5 ms·

Why are search engines getting involved in censorship? I understand that they need to blank out certain sites as required by law, but omitting them entirely is

by Touche 10y ago

Why are search engines getting involved in censorship? I understand that they need to blank out certain sites as required by law, but omitting them entirely is a bad move. When I perform a search I want it to search the web, not the approved-web.

nerdponx 10y ago
Because they're afraid of having iy forced down their throats. Pre-emptive complicance with regulations that don't exist yet is a way for businesses to maintain their autonomy in uncertain regulatory climates. Cf. antibiotic use in animal factory farming.
- x1798DE 10y ago
  This is pretty brutal, because in the end these "chilling effects" versions of censorship can be much harsher than any actual government censorship (which would be constrained by the First Amendment and judicially reviewable).
- toxican 10y ago
  Same reason the ESRB came to be. Government basically said "Figure this crap out, or we will" and publishers and devs came together to hammer out the rating system.
CommanderData 10y ago
Worryingly they did this completely voluntarily. To me this is a form of censorship together with the recent removal of fake news sites. The approved web is what we'll have eventually with little resistance.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  Try this one : open google.com, bing.com and duckduckgo.com type "George Soros is " (with the trailing space) Compare and contrast
  - crystalmeph 10y ago
    That's actually really interesting. I wonder how much of it is baked into the algorithm and how much reflects the demographics of each engine's users? Edit: Wow you got a lot of downvotes fast. I honestly don't know if you're trying to advance a viewpoint or not, and I think you pointed out a very interesting split in the behavior of major engines that's worthy of taking a look at.
    - hamax 10y ago
      The comment is probably downvoted because it's a popular conspiracy theory that Google blocks bad suggestions about specific people the "liberal establishment" supports. In reality Google hides all bad suggestions about people. You can see the same difference in recommendations for "donald trump is a".
      - Hydraulix989 10y ago
        More importantly, you're on a site full of liberals, and people here downvote because they disagree with somebody, not because the content itself is low quality. I, for one, think that regardless of your political views (I didn't even know who George Soros was), this comment was very high quality.
        losvedir 10y ago
        I disagree that that's the explanation in this case. I've definitely noticed the liberal bias in other comments, but this is just beating the dead horse of a conspiracy theory. I downvoted because I spent hours looking into the related theory that Google was trying to influence the election by only showing positive autosuggestions about Clinton, only to conclude that the algorithm generally doesn't autosuggest negative things or allegations of crimes. (You can try with figures like OJ Simpson, Bill Cosby, etc.) So, like the tired old discussions we have all the time (but Go doesn't have generics!, "if you're not the market, you're the product", etc), I downvoted since I don't think it was related to the discussion, particular interesting, or insightful.
- no_wizard 10y ago
  Don't think any of those websites were taken offline. There are always going to be other channels for those news sites to flourish. You can resist. You can use a different search engine. You can use other resources to get information out there. There is a myriad of different options. They're not all 'easy', but they're not impractical either. I'm failing to see how this is going to be an "approved web".
Esau 10y ago
Between media companies and the right to be forgotten, censorship free search is a ship that has long since sailed.
- CommanderData 10y ago
  Web freedom have gone 'softly' which is the best way to do something outrageous I suppose. Softly and slowly. Soon, posting articles about illegal states or economic boycotting will deduct your social popularity on social media. It really isn't too far away. Just replace points with 'recommendations' or 'popular' and it will be done. Social points seems too draconian. Recommendations is better. What we thought was years away has already begun.
deelowe 10y ago
Perhaps this has something to do with the current us administrations stance on net neutrality?
tlow 10y ago
I think the MPAA is a great analogy with their self-implemented rating system. Nerdponx also makes some good points.
Silhouette 10y ago
Why are search engines getting involved in censorship? Censorship is a strong and emotive word, and I think using it in cases like this devalues its significance. Modern search engines consider a huge number of factors, many of them subjectively chosen, when deciding what to present on their results pages. In general, they have no obligation to provide any specific service to any specific visitor. In most contexts, actively helping someone to break the law is frowned upon, or even against the law in itself. The big online services have a very cosy deal legally speaking at the moment, getting away with a lot of things that might otherwise be legally suspect because of special safe harbour rules and the like, which in turn means they can make a great deal of money by doing things automatically without the kind of human intervention and risks that would otherwise apply. It is unlikely to be in their interests to push their luck, because it isn't inherently necessary to give them such a beneficial treatment, and few people other than their shareholders would shed a tear if the climate changed and their running costs went up dramatically as a result. A more positive point is that people who complain about other restrictive measures, like DRM and the laws that make breaking it illegal, often claim that it would be more effective for content producers to offer better legal channels for accessing that content. Promoting legitimate, reliable sources of good quality content is surely in the interests of any search engine. In short, it's entirely reasonable for a major corporate player like Google or Microsoft to steer clear of supporting illegal activities and to promote legal sources for material online.
- no_wizard 10y ago
  The DMCA (specifically safe harbor) has been a god send to businesses like Google, Facebook, many of Microsofts ventures etc.. This what AirBNB is currently using as their defense in the court cases they are having with cities, most notably San Fransisco. I read a great article about this not long ago: https://backchannel.com/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a-problem-64f5464128b6#.q6axcktub https://backchannel.com/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a... Wired also has an older article talking about this too: https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ Its what allows so much of the internet to be the way it is, but abusing it or pushing it too hard could have serious negative consequences..this will be something to watch.
overcast 10y ago
So you're good with just displaying porn / alcohol / drug / cigarette ads at the top then right? Kids use google too. And don't use blockers, because that's censorship.

by Touche 10y ago

nerdponx 10y ago

Because they're afraid of having iy forced down their throats. Pre-emptive complicance with regulations that don't exist yet is a way for businesses to maintain their autonomy in uncertain regulatory climates. Cf. antibiotic use in animal factory farming.

x1798DE 10y ago
This is pretty brutal, because in the end these "chilling effects" versions of censorship can be much harsher than any actual government censorship (which would be constrained by the First Amendment and judicially reviewable).
toxican 10y ago
Same reason the ESRB came to be. Government basically said "Figure this crap out, or we will" and publishers and devs came together to hammer out the rating system.

