Live data from Hacker News

Google Removed 749M Anna's Archive URLs from Its Search Results

torrentfreak.com

101–110 of 168 posts

Re: Google Removed 749M Anna's Archive URLs from Its Search Results

#101

Feels weird to say but I have found using Yandex of all places an excellent search engine for content that get taken down by DMCA requests. Eg if you want to watch a movie that's not on Netflix using a web stream the search results are far better. Feels like Google circa 2005.

As a Ukrainian I cannot feel anything but hatred towards the propaganda machine Yandex has become.

As an engineer I cannot feel anything but respect to the multi-decade research legacy of the company and their incredible search engine.

Re: Google Removed 749M Anna's Archive URLs from Its Search Results

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google hides the most relevant results on the 3rd page. It was confirmed in trial disclosures a few months ago. Their concern isn’t public search.

Edit: after the 3rd page Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/1436/united-st... For fun what Gemini says: “The notion that Google explicitly admitted to "deprioritizing good results to sell more ads" is a common interpretation of these documents and expert testimony.”

> Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552824/1436/united-st...

That's a 230-page pdf. Do you have a more specific citation?

Re: Google Removed 749M Anna's Archive URLs from Its Search Results

#104
post #2

I'm not sure I've ever relied on google to tell me what a site like this had, when the site itself is fully indexed, as this one is. Freetext search over the metastate of title, author, format, date (when available) -seems to work.

Web searches like Google are great when searching for not exact terms, like synonyms for example. I have never encountered a website that has a search capability like that. Google finds the song "Million voices" by Otto Knows, from the search query "a a a a ah ah ah ah dance song".

Re: Google Removed 749M Anna's Archive URLs from Its Search Results

#105
Searching the web has changed:

- There are more walled gardens, so engines legally cannot enter some spaces

- There are more legal problems with data, so more things are not accessible

- to find stuff you have to check google, but also yandex, or kagi, or chatgpt

- I also check my own index for stuff https://github.com/rumca-js/Internet-Places-Database

Re: Google Removed 749M Anna's Archive URLs from Its Search Results

#106
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was more suggesting that I want my LLM provider to launder the IP so it avoids copyright law. The LLM provider is a fancy search engine where copyright does not apply to the results.

Do LLMs filter piracy requests? For example, how will it respond to 'find me a free copy of the Lord of the Rings movies' or more explicitly 'find me a pirated copy ...'?

Probably yes, I know it at least refuses to 'type down first 5 pages of lotr book' because of copyright reasons. Its filter is getting better (as in worse for the user) everyday

Re: Google Removed 749M Anna's Archive URLs from Its Search Results

#109
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publicly traded corporations are machines whose only lawful purpose is to make money. They are legally obligated to be sociopathic systems. They aren't evil like an axe murderer, they're evil like a gasoline fire. They may be useful when properly controlled, but they're certainly never worth defending in the way you seem to feel the need to

>Publicly traded corporations are machines whose only lawful purpose is to make money. Hey, so this isn't the case at all, publicly traded companies are under no lawful obligation to focus only on making money. Fiduciary duty does not mean this in any way. It's a common misconception whose perpetuation is harmful. Let's stop doing it.

> publicly traded companies are under no lawful obligation to focus only on making money

You changed the word "purpose" to "obligation"

I think there is a big difference b/w the two.

I would consider a correction in both of these statements, that the only purpose isn't to make money but rather to make valuation (but same thing most of the times)

They'd rather lose on profits or even burn the profits if that would mean that somehow their valuation could grow faster.

But sooner or later the profits will catch up to the evaluation (I hope) and only profitable companies should have their valuations based on top of that in an efficient economy.

Public traded corporations get money from people indirectly via retirement funds or directly via investing in them directly. The whole idea becomes that the profit to a person retiring is not the profits of the company but rather the valuation of the company. Of course, they aren't a legal obligation to profit itself but I would consider them to be almost under legal obligation to valuation otherwise they would be removed out of being publicly traded or in things like S&P 500 etc.

As an example, in my limited knowledge, take Costco, some rich guy would say for them to raise the price of its hotdog etc. from 1.50$ to 3-4$ for insanely more profits. Yet, they have their own philosophy etc. and that philosophy is partially the reason of their valuation as well.

When the rumour that costco is raising the prices of their hot dogs, someone might expect stock prices to increase considering more "profit" in future but rather the stock prices dropped.. by a huge margin if I remember correctly.

most companies are investing into AI simply because its driving their valuations up like crazy.

I don't think its an understatement to say that companies are willing to do anything for their valuations.

Facebook would try to detect if girls are insecure about their body and try to show advertisements to them. This is in my opinion, predatory nature showed by the corporation. For what purpose? for the valuation.

Post reply on HN