31–40 of 121 posts
Unless Google removes Wikipeda too, it really doesn't matter what they remove. Example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodi_(software) All links there =) Anytime official site changes, this pages updated. Wikipedia is your Search Engine, when Google fails.
How is it that software makers are culpable when their product us used to commit a crime but not gun manufactures? Is it that copyright violation is such a "heinous" crime that special rules apply?
In other news: "Google removes 'Chrome' from its search autocomplete in anti-piracy effort"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Equally sad as the existence of the terrible Kodi piracy boxes is that the legitimate set top box/"smart TV" industry is completely ignoring it. I'm not aware of any TV manufacturer building Kodi into their product, instead they invent their own junk, which is usually much worse. Does anyone know why the consumer electronics industry is ignoring Kodi?
Because Plex actively courted the Roku's and the Amazon's of the world while Kodi was content to just make great, free software. To boot, Plex began as a fork of XBMC (Kodi's name at the time). Which, given Kodi's GPLv2 license, probably puts Plex out of compliance.
How is it that software makers are culpable when their product us used to commit a crime but not gun manufactures? Is it that copyright violation is such a "heinous" crime that special rules apply?
Not sure what your point is here. Google went to-the-max apeshit insane in their censoring/blocking of gun-related product searches recently, to the point that Google Products search wouldn't return anything labelled with the color burgundy. Surely Google thinks gun manufacturers are so intensely bad as to have 'punished' them via search controls Far, far more than they have here with Kodi. Aside: Neither of these se…
Many sites changed their policies regarding guns in anticipation of the changes to Section 230.
This is standard operating procedure for Google, and presumably all other major search engines. They apply the same filtering to other "objectionable" content and are the sole arbitrators of what fits this definition. How is this news? Is there some other way to solve the very real problem that Google is addressing?
“Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
Since the beginning, our goal has been to develop services that significantly improve the lives of as many people as possible.
Not just for some. For everyone.
To decrement something would appear to be contrary to making it universally accessible.