4 ms·

So does Google: http://i.imgur.com/Wy8cQ.png http://i.imgur.com/Wy8cQ.png Note the "quick" links to Hindi movies, movies & tv, music. How many of those are leg

• tptacek 17y ago
  I see a clear difference between editorial promotion of copyvio versus algorithmic promotion of copyvio, especially when the latter is made possible only by the former. You clearly disagree.
  • omouse 17y ago
    Those "quick" links are editorial promotion by Google. Algorithms don't pick those links.
    • tptacek 17y ago
      Quick links on websites are algorithmic.
      • omouse 17y ago
        I'm fairly certain they aren't. Do you mind if I ask if you've worked for Google?
  • dmnd 17y ago
    The implementation details of category or quick links shouldn't matter. How do you know that a particular torrent index's frontpage category links are not also algorithmically generated?
    • tptacek 17y ago
      Because I'm neither willfully nor casually stupid.
      • dmnd 17y ago
        Maybe I'm being pedantic, but you need a better explanation than you have offered olegk. Google wrote their quick link feature with the intent of applying it to all URLs they index. Torrent index sites categorise their content with the intent of applying it to all torrents they index. If the vast majority of URLs on the internet were infringing copyright, would you still support Google's right to index them? I wonder what percentage of an index needs to refer to infringing content before allowing users to search the index is considered facilitating infringement. This percentage seems to be (a large part of) what judges use as evidence of intent.