Advertising Blog is still a corporate blog, actually sometimes more things than in traditional press releases slip through.

Philipp, I agree it was ill taste for google to say this openly. This should have been a private conversation with members of the health industry.

I also agree the isolated part is a criticism, but it is not a very strong one, and it seems to be that the point was there are positive cases, which they are. I know the health industry has many flaws, but there are few companies in the industry that do *some* things right. I make that point because if there was not any positive things the health industry could point out, then the ad sales pitch would seem creepy. But since there are positive cases (I actually know people in US who like their health insuranc for example), and a few good health companies, this is not a creepy sales pitch. Unfortunately, the sensitivity of health care, and the many flaws are going to cause a negative public reaction to this kind of sales pitch.

Google Health Advertising Blog: "I offered my personal criticism of the movie."

See http://google-health-ads.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-opinion-and-googles.html...

Lauren Turner has replied to the critism of her initial post on Sicko stating that it was her opinion and not that of Google. Seems odd to me that a corporate blog is allowed to be used for personal opinion though.

[moved]

<em>advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue.</em>

Actually, advertising is an undemocratic way to engage in public dialogue, as it's available only to those who can afford it and can be rejected at will by the publication or company that runs the advertising platform. It is a very "strategic" way to engage in public dialogue.

Lauren has posted a clarification on the health advertising blog.

http://google-health-ads.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-opinion-and-googles.html

In general terms, it's an "Oops." posting, the opinions expressed were her opinions and not Google's. There is, however, an excerpt that caught my eye: (emphasis mine)

> Whether the healthcare industry wants to rebut charges
> in Mr. Moore's movie, or whether Mr. Moore wants to
> challenge the healthcare industry, **advertising is a
> very democratic and effective way to participate in
> a public dialogue**.

Advertising is democratic? I suppose that is true based on the current state of democracy in America, where more money equals more democracy.

Lauren misses a central point: There can be no defense, no reasoning, no "other perspective" of this argument. Very clearly the healthcare insurance industry places profit above all else. That is what pubic corporations do. That is why they exist. That mode of thinking has no place in making decisions regarding the level of care a sick person will get.

Additionally, and this is really what frays my sweater, Lauren as a representative of Google on one of Google's Corporate blogs offering the healthcare industry an opportunity to spin the argument is bad. Very bad. Possibly evil. It is tantamount to Google shilling advertising space to tabacco companies to inform us how 'super cool' it is to light one up.

Join us next week for the "Hey christian rights, buy adwords to counter the familiy-hating ungodly gay-marriage agenda!" Google sales pitch.

> In general terms, it's an "Oops." posting, the opinions
> expressed were her opinions and not Google's.

... though it's hard to believe Lauren's opinions emerged in a vacuum – in fact, my guess is she failed to anticipate the strong criticism *precisely because* she was expressing notions common in her team. If Google really wants to counter the suspicion many have now, they could make public who they pitched their ad space to in the past, so then we could have a look if they're really equally addressing health system proponents *and* critics. But I bet with that data in our hands it would be much harder for Google to single out an individual scapegoat in the form of Lauren (whose only fault from the Google ad sales team perspective might be not her view point itself, but her decision to *share* it with the general public).

What's next? Google offering a special blog suggesting that Exxon and the Coal Fired Generating industry purchase ads so that whenever someone searches for Global Warming or Fuel Efficiency they get a page full of ads saying "Don't worry, everything is fine, the more gasoline your car uses the more attractive you are"

or "We all know that coal dust and emissions are good for your health, now is your chance to buy Adwords to get your message out to the people."

You know- if Google were any other company I wouldn't give a crap if they behaved like this. But for a company that is putting its public image out every day saying how "green" they are and how they care so much about their employees that they give them all free healthcare, it seems pretty hypocritical AT BEST that they're now courting the big pharmaceutical companies and HMOs who are the source of this problem.

