Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 261 posts

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#41

Post by zawerf »

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #35
AngryData wrote: post #7

Google has been trash for pirate content for awhile now. 9/10 sites it does show are fake and straight up malicious with like 50 different things trying to hijack your browser and make you install shit. Not that real pirate sites are exactly safe, but at least they actually provide what people are looking for.

I run all such queries in a dedicated Linux VM so that I visit any "strange" websites only in that VM. I use a browser not connected to my (sync) account and don't login to any of my usual websites. uBlock Origin with all kinds of lists enabled is on, uMatrix is installed but it was too much of a hassle so it remains disabled. I hope my feeling of relative safety is justified, but I'm not a security expert(?). PS: Be…

I wonder if I am doing too little in comparison?

I just use incognito and adblock. My impression is that whenever there's a remote code execution bug in chrome it becomes big news (ex: Meltdown/Spectre) so usually I can just trust the browser sandbox. Surely anyone with an exploit that can break the sandbox would use it on high value target rather than wasting it on the mass and having it get patched quickly?

I think I've become complacent since it's been more than a decade since I've gotten a virus/malware just from clicking a link.

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#42

Post by ivanche »

kragen wrote: post #5

I often find that Google sends me to scam sites like Elsevier instead of Library Genesis or TPB when what I am searching for can be found there. Is there a better search engine out there that solves this problem?

You might try StartPage (https://www.startpage.com/). I use them happily for about a year now. Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with StartPage in any way.

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#43

Post by laken »

ivanche wrote: post #42
kragen wrote: post #5

I often find that Google sends me to scam sites like Elsevier instead of Library Genesis or TPB when what I am searching for can be found there. Is there a better search engine out there that solves this problem?

You might try StartPage ( https://www.startpage.com/ ). I use them happily for about a year now. Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with StartPage in any way.

IIRC StartPage has the same results as Google, but just proxies, right? Don’t see how it would help the parent commenter.

It’s good in combination with DuckDuckGo though, instead of the `!g` bang, you can do `!sp`

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#44

Post by ItsMe000001 »

zawerf wrote: post #41
ItsMe000001 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run all such queries in a dedicated Linux VM so that I visit any "strange" websites only in that VM. I use a browser not connected to my (sync) account and don't login to any of my usual websites. uBlock Origin with all kinds of lists enabled is on, uMatrix is installed but it was too much of a hassle so it remains disabled. I hope my feeling of relative safety is justified, but I'm not a security expert(?). PS: Be…

I wonder if I am doing too little in comparison? I just use incognito and adblock. My impression is that whenever there's a remote code execution bug in chrome it becomes big news (ex: Meltdown/Spectre) so usually I can just trust the browser sandbox. Surely anyone with an exploit that can break the sandbox would use it on high value target rather than wasting it on the mass and having it get patched quickly? I think…

> it's been more than a decade since I've gotten a virus/malware just from clicking a link

I'm worried that I probably would not even know when/if I have any malware unless the malware detection actually manages to detect it. I think lots of malware tries to remain inconspicuous and not draw attention to itself, only using your machine as a gateway or data source. Even though I know TCP/IP inside out and could inspect my network traffic, there is soooo much stuff going on in today's PCs that I have no intention of even trying.

I would not even know where to start if I had to inspect my operating system. I remember many years ago when a friend's laptop was always buys and created lots of network activity, it was obvious and easily confirmed that it had become a source of spam emails. I think a lot of malicious code is quite a bit more sophisticated and careful now, plus, the much increased bandwidth and raw PC power most people have available lets the same activity go unnoticed that 10 years ago might have had noticeable effects.

That means I think that not noticing any malware nowadays is not proof of absence of malware when the base rate is included, i.e. if we assume a low number of infections assuming no malware gets it mostly right only because of the that, not because we have a reliable way to detect it. If the base rate changes and our assumptions about infections don't change that would be a sign that our own ability to detect infection does not play a role in how we get to our assumption. It would be an interesting study to compare measured infection rates with how safe users felt (if it is the same user population for both). AV vendors and Microsoft might be able to do that.

