But their response was less than Ruth had hoped for. This from Google's "Blogger Support” [firstname.lastname@example.org]:
Blogger is a provider of content creation tools, not a mediator of that content. We allow our users to create blogs, but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. In cases where a contact email address is listed on the page, we recommend working directly with the author to have this information removed or changed.Above statement seems to contradict Google’s and BlogSpot’s own "terms of service" regarding those who use Blogger to post content that is “hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.”
Ruth’s reaction: “I better never hear Google declare that it's totally run by human beings. Because today Google proved...that it isn't.”
My take: Corporations would rather pretend that these types of problems don't exist. In their view, censoring the offending blog might cause more problems than allowing it to rot in relative obscurity. In many ways, this pales by comparison to the highly publicized hate speech of Michael Savage or Ann Coulter, which reaches millions. We might be able to pressure and shame Google by drawing more public attention to their non-action action. Then again, public controversy might also serve PTS's aims -- to attract attention, whether good or bad, to his/her despicable blog.
What would you do?