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

US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 228 posts

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#151

Post by rbanffy »

maratd wrote: post #23
danilocampos wrote: post #9

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck . do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway ? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

I have an idea. Ignore them. Let them enforce their own edicts, rulings, and laws. If enough people disobey, it becomes impossible to enforce. That's why civil disobedience works. Now, if Google grew a pair and told the judge to get lost ... well ... I'll be mighty impressed and they would earn my respect.

The larger you are, the harder it gets to disobey their rulings. Google can fight if the ruling is illegal or obviously unfair, but they can't hide and pretend it's not with them after being mentioned.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#152

Post by Tossrock »

cwe wrote: post #92
danilocampos wrote: post #9

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck . do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway ? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

Start over on Mars

Kim Stanley Robinson fan?

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#154

Post by jiggy2011 »

kpanghmc wrote: post #148
rokhayakebe wrote: post #37

Why can't these companies simply give a unique ID to each item they sell and allow owners to register them online, just like the DMV with cars. In this way you will know what is fake, who bought what, ownership exchange etc...

That would solve the problem of people accidentally buying fake Chanel products. Is that really what Chanel is concerned about here? When I first read this article, I assumed that Chanel was trying to cut down on the number of people who deliberately purchase fake Chanel products since they cost a fraction of the price and are not easily discernible from the real thing.

I wonder if they are really losing sales here though, I imagine most people buying fake Chanel/Rolex etc wouldn't be able to afford the real thing.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#155

Post by ballard »

danilocampos wrote: post #9

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck . do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway ? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

"Technology policy outreach." There, I think that uses enough bullshit for them to understand.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#157

Post by ballard »

VladRussian wrote: post #135
dpatru wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China's leaders are engineers. It just helps them be more repressive. Rather than engineers, we need leaders who value liberty and want to reduce the size and scope of government. The problem we have isn't that people in government aren't bright. They are. It's that they want government to solve too many problems. When you have power, it's tempting to try to solve problems through imposition (by passing laws, e.g., n…

>we need leaders it is hardly possible to describe the root cause of the problem in less words than that.

we need root. :)

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#158

Post by dholowiski »

When the kindle fire comes out and it's not available in Canada, it drives me crazy. When I had to wait years before Netflix was available in Canada I was really mad. When Apple launched iTunes music, the iPhone, TV shows and Movies in the US only I actually illegally obtained a US itunes account.

It sucks living in Canada. Most days. Not today.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#159

Post by marquis »

nupark2 wrote: post #84
dasil003 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ie. if you really want to change the world instead of paying lip service to it and going for the money grab, here's one opportunity.

How do you pay for it? I have a team of capable engineers, and relationships with network/wifi hardware/firmware developers. What I don't have is $2-10M to spend designing open protocols (and building the software), especially with no obvious commercial upside.

Kick-starter? I'll pitch in just to see a decent (and open) white paper come out of it.

Re: US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

#160

Post by dedward »

lkrubner wrote: post #96
angersock wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't suggest that we need a social network, but your first suggestion isn't too far from the truth. The exact thing needed is very boring, very low-level, and very unsexy, and I believe can be summarized thusly: We need a method for locating hosts on a network graph which does not have a central point of failure and which cannot be easily disabled. We then need a method for authentically routing messages back a…

Why wouldn't government simply ban the whole thing? Consider ham radio: my dad used to be really into it, and it doesn't cost much to get into it. But the government can scare away a lot of people from it, simply with the distant threat of some kind of punishment. So most people do it the legal way, at which point it becomes a big hassle - tests and certificates. And as soon as tests and certificates are needed, most…

Jurisdiction. The useable rf spectrum is public and limited by physics, so we need regulation.

Private networks hooked to other private networks are not similar. The internet is not a thing.

They can go after parts they have power over, like .com, but the core concept of simply communicating...... O so easy.

Post reply on HN