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#45

Post by keldaris »

cpmouter wrote: post #12
kragen wrote: post #5

I often find that Google sends me to scam sites like Elsevier instead of Library Genesis or TPB when what I am searching for can be found there. Is there a better search engine out there that solves this problem?

In what parallel reality are the proper owners of the copyright "scam sites"?

If you view the business model of Elsevier as a scam perpetrated on the taxpayers who funded the research, there is no logical contradiction between the term "scam site" and the fact that under current legislation in most countries, they are recognized as the copyright owners of the content in question.

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#46

Post by chii »

AngryData wrote: post #7

Google has been trash for pirate content for awhile now. 9/10 sites it does show are fake and straight up malicious with like 50 different things trying to hijack your browser and make you install shit. Not that real pirate sites are exactly safe, but at least they actually provide what people are looking for.

do you have a recommended list of good piracy sites?

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#47

Post by terminalcommand »

icebraining wrote: post #36
terminalcommand wrote: post #22

I seriously think we need torrent trackers solely residing on ipfs. The popular trackers (such as ptb) remove content very easily. It is getting really hard to find tv shows on the net. What we need is a completely anonymous distributed solution. We won't need google then.

https://www.tribler.org/ , which is developed by a not-for-profit research group supported by EU and Dutch research funding, does distributed torrent search without any central server. It's been around for almost a decade now.

Thanks a lot for the heads up. This seems to be exactly the thing I was dreaming of.

If anyone is interested https://github.com/Tribler/tribler/wiki link contains more information.

I'm surprised I didn't hear of this project before.

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#48

Post by dangelov »

cpmouter wrote: post #24
pcr0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'd like that to be true, I end up having to use !g in half my searches. It does okay at keyword matching, but can't infer what I'm actually looking for, falls short at finding obscure/niche topics and its pageload speeds are frustrating compared to Google.

DDG is super super bad. I don't know why people recommend it at all. Now that you mentioned !g I remembered all my DDG experiments... 1) change my default search engine to DDG, 2) use it for some time, 3) use !g in half of my searches, 4) use !g in all of my searches, 5) say "fuck it" and switch back to google

I've had DDG set as default for maybe a year now, across desktop and mobile. As time passes, I find myself using !g less and less, probably less than 10% of the time now. Most of my queries are technical or for common-ish topics, and it's been great.

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#49

Post by dstick »

oldcynic wrote: post #30
cpmouter wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DDG is super super bad. I don't know why people recommend it at all. Now that you mentioned !g I remembered all my DDG experiments... 1) change my default search engine to DDG, 2) use it for some time, 3) use !g in half of my searches, 4) use !g in all of my searches, 5) say "fuck it" and switch back to google

Well I must be using it wrong. Very wrong. I find it better than Google for code / technical searches, and all things work related I find it better than Google for historic or old content as Google barely acknowledges such content is possible any more. Admittedly DDG is "least worst" in this respect but it hasn't entirely thrown the results out with the obsession with recency and update frequency (I consider this to…

Interesting.. since most of my searches are code or tech related, how exactly does DDG compare positively to Google? What difference do you notice that makes you prefer it?

Right now I end up on SO or a handful of other forums depending on the subject.

Might be worth a shot if you say you get better results faster!

Re: Google Downranks 65,000 Pirate Sites in Search Results

#50

Post by gasull »

pcr0 wrote: post #15
cup-of-tea wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make DuckDuckGo your default search engine now. Just do it. You won't miss Google.

As much as I'd like that to be true, I end up having to use !g in half my searches. It does okay at keyword matching, but can't infer what I'm actually looking for, falls short at finding obscure/niche topics and its pageload speeds are frustrating compared to Google.

Try !s instead of !g. About same results as Google, with way more privacy.
Post reply on HN