5 ms·

I fail to see how this is censorship. They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately nor are they stopping you from finding content that

I fail to see how this is censorship. They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately nor are they stopping you from finding content that you agree or disagree with. They aren't stopping facts from coming to light. They aren't stifling news sites. They're stifling an illegal act of procuring content that is within the confines of the current law, agree with it or not, thats all these sites allow you to do. I don't think for instance, pirate bay has ever been known for its breaking news on current events. Edit: For what its worth, these are private companies after all. So 'censorship' in terms of a legal or constitutional definition under freedom of speech, would not apply here anyway.

burkaman 10y ago
Also, it doesn't sound like they're making blanket removals of a blacklist, they're just factoring copyright violations into their ranking algorithms. I'm surprised they weren't already doing this, as it seems like not doing so would cross the line from "we can't be responsible for what our links point to" to "we are actively ignoring illegal use of our platform". If you don't like this, it's clearly just a symptom of copyright laws you don't like, and not really an issue with the search engines.
noja 10y ago
> I fail to see how this is censorship... They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately Legitimately doesn't come into it. censorship noun "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
- ssully 10y ago
  Censorship doesn't come into it all all, and your provided definition helps prove that.
  - jachee 10y ago
    So, what do _you_ call redaction, removal or repression of information that would, unchecked, otherwise be more freely available?
- ryandrake 10y ago
  I'll also point out that the definition does not mention anything about the censor being the government or a private company.
  - no_wizard 10y ago
    I would also say the definition of censorship only explains the narrow concept and not the broader context in society, culture, law and politics.
- overcast 10y ago
  So not censorship in this case. They are removing illegal software sites from their company websites. Side note, I'd like to hear the age of people who argue either side of this topic.
  - mdekkers 10y ago
    47, strongly believe this is inappropriate censorship
  - vetinari 10y ago
    38, born in a communist country. Yes, it is a censorship. It is manipulating the output in order to not provide an information, that would be otherwise available, caused by interest of some third party. To expand on the topic: 1) it is not illegal to tell other people where to find bootleg software or media, 2) in many countries it is legal to download such software or media (and they pay for the privilege in the form of an extra fee on their blank media, memory cards and hard drives, whether they do it or not) 3) what is illegal is to distribute software or media without the consent of the rights owners. Point 3) is an issue between those sites that do it and the rights owners, nothing between the end users or search engines. Neither of them do 3) themselves.
    - overcast 10y ago
      Are you OK then with Google removing sites that are spam, or sites that aren't mobile friendly, or removing a site from the top 10 page one results? Are you good with children being presented with porn/cigarette/alcohol/whatever advertising/results? At what point does "censorship" fall off, and common sense take over.
      - vetinari 10y ago
        Neither of those you named are Google problems. Nobody of us might like spam, but there is obviously something that keeps these in the business. What? Eradicate that, remove their cash flow. I might not like sites that aren't mobile friendly, but fortunately, when I'm not in a mood so scroll around it, I can always close it. No need for Google to step in. I also do not like children being presented with porn/cigarette/alcohol/whatever advertising/results. But - these result do not come themselves, they are initiated, usually by those children. There is more need for parenting, than for Google protection. If it really bothers you, most routers allow for filtering the web, and some ISPs provide that as a service - for those interested, as it should be. The problem with common sense vs censorship is: where you draw the line? That's the hard question, and easily abused one at that. Especially by entities like Google, who are not a harmless protector of innocent or knight in shiny armor. They are businesses, who have interest that may not align with yours, especially in the long run.
- no_wizard 10y ago
  And they aren't censoring anything. I mention legitimately in the context of the article. True censorship would be say...stopping all Reuters news from showing up in google searches might be a decent example. It get murky in the real world because google is a private company and isn't bound by censorship laws the same way the government is. Should it be? Different question all together, but currently it is not.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
chinathrow 10y ago
It's not censorship as long as your own free speech suddenly is silenced by the very same system in place blocking content such as the mentioned one. Then you feel sorry for not having resistet.
- no_wizard 10y ago
