Cranky former Democrat Joe Lieberman last week called on YouTube to remove videos from what he called Islamic terrorist organizations. If they can keep The Daily Show clips off the site, why not calls for the end of the Western world?

YouTube has at last publicly answered the politico's request, and it reads something like this: Go away.

Funny, coming from a company owned by Google, which has no problem turning in its users when international authorities come calling.

CONTINUED »

"An Indian man was arrested over the weekend for allegedly posting derogatory and vulgar content about Indian politician Sonia Gandhi on Google's social networking site, Orkut. 22-year-old Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid had posted his comments in an Orkut community called "I hate Sonia Gandhi" through an Orkut account associated with his Gmail account. With Google's help, local authorities were able to verify Vaid's identity and make the arrest.

"Vaid was charged under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Information Technology Act, according to expressindia. Perhaps surprisingly, the creator of the "I hate Sonia Gandhi" group was left alone, as hating prominent politicians is not illegal in India. Posting vulgar comments about that someone is, however, leading authorities to pursue Vaid.

"Google admitted today that it had forked over Vaid's information after it was requested by Indian law enforcement. A spokesperson for Google told IDG News Service that, while the company is committed to protecting user privacy, it must obey local laws and legal processes." [ArsT]

So this is sort of interesting. The first Google News result for "Sue Simmons," the WNBC anchor who let it fly during a live promo, is her apology: "I have to acknowledge an unfortunate incident : I used a word that many people find offensive. It was a mistake I made and I'm truly sorry." [Google News]

A whiny guy with a Twitter account who wasn't allowed to take a photo of a Google booth gets an apology from the search giant, and is dubbed a hero. BECAUSE HE WROTE ONE LINE OF TEXT ON THE INTERNET COMPLAINING. Are these the type of stories Forbes hopes to hunt down by hiring a new media reporter? [Forbes]

Google had registered the domains GoogleTimeWarner.com, GooglePersonals.com, and, most unsurprisingly, GoogleReligion.com, because that's practically what the company has become. [TC]

Why Google ranks LAMag.com as the first result for "Los Angeles magazine" searches, but also lists the website with a "malware" warning, claiming the site may infect your computer. As such, Google won't even automatically link you to the site; you have to enter the web address manually and assume the risk. Maybe they know something we don't? Copy/paste if you want to visit: http://www.lamag.com/

Western Pennsylvania couple Aaron and Christine Boring only want privacy. Why else do you think they bought a home with a long, private driveway to keep snoops away? Then Google, with its Street View mapping feature, went and allegedly violated their privacy, by sending a camera-equipped van on the Borings' private road and snapping pics of their house.

Google's talking heads say any homeowner's request to have images removed from their database would be honored, but it's unclear whether the couple ever made such a request.

Instead, they've filed a lawsuit against the search giant.

"Isn't litigation the only way to change a big business' conduct with the public?" asks attorney Dennis Moskal. Perhaps. It's also the best way not to stay out of the public eye.

In February, Barack Obama spent $1 million on Internet advertising, much of it devoted to Google search terms. It's a decent tactic: Replace organic search results with paid listings.

Jason Binn appears to be doing the same.

A Google search for his name used to show this Copyranter blog post as the first result. Now it's an ad for the luxe mag guru's Niche Media. Even more troublesome: That pushes Jossip down from 7th to 8th.

The Obama campaign spent $1 million on Google search terms, compared to Clinton's $67,000. From what we can tell, most of the money was spent making search searches for "Obama" or "Clinton" turned up the candidate's website, which Google's standard search results already offered. Search terms "economy," "recession," "Iraq," and "health care" were not advertised on. [MP]

Viacom sued Google for $1 billion over copyright infringement charges, claiming all those Daily Show clips were posted illegally. So sad news for Viacom chief Philippe Dauman: A judge ruled he's entitled to exactly zero dollars punitive damages. The only award he can receive are for the actual costs of infringement. Meanwhile, wasn't Viacom one of those big media companies arguing they weren't making any cash from their online content? The full ruling follows.

CONTINUED »

JuicyCampus.com, the website that is a definitive example of why you should not have sex in college, is looking at dire financial straits. So controversial is the site – where university students post sex gossip about their peers and answer complicated questions like "Who is the sluttiest girl??????" – that Google has banned it from its contextual advertising program AdSense, leaving GlaxoSmithKline to find another outlet to push its herpes-fighting wonder drug Valtrex. [Daily Skiff]

Google Docs is here to remind you:

Thanks, Google! Without you, we may have forgotten all about our fear of dying alone.

ANTI-TRUST, SHMANTI-TRUST Yahoo! must really hate Microsoft. Following Microsoft's unsolicited, inflated bid, Yahoo! has been chatting it up with its chief rival, Google. Everything is on the hush-hush, but it's likely the talks center around giving Google reign over its advertising. But a deal would ultimately about Yahoo! hating Microsoft. It's so nice that rivals like Google and Yahoo! are able to connect over a common enemy. [LAT]

DEALS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE Microsoft wants to buy Yahoo!, you know that other search engine/email provider. Yeah, the one that's not Google. Microsoft is willing to pay $44.6 billion, a 62 percent premium, for a company that is becoming obsolete. We get that Microsoft and Yahoo! share an enemy, but this deal seems like it will end in tears. Then again, if we understood how deals like this work, we wouldn't be working from home in our pajamas in deep Brooklyn. [NYT]

I don't actually say that there's no reason why anyone should feel threatened. Frankly, I think that's a little patronizing to the people running these companies.

There's a complex ecosystem that involves advertisers, people who own content and companies like Google that are there to try to connect content and advertisers and users. There's lots of reasons why they're worried.

I think another way to say it is that I don't think they should be concerned about Google being a competitor, or a source of headache. We're part of the Internet; we're part of the technological transformation that everyone's experiencing.

-David Eun, head of Google's content partnerships, I Want Media