What if Google ran this same campaign for anyone who searched for Toyota Prius? They could sell that ad space to Ford and suggest that the advertisements point out that saving gasoline is uncool.

Let's put it this way- no matter how much of a Google fanboi you are, this is Google's single largest public relations disaster in the history of the company. Within 48 hours Google is going to fire a few people and say it was all the mistake of a rogue employee and in no way represented Google policy. You can take that to the bank.

This is not an issue of fairness. Google in their blogpost TOOK A POSITION with their ridiculous lie about how reporters don't tell the truth about how much money drug companies spend on R&D versus advertising. That issue has been hashed a million times and we all know that drug companies spend FAR MORE on advertising than anything else, even though they publicly claim they dont. (but they are forced to tell the truth on their SEC forms)

Read the comments over on Digg. This one issue has turned EVERYONE against Google.

Just wait until this gets wider press coverage on Monday.

On a side-note, for some reason the Digg story doesn't show up on the Digg frontpage (or subsequent pages) for me, even though it does show up on a search for non-buried stories (with 1000+ diggs so far, growing). So was it buried or not?
http://digg.com/politics/Google_to_HMOs_pay_us_and_we_ll_defuse_Sicko

Philipp,

Something is going on with that story. It was on the front page a few minutes ago. And when you do find the story manually, over 70 postings out of 170 have "disappeared"

This is a public relations disaster for Google. I wouldn't doubt if they've made a call to Digg's offices and asked them to silence this topic.

You might also notice that barely half an hour ago, Google issued a public statement on their blog saying that the views of their "medical adsense rep" about the movie Sicko did not reflect the views of Google.

They're backing down from this as fast as they can. There will have to be some public firings to deflect this negative PR.

google canada is trying to block this

these guys are trying to block me

The story has officially been "buried" on digg, and all new comments since around #120 are not being stored, even though the comment number count keeps increasing.

Never in the history of digg, except for the DVD crack-key issue, has digg intentionally started deleting hundreds of posts.

Considering Google is diggs only source of income, clearly it only took one phone call to make this story "go away"

Digg folded like a cheap suit with the previous DMCA takedown notice over the DVD key stories, and now they're doing the same over the Google takedown.

Sad.

As of 30 seconds ago, Google has now removed all links to any articles which discuss this issue at news.google.com. Just 1 hour ago, there were 70 stories about it, linking to sites like blogoscoped and digg and outer court. Now they are ALL GONE.

Google is currently performing the largest censoring project in the history of the company.

This single issue has the potential to bring down the entire company.

Too bad that people did screen captures and hundreds of thousands of people saw this stuff before google re-wrote history.

Not true:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=google+sicko&btnG=Search+News
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/2464/clipboard01gv3.gif

Sure, Moore exaggerates to make his point. He's never claimed to be "fair and balanced." Like his other films, this one is essentially an essay, his point of view.

As a medical doctor who's worked behind the healthcare scenes these past forty years, I thought "Sicko" tells it pretty much like it is. Our system has been so ridiculously complicated, corrupt and ineffectual for so long that it's astonishing we haven't devised anything better.

Google trolling for healthcare industry ads is patent prostitution. Shame.

"(whose only fault from the Google ad sales team perspective might be not her view point itself, but her decision to *share* it with the general public)."

That wouldn't be a surprise to me since the health ad sales team are probably people with backgrounds in the health industry, and who also are looking out for health care interests.

Another thing is I disagree with those who say there is no other perspective. There is, since there are a *few* good companies in the health industry, and a *few* positive cases. Although I agree that there are big flaws.

For example, I am a teacher, many people could point out big things that are wrong with education in America, but as a teacher I also see good things. Just because there are many flaws in an industry does not necesarily mean there aren't good cases. So, it would be likely for those with a background in healthcare to perceive some positive things (such as Lauren)

One last thing, Google's team blogs does not seem to go through much review except from team members. I hope this does not cause google to add more layers and restrictions to blog post since it may mean less meaningful blog posts.