  As a relative blanket statement, since thats what we're making here, its not a free speech issue. I believe most western countries that hold the embodiment of free speech, largely exempt private entities from being adhered to the same free speech laws as the government is. There are caveats and things in every country, and I'm not educated enough on that to list all the exemptions and caveats, but broadly speaking, I believe this to be true in most western countries that hold free speech as a right and/or common law So i still wouldn't say they're stopping free speech by not including a website in a google search. You can argue, and I think rightly, that it would stifle the freedom of information to be discovered that wants to be discovered and consumed in that way, however, its not actually silencing or shutting down the website it may be censoring and/or not including, and it is still accessible. Its not 'my speech' either. Illegally downloading and spreading content isn't speech in the first place, and the courts have ruled as such, as do the laws we currently have in place reflect that. At the end of the day, I'm not seeing much of a justification for people getting content illegally.
  - krzyk 10y ago
    If it is legal it not for Google to decide, but given government. They should not interfere. If government says that given site is illegal they can take it down for that particular government/country. (just like github is doing for the Russians - https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns)
    - no_wizard 10y ago
      The courts, the laws, and the judicial system have decided what is and isn't legal. Should they filter results by country? Sure! and I'm not saying they shouldn't. The government has made its decisions on this many times. They're largely following the patterns laid out in those lawsuits cases laws etc. Can't imagine anyone disagreeing the sites they are banning don't distribute illegal content as a primary reason why people visit them in the first place. I'd say thats a good (and strong) litmus test for this sort of thing.
saint_fiasco 10y ago
It depends on how they determine which websites are piracy websites. For example, if they go by how many DMCA takeout requests a site receives, then someone could file frivolous DMCA takeout requests against a site they want to censor.
krzyk 10y ago
Imagine if China force google from showing any sites that mention "Tiananmen Square", because that is the law in China. And now no one in the world would have a way to find it in google, because one country didn't want it to be found. Is that censorship to you?
- no_wizard 10y ago
  They're likely complying with the laws where they do business in this case. censorship? You bet! Government sanctioned censorship. They're a private company doing business in China. They're going to have to make a decision: Either subvert the 'man' or comply with the law. While i would choose subvert the 'man', I would not say i'm doing it because its legal. Different arguments. Also worth noting: These voluntary actions are also legal. They're also private businesses in the USA, and they are free to do this with impunity. One can always take their business elsewhere, or otherwise get information in other ways. They aren't stopping you from accessing anything.
nenreme 10y ago
> They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately. I think you meant "They're not censoring content that you aren't able to access legitimately". This is bullshit. There are a lot of things you can't buy (especially in smaller countries) but which are available on pirate sites. Heck, you can't even watch Netflix own shows in some countries using Netflix because Netflix geoblocked them.
- no_wizard 10y ago
  You are right to believe this is hogwash. I'll concede that all day. However, you knowingly are getting content that the content rights holders have deemed is not going to be published in x area. Netflix has a right (and some would say a duty) to enforce whats in their contractual deals with content/rights holders in pursuant with being able to do the business they do. So the question is: you can't get that content, that much is clear. Why does that mean you should be able to pirate that content because its not distributed in the way you like it to be? This isn't medical care. This isn't news stories. Its TV shows and music and movies. These are pleasure items after all. Does that mean you are entitled to this content because they don't offer it in a way you find acceptable? Edit: really any content getting downloaded illegally (colloquially known as pirated) I haven't ever seen someone argue that the content say, saved a life, or was so important to x that it had to be done. Lets be real: what we're talking about here isn't subverting a totalitarian regime and allowing citizens to talk on the world stage. I reckon most if not all of these sites just shuffle illegal copies of digital goods.
  - Null-Set 10y ago
    I am entitled to the content because someone who has it is offering it to me.
    - no_wizard 10y ago
      Nope. That is definitely not true. There are legal (or for ease of understanding) legitimate channels for getting content. If you are unable to procure that content using those means....that means you don't access that content. What we used to call 'going without'.
gruez 10y ago
>Edit: For what its worth, these are private companies after all. So 'censorship' in terms of a legal or constitutional definition under freedom of speech, would not apply here anyway. The article never claimed it was unconstitutional
- no_wizard 10y ago
  Nope. it did not. I was simply pre-emptively shoring up my argument for those who may throw out a strict legal or constitutional definition of censorship. Just trying to get ahead of misconceptions, or admittedly, what I believe to be common misconceptions.