CommanderData 10y ago

Worryingly they did this completely voluntarily. To me this is a form of censorship together with the recent removal of fake news sites. The approved web is what we'll have eventually with little resistance.

SixSigma 10y ago
Try this one : open google.com, bing.com and duckduckgo.com type "George Soros is " (with the trailing space) Compare and contrast
- crystalmeph 10y ago
  That's actually really interesting. I wonder how much of it is baked into the algorithm and how much reflects the demographics of each engine's users? Edit: Wow you got a lot of downvotes fast. I honestly don't know if you're trying to advance a viewpoint or not, and I think you pointed out a very interesting split in the behavior of major engines that's worthy of taking a look at.
  - hamax 10y ago
    The comment is probably downvoted because it's a popular conspiracy theory that Google blocks bad suggestions about specific people the "liberal establishment" supports. In reality Google hides all bad suggestions about people. You can see the same difference in recommendations for "donald trump is a".
    - Hydraulix989 10y ago
      More importantly, you're on a site full of liberals, and people here downvote because they disagree with somebody, not because the content itself is low quality. I, for one, think that regardless of your political views (I didn't even know who George Soros was), this comment was very high quality.
      - losvedir 10y ago
        I disagree that that's the explanation in this case. I've definitely noticed the liberal bias in other comments, but this is just beating the dead horse of a conspiracy theory. I downvoted because I spent hours looking into the related theory that Google was trying to influence the election by only showing positive autosuggestions about Clinton, only to conclude that the algorithm generally doesn't autosuggest negative things or allegations of crimes. (You can try with figures like OJ Simpson, Bill Cosby, etc.) So, like the tired old discussions we have all the time (but Go doesn't have generics!, "if you're not the market, you're the product", etc), I downvoted since I don't think it was related to the discussion, particular interesting, or insightful.
no_wizard 10y ago
Don't think any of those websites were taken offline. There are always going to be other channels for those news sites to flourish. You can resist. You can use a different search engine. You can use other resources to get information out there. There is a myriad of different options. They're not all 'easy', but they're not impractical either. I'm failing to see how this is going to be an "approved web".

Esau 10y ago

Between media companies and the right to be forgotten, censorship free search is a ship that has long since sailed.

CommanderData 10y ago
Web freedom have gone 'softly' which is the best way to do something outrageous I suppose. Softly and slowly. Soon, posting articles about illegal states or economic boycotting will deduct your social popularity on social media. It really isn't too far away. Just replace points with 'recommendations' or 'popular' and it will be done. Social points seems too draconian. Recommendations is better. What we thought was years away has already begun.

deelowe 10y ago

Perhaps this has something to do with the current us administrations stance on net neutrality?

tlow 10y ago

I think the MPAA is a great analogy with their self-implemented rating system. Nerdponx also makes some good points.

Silhouette 10y ago

Why are search engines getting involved in censorship? Censorship is a strong and emotive word, and I think using it in cases like this devalues its significance. Modern search engines consider a huge number of factors, many of them subjectively chosen, when deciding what to present on their results pages. In general, they have no obligation to provide any specific service to any specific visitor. In most contexts, actively helping someone to break the law is frowned upon, or even against the law in itself. The big online services have a very cosy deal legally speaking at the moment, getting away with a lot of things that might otherwise be legally suspect because of special safe harbour rules and the like, which in turn means they can make a great deal of money by doing things automatically without the kind of human intervention and risks that would otherwise apply. It is unlikely to be in their interests to push their luck, because it isn't inherently necessary to give them such a beneficial treatment, and few people other than their shareholders would shed a tear if the climate changed and their running costs went up dramatically as a result. A more positive point is that people who complain about other restrictive measures, like DRM and the laws that make breaking it illegal, often claim that it would be more effective for content producers to offer better legal channels for accessing that content. Promoting legitimate, reliable sources of good quality content is surely in the interests of any search engine. In short, it's entirely reasonable for a major corporate player like Google or Microsoft to steer clear of supporting illegal activities and to promote legal sources for material online.

no_wizard 10y ago
The DMCA (specifically safe harbor) has been a god send to businesses like Google, Facebook, many of Microsofts ventures etc.. This what AirBNB is currently using as their defense in the court cases they are having with cities, most notably San Fransisco. I read a great article about this not long ago: https://backchannel.com/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a-problem-64f5464128b6#.q6axcktub https://backchannel.com/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a... Wired also has an older article talking about this too: https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ Its what allows so much of the internet to be the way it is, but abusing it or pushing it too hard could have serious negative consequences..this will be something to watch.

overcast 10y ago

So you're good with just displaying porn / alcohol / drug / cigarette ads at the top then right? Kids use google too. And don't use blockers, because that's censorship.