Fgoogle, I don't believe at all that Google called Digg to take down the story, or censored Google News. A more likely explanation, if the story is indeed dugg down on Digg, might be that Digg's system doesn't handle *controversy* well in its algorithm, e.g. we know Michael Moore made a lot of enemies, and the threshold quantity which it takes to bury something may be too low to work well with a controversial story (where opinion may be something like e.g. 30/70, which would mean at 1000+ diggs, 300+ people dugg this down).

Philipp, try posting a message into the digg thread.

No new posts are being allowed. Even stories which are buried accept new posts.

Sent the following to the feedback link on the Google Health Advertising Blog (mailto:googlehealthadvertisingbloggoogle.com).

Interestingly, I received an NDR:
"Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 553 5.5.3 ... Invalid"

date: Jul 1, 2007 5:34 PM
subject: Do no evil? See no evil? Speak no evil?
mailed-by gmail.com
Re: http://google-health-ads.blogspot.com/2007/06/does-negative-press-make-you-sicko.html

Do no evil but have no problem assisting others to do so? It is one thing to accept advertising dollars regardless of race, color or greed, but quite another to explicitly point the way for others to continue their deception of the American public. The healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries need no additional assistance or encouragement to continue their unethical patterns of behavior.

There are, I understand, certain exigencies of business that may require a company to make tradeoffs, to fall to the dark side of morally ambiguous decision points (eg China). This post strays well beyond any illusions of ambiguity. I'm sure the party line is (or will be) that this is the opinion of a single individual and subject to the usual disclaimers of "does not represent the opinion of... etc etc". I'm sorry to say that in this particular case that doesn't cut it.

This has further disillusioned me with a company I had hopes would lead the way to a new model of corporate ethical responsibility.

Regards,

A Sicko Idealist

(The Digg comments system is confusing and very slow. I just submitted a comment but can't find it anymore even when I 1) click the "expand tree" button, 2) select "sort by date/ show all" from the combo box and 3) click the "Show 51 – 101 of 124 discussions" link...)

Philipp,

You can't see it because comments have been locked in that thread.

I can leave comments just fine in other threads, even threads that have more replies.

Digg has specifically blocked all new comments from appearing on that article.

Hey, Turner was just practicing a little 'conversational marketing' like the Battelle-lead FM tact that was tried a couple weeks ago.

What's the big deal?

Tom

"Never in the history of digg, except for the DVD crack-key issue, has digg intentionally started deleting hundreds of posts."

Not exactly true, just do a Google for search for Digg censorship. Digg has been contiuelly accused of censorship. Digg has disabled Digging and commenting on stories in the past aswell (you click the "Digg" button, and it doesn't update the count). And then of course the AACS revolt was probably the biggest todate.

http://www.google.com/search?q=digg+censorship+-site%3Adigg.com

Digg is as much a democracy as China. If the "non-existant" Digg moderators don't like it, it gets pulled.

See also my blog on this:

http://advogato.org/person/raph/diary.html?start=415

I work at Google. Many of us inside the company are very concerned about this too.

[Edited to permalink. -Philipp]

Google apologizes (or not?):
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40717

This is the first time I have ever sent my comment about anything I've read on the internet that has had a negative viceral effect on me but I find that I can't help myself. I can't emphasize how disappointed I am in Google for allowing its blog to be used by one of its employee's to disseminate her "Political" views. In the past I have read about how different Google is from Microsoft in its attitude about business ethics/practices. These snippets had the effect of making me feel good about Google and not hesitant to use its products but this Google blogs attack on the movie "Sicko" have totally reversed my decision about using Google products/services. Consequently, I am going on the defensive as far as Google is concerned. I have done this in the past with other Internet product/services and thought this would never happen with Google but I let my guard down, again. In this day and age with virtually every corporation having a lack of concern about individuals, their welfare and privacy including those that espouse "Green" philosophies every person must now become a cynic to all things "Internet". Use Google and any other search engine/internet service to find ways to preclude Google and others from accumulating information about them. At the very least clear your private Internet searching information several times during each Internet "encounter" and hopefully do much much more. If you are dillegent you will find many methods to short circuit Google and others like them from using your surfing behavior to subvert our Democracy. God bless our injured America and good luck to you all.