burkaman 10y ago

Also, it doesn't sound like they're making blanket removals of a blacklist, they're just factoring copyright violations into their ranking algorithms. I'm surprised they weren't already doing this, as it seems like not doing so would cross the line from "we can't be responsible for what our links point to" to "we are actively ignoring illegal use of our platform". If you don't like this, it's clearly just a symptom of copyright laws you don't like, and not really an issue with the search engines.

noja 10y ago

> I fail to see how this is censorship... They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately Legitimately doesn't come into it. censorship noun "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

ssully 10y ago
Censorship doesn't come into it all all, and your provided definition helps prove that.
- jachee 10y ago
  So, what do _you_ call redaction, removal or repression of information that would, unchecked, otherwise be more freely available?
ryandrake 10y ago
I'll also point out that the definition does not mention anything about the censor being the government or a private company.
- no_wizard 10y ago
  I would also say the definition of censorship only explains the narrow concept and not the broader context in society, culture, law and politics.
overcast 10y ago
So not censorship in this case. They are removing illegal software sites from their company websites. Side note, I'd like to hear the age of people who argue either side of this topic.
- mdekkers 10y ago
  47, strongly believe this is inappropriate censorship
- vetinari 10y ago
  38, born in a communist country. Yes, it is a censorship. It is manipulating the output in order to not provide an information, that would be otherwise available, caused by interest of some third party. To expand on the topic: 1) it is not illegal to tell other people where to find bootleg software or media, 2) in many countries it is legal to download such software or media (and they pay for the privilege in the form of an extra fee on their blank media, memory cards and hard drives, whether they do it or not) 3) what is illegal is to distribute software or media without the consent of the rights owners. Point 3) is an issue between those sites that do it and the rights owners, nothing between the end users or search engines. Neither of them do 3) themselves.
  - overcast 10y ago
    Are you OK then with Google removing sites that are spam, or sites that aren't mobile friendly, or removing a site from the top 10 page one results? Are you good with children being presented with porn/cigarette/alcohol/whatever advertising/results? At what point does "censorship" fall off, and common sense take over.
    - vetinari 10y ago
      Neither of those you named are Google problems. Nobody of us might like spam, but there is obviously something that keeps these in the business. What? Eradicate that, remove their cash flow. I might not like sites that aren't mobile friendly, but fortunately, when I'm not in a mood so scroll around it, I can always close it. No need for Google to step in. I also do not like children being presented with porn/cigarette/alcohol/whatever advertising/results. But - these result do not come themselves, they are initiated, usually by those children. There is more need for parenting, than for Google protection. If it really bothers you, most routers allow for filtering the web, and some ISPs provide that as a service - for those interested, as it should be. The problem with common sense vs censorship is: where you draw the line? That's the hard question, and easily abused one at that. Especially by entities like Google, who are not a harmless protector of innocent or knight in shiny armor. They are businesses, who have interest that may not align with yours, especially in the long run.
no_wizard 10y ago
And they aren't censoring anything. I mention legitimately in the context of the article. True censorship would be say...stopping all Reuters news from showing up in google searches might be a decent example. It get murky in the real world because google is a private company and isn't bound by censorship laws the same way the government is. Should it be? Different question all together, but currently it is not.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

chinathrow 10y ago

It's not censorship as long as your own free speech suddenly is silenced by the very same system in place blocking content such as the mentioned one. Then you feel sorry for not having resistet.

