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

Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#21

Post by ars »

ernesto99 wrote: post #11
ars wrote: post #5

Extremely inaccurate title, torrentfreak should be ashamed. The results are "censored" only from autocomplete, not from the index itself.

TorrentFreak here... They do censor these words right? The title is correct but we can't always include all nuances. We hope most of our readers will take the time to at least read three sentences :) I considered " Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More From Their Autocomplete and Instant Services Until A User Types In The Complete Term" but that seemed a bit too much. But yeah, I'm very ashamed…

Suggested title:

"Google no longer autocompletes The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More".

Or.

"Google no longer suggests The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More in search bar".

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#22

Post by sampsonjs »

ars wrote: post #5

Extremely inaccurate title, torrentfreak should be ashamed. The results are "censored" only from autocomplete, not from the index itself.

I have no beef with Google doing this, but "censor" is a fine and accurate word for any kind of voluntary suppresion, even if it's now as pejorative as Nazi. Network TV censors rarely stop an entire show from airing, for that matter. e.g. "The show was heavily censored before airing". Let me guess what's next: a fatuous civics lesson on how it's not really "censorship" since Goog isn't the US government.

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#23

Post by JonnieCache »

I said this before last time around on this non-issue:

Google are not preventing people reaching tpb results.

They are declining to actively push these results unbidden upon people.

The massive, fundamental difference between these two things should be obvious.

Do we really think it's unreasonable for google to decline to actively point it's users towards largely illegal material which they had not explicitly requested?

Google is a publicly traded, for-profit corporation. They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it.

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#24

Post by mMark »

I see no problem with this.

It's not "censorship" as TorrentFreak wants to linkbait. All results are still indexed, even sites that are obviously piracy related.

All Google is trying to do is cover their asses when it comes to contributory infringement.

If they were ever sued search engines are USUALLY safe. The exception being when sites actively push users towards pirated content - as we've seen through cases such as the isoHunt case where having a "Top Torrents" list that had mainly studio IP condemned them to heavy losses.

I think the last thing anyone wants is Google to lose a copyright infringement case. The precedent would be the gold standard against search engines and would be enough to start knocking out indexers and torrent sites all over the place.

If they see cause to do a bold move such as this to protect themselves, I say all the more to them.

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#25

Post by ars »

sampsonjs wrote: post #22
ars wrote: post #5

Extremely inaccurate title, torrentfreak should be ashamed. The results are "censored" only from autocomplete, not from the index itself.

I have no beef with Google doing this, but "censor" is a fine and accurate word for any kind of voluntary suppresion, even if it's now as pejorative as Nazi. Network TV censors rarely stop an entire show from airing, for that matter. e.g. "The show was heavily censored before airing". Let me guess what's next: a fatuous civics lesson on how it's not really "censorship" since Goog isn't the US government.

I put censor in quotes because it's barely censoring - the results are still there in the search, they just don't autocomplete.

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#26

Post by gwern »

https://torrentfreak.com/googles-anti-piracy-filter-110712/ astonishes me. The autocomplete stuff actually matters that much? I would not have guessed it, which is just another reminder that I am a geek whose Internet usage differs considerably from much of the population.

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#27

Post by benologist »

ars wrote: post #21
ernesto99 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TorrentFreak here... They do censor these words right? The title is correct but we can't always include all nuances. We hope most of our readers will take the time to at least read three sentences :) I considered " Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More From Their Autocomplete and Instant Services Until A User Types In The Complete Term" but that seemed a bit too much. But yeah, I'm very ashamed…

Suggested title: "Google no longer autocompletes The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More". Or. "Google no longer suggests The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More in search bar".

"Title generates fewer outraged upvotes and pageviews".

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#28

Post by paganel »

JonnieCache wrote: post #23

I said this before last time around on this non-issue: Google are not preventing people reaching tpb results. They are declining to actively push these results unbidden upon people. The massive, fundamental difference between these two things should be obvious. Do we really think it's unreasonable for google to decline to actively point it's users towards largely illegal material which they had not explicitly request…

> They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it.

Google has built its business on other people's content, is that simple. But then it started to gradually "steal" more and more of said people work, until it became the giant corporation that you mention.

And before people start down-voting me, just imagine a giant like IBM (let's say) building a search engine that steals other people's content (because that's what things like Google Places have become) and then making tons of money on the back of it. Hell will break loose.

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#29

Post by JonnieCache »

paganel wrote: post #28
JonnieCache wrote: post #23

I said this before last time around on this non-issue: Google are not preventing people reaching tpb results. They are declining to actively push these results unbidden upon people. The massive, fundamental difference between these two things should be obvious. Do we really think it's unreasonable for google to decline to actively point it's users towards largely illegal material which they had not explicitly request…

> They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it. Google has built its business on other people's content, is that simple. But then it started to gradually "steal" more and more of said people work, until it became the g…

I agree that Places and other similar parts of google's business are highly ethically suspect, far more so than the user profiling and data retention that are more often talked about.

I don't understand how it's related to this particular issue though.

Re: Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

#30

Post by paganel »

JonnieCache wrote: post #29
paganel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it. Google has built its business on other people's content, is that simple. But then it started to gradually "steal" more and more of said people work, until it became the g…

I agree that Places and other similar parts of google's business are highly ethically suspect, far more so than the user profiling and data retention that are more often talked about. I don't understand how it's related to this particular issue though.

> I don't understand how it's related to this particular issue though.

Because when it first started I think there was a mutual, non-spoken agreement between web content-owners and Google, sort of "I give you our content for free to use it on your search engine and you bring me back visitors by trying to be impartial in your SERPs; but I don't expect you to compete against me, not now, not ever".

That didn't last long, to say the least, but said content owners are now prisoners of Google (yes, it's a big word, but that's the fact). If my personal experience counts, I let Googlebot crawl my website like crazy, at speed rates for which I would certainly ban any other potential search engine bots, and that's because Google brings in 98% of my search engine traffic. And I'm sure I'm not the only one banning strange-looking bots, which could belong to potential new, wonderful search engines, but which at this rate will never see the light of day.

And, unfortunately, things like DuckDuckGo are sub-optimal outside of the English sphere of influence, at least that's what I could see in my case.

Post reply on HN