6 ms·

> 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. censor

by 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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- krzyk 10y ago
  Also 38 (and also born in communist country, censorship was rampant there), for me this is censorship. And arguments for it are similar to the usual "think of the children" way of thinking which eventually leads to harder censorship, more surveillance and generally poor place to live.
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]

by noja 10y ago

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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
krzyk 10y ago
Also 38 (and also born in communist country, censorship was rampant there), for me this is censorship. And arguments for it are similar to the usual "think of the children" way of thinking which eventually leads to harder censorship, more surveillance and generally poor place to live.

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]