By having anything to do with me you hereby acknowledge that you understand that I cant be bothered to read [those complex agreements Cory lists] and that when I click “yes” it’s not because I’ve read it but just to get to the next screen I therefore do not regard myself as bound by all your complicated agreements

But I never thought it through properly and never wrote it down. Maybe that’s why Boingboing is the worlds most popular blog and the appeal of IdealGov remains so *ahem* selective.

The search algorithms used by Google and other search engines are trade secrets: No-one outside those companies really knows; algorithms are under constant review and development.

However – as opponents of GW Bush demonstrated – when lots of people use the same “link text” (the text displayed in blue) to a particular URL, it can affect search results: Those opponents quickly subverted Google so that searches for derogatory terms produced the President’s web-site.

So, when linking to a commercial web-site, it’s common to be asked – politely – to use that web-site’s preferred “link text,” so as to help their search ranking by Google. (Sensible webmasters will request reasonably sensible “link text,” ie. not something too boastful.)

It’s said to be “bad news” if lots of “bad” web-sites link to your web-site. So webmasters sometimes *ask* for such links to be removed.

It also used to be common for webmasters to ask that links be made only to particular web-pages, rather than to “deep links” within the web-site.

But normally, these are simply polite *requests* rather than government diktats.

Also, why should the UK government need to worry about its search ranking by Google?

The .gov domain will automatically be given a higher ranking than a commercial domain; and provided that the government ensures that its web-pages are useful, Google will reward it. (Ah, but perhaps that’s why they’re worried?)

READ CAREFULLY. By [accepting this material|accepting this payment|accepting this business-card|viewing this t-shirt|reading this sticker] you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

Apparently you can. That noted new technology expert, the former Lord Chancellor, has proposed just such a scheme in order to remove links to news items that may affect the outcome of court cases. I am not making this up, although the BBC may be…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7252474.stm

Remember, these are the ruling elite.

1. [re "by linking you agree to accept..] No. you can’t be forced to accept T&Cs just by linking. Cretinous. where’s the explicit agreement? Hard even to see how one could reasonably construe it in the circumstances. Tosh of the first order. You aren’t bound by them.

2. [re "you should describe DirectGov in this way"] The issue here is one of defamation and it can get a bit complex. But broadly if they are crap you are perfectly entitled in law to say so. Partly it is a matter of free speech and democracy and in addition there is good law to say governments can’t sue for defamation.

3. Removal of links. again, no. As a government agency they would be in all sorts of trouble if they tried to do so. Secondly if you choose to tell someone where to find something publicly and lawfully available then if they don’t like it, tough, they can take their site down.

I find this whole thing stunning.