<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Holy Crap: Catholic Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://madisonian.net/2008/12/22/holy-crap-catholic-google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://madisonian.net/2008/12/22/holy-crap-catholic-google/</link>
	<description>a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:56 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2008/12/22/holy-crap-catholic-google/comment-page-1/#comment-268522</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:37:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/?p=1650#comment-268522</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m very interested in these types of websites.  On the positive side, they highlight the bias inherent in any search engine.  Some might not think of the normal Google results as being any more or less biased than Google + Catholic filter, since even Google has to weed out hundreds or thousands of possibly relevant responses in order to deliver up a top 10 list of results.  

On the other hand, if filters prove popular here, they are also going to be more attractive to policymakers eager to censor the web.

I guess I&#039;m in favor of Catholic Google if we know the filters it&#039;s using.  For example, are sites critical of Pope Benedict knocked out?  It would be interesting to see if the Vatican itself endorsed such a filter, as a digital Index Librorum Prohibitorum: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m very interested in these types of websites.  On the positive side, they highlight the bias inherent in any search engine.  Some might not think of the normal Google results as being any more or less biased than Google + Catholic filter, since even Google has to weed out hundreds or thousands of possibly relevant responses in order to deliver up a top 10 list of results.  </p>
<p>On the other hand, if filters prove popular here, they are also going to be more attractive to policymakers eager to censor the web.</p>
<p>I guess I&#8217;m in favor of Catholic Google if we know the filters it&#8217;s using.  For example, are sites critical of Pope Benedict knocked out?  It would be interesting to see if the Vatican itself endorsed such a filter, as a digital Index Librorum Prohibitorum:<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