no_wizard 10y ago
As a relative blanket statement, since thats what we're making here, its not a free speech issue. I believe most western countries that hold the embodiment of free speech, largely exempt private entities from being adhered to the same free speech laws as the government is. There are caveats and things in every country, and I'm not educated enough on that to list all the exemptions and caveats, but broadly speaking, I believe this to be true in most western countries that hold free speech as a right and/or common law So i still wouldn't say they're stopping free speech by not including a website in a google search. You can argue, and I think rightly, that it would stifle the freedom of information to be discovered that wants to be discovered and consumed in that way, however, its not actually silencing or shutting down the website it may be censoring and/or not including, and it is still accessible. Its not 'my speech' either. Illegally downloading and spreading content isn't speech in the first place, and the courts have ruled as such, as do the laws we currently have in place reflect that. At the end of the day, I'm not seeing much of a justification for people getting content illegally.
- krzyk 10y ago
  If it is legal it not for Google to decide, but given government. They should not interfere. If government says that given site is illegal they can take it down for that particular government/country. (just like github is doing for the Russians - https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns)
  - no_wizard 10y ago
    The courts, the laws, and the judicial system have decided what is and isn't legal. Should they filter results by country? Sure! and I'm not saying they shouldn't. The government has made its decisions on this many times. They're largely following the patterns laid out in those lawsuits cases laws etc. Can't imagine anyone disagreeing the sites they are banning don't distribute illegal content as a primary reason why people visit them in the first place. I'd say thats a good (and strong) litmus test for this sort of thing.

saint_fiasco 10y ago

It depends on how they determine which websites are piracy websites. For example, if they go by how many DMCA takeout requests a site receives, then someone could file frivolous DMCA takeout requests against a site they want to censor.

krzyk 10y ago

Imagine if China force google from showing any sites that mention "Tiananmen Square", because that is the law in China. And now no one in the world would have a way to find it in google, because one country didn't want it to be found. Is that censorship to you?

no_wizard 10y ago
They're likely complying with the laws where they do business in this case. censorship? You bet! Government sanctioned censorship. They're a private company doing business in China. They're going to have to make a decision: Either subvert the 'man' or comply with the law. While i would choose subvert the 'man', I would not say i'm doing it because its legal. Different arguments. Also worth noting: These voluntary actions are also legal. They're also private businesses in the USA, and they are free to do this with impunity. One can always take their business elsewhere, or otherwise get information in other ways. They aren't stopping you from accessing anything.

nenreme 10y ago

> They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately. I think you meant "They're not censoring content that you aren't able to access legitimately". This is bullshit. There are a lot of things you can't buy (especially in smaller countries) but which are available on pirate sites. Heck, you can't even watch Netflix own shows in some countries using Netflix because Netflix geoblocked them.

no_wizard 10y ago
You are right to believe this is hogwash. I'll concede that all day. However, you knowingly are getting content that the content rights holders have deemed is not going to be published in x area. Netflix has a right (and some would say a duty) to enforce whats in their contractual deals with content/rights holders in pursuant with being able to do the business they do. So the question is: you can't get that content, that much is clear. Why does that mean you should be able to pirate that content because its not distributed in the way you like it to be? This isn't medical care. This isn't news stories. Its TV shows and music and movies. These are pleasure items after all. Does that mean you are entitled to this content because they don't offer it in a way you find acceptable? Edit: really any content getting downloaded illegally (colloquially known as pirated) I haven't ever seen someone argue that the content say, saved a life, or was so important to x that it had to be done. Lets be real: what we're talking about here isn't subverting a totalitarian regime and allowing citizens to talk on the world stage. I reckon most if not all of these sites just shuffle illegal copies of digital goods.
- Null-Set 10y ago
  I am entitled to the content because someone who has it is offering it to me.
  - no_wizard 10y ago
    Nope. That is definitely not true. There are legal (or for ease of understanding) legitimate channels for getting content. If you are unable to procure that content using those means....that means you don't access that content. What we used to call 'going without'.

gruez 10y ago

>Edit: For what its worth, these are private companies after all. So 'censorship' in terms of a legal or constitutional definition under freedom of speech, would not apply here anyway. The article never claimed it was unconstitutional

no_wizard 10y ago
Nope. it did not. I was simply pre-emptively shoring up my argument for those who may throw out a strict legal or constitutional definition of censorship. Just trying to get ahead of misconceptions, or admittedly, what I believe to be common misconceptions.