Martin,

Do you have any idea WHY the digg moderators decided that no further discussion of this topic would be allowed?

The only possible answer is that someone at Google called them, and told them to shut it down.

Nothing being said in those threads was illegal, or violating copyright. All people were doing was questioning the biggest ethical breach Google has made to date.

If Digg is THAT FAR INTO GOOGLE'S POCKET, then their site is worthless. Has digg been approached by Google for purchase? How could any site agree to do whatever Google tells them with regards to free speech unless a purchase contract was already on the table?

It's also worth noting that they've removed trackback from the Google blog entry. You used to see the list of sites that linked to the article; but not any more.

Joe, I can see the backlinks on both of Lauren's post (though those might not have been activated before, I don't know...). It takes some time to load though...

> Do you have any idea WHY the digg moderators
> decided that no further discussion of this topic would
> be allowed?

Well, I've sent off a question to their official press email now. But given their track record of ignoring all my past 3 queries to their press support since March 2006, I won't set my hopes too high.

The talkbacks have been activated after the denial was taken off the front page.

Interestingly, the Digg story has now been deleted?

http://digg.com/politics/Google_to_HMOs_pay_us_and_we_ll_defuse_Sicko

Kris

the only people with good health care are rich and high level corporate types and a few exceptions otherwise....
dismissing the movie based on 1 or 2 factual bends is dishonest

these are not isolated stories and the comparison with canada and france and the uk are real / factual

shame on you ad junkies
you are anti american and anti democratic
corporate greed undermines our future

[Adjusted from all-uppercase tags to all-lowercase tags.]

I'm actually more appalled by the censorship at Digg on this story. This was not like the HD-DVD keys fisaco; about DMCA takedown or even descend into any name calling in that discussion. I'm inclined to side with fgoogle's obseravation that Digg is in Google's pocket now. When the whole blogosphere (hate the word) is buzzing with this, there's not a single frontpage story on this? Such a shame, Digg is now off my RSS feed list and bookmarks. Bye Digg.

Feeling uneasy, and I have decided to stop using google. There are other search engines that are as good, if only I could find another email service provider to close my gmail account.. Any suggestions?

IMO the second-best web mail client is the new Yahoo Mail. (I also think the second-best search engine is Yahoo, for that matter, though if you want to escape any moral implications, that will be hard: http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-07-20-n20.html).

I will no longer use Google.

When Lauren's parents are sick and in the hospital and start getting jerked around by their health care providers, insurance companies, I do hope someone offers a platform to be "educating the public" that hers is just another "isolated and emotional story."

Perhaps we can even help her find sympathy from the same place she offers it – in the dictionary, somewhere between s**t and syphilis.

Thank you Philipp,

I was a full time user of their products a few years ago, and all of the sudden my account went blank, and lost all my emails.. no explanation no apologies, since then, no more yahoo for me. I will keep looking for an alternative.

By the way, a good thing that Google finally realized that they blew it, I just read your new post about it.

> Well, I've sent off a question to their official press email now. But given
> their track record of ignoring all my past 3 queries to their press support
> since March 2006, I won't set my hopes too high."

Well at least it's not only me who has the feeling Digg only reponds to large media corps.

> Nothing being said in those threads was illegal, or violating copyright. All
> people were doing was questioning the biggest ethical breach Google has
> made to date.

Could be a Digg moderator feels strong about the subject. Or maybe Digg feared that Google might give them a call about it and pulled the plug before being threatened (something I doubt Google would do, but I wouldn't rule it out).