5 ms·

Title is editorialized by submitter. Actual title: "Google Removes Pirate Bay Domains from Search Results Citing Dutch Court Order".

nosianu 5y ago
It is accurate though and it's an important detail. The headline makes it sound as if Google was ordered, which is not the case. > The order targets ISPs and doesn't name Google but the company chose to voluntarily comply. does allow changing the title sometimes: HN guidelines do allow changing the title on one condition: > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. The original title is misleading, leading one to believe Google was ordered.
- sct202 5y ago
  Considering how often Google gets slapped with billion dollar fines in the EU, I'm not surprised they're voluntarily complying.
- CyberShadow 5y ago
  This is subjective to my non-native English skill, but I found the editorialized title much more misleading. "Voluntarily" to me meant with zero obligation or coercion, explicit or implied, from any authority, i.e. doing it out of their sense of duty or something like that. Happy to compromise on that both titles are not ideal :)
- lolive 5y ago
  The legal department of Google is probably doing that to avoid a second court decision, targetting them directly.
- dustintrex 5y ago
  Not really? The original title is careful to say "citing court order", not "per court order" etc. If anything, I think your title is more editorialized, since Google is clearly doing this for legal reasons, not exactly "voluntarily".
  - nosianu 5y ago
    "citing court order" to me as a non-legal person indicates that it is one they received. I hope you don't expect this non-legal forum's headlines to be parsed like legal text? How does "citing" indicate it is not an order Google received? I merely gave my opinion as a non-legal casual news reader. To me at lest this new headline conveyed what happened more clearly before I delved into the article.
    - notreallyserio 5y ago
      "citing a court order against ISPs" would be sufficient, I think.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    As a non-native speaker, the difference between "citing" and "per" would have me confused. The HN title is much more explicit.
- hef19898 5y ago
  No idea what's going on there in the EU right now. But there has been an other case in Germany where certain adult sides are blocked unless they put "strict" measures in place to verify the age of users. Because porn causes severe damage to children and youth. Those sites, xhamster among them, are based on Zyprus in the EU. And a German court found that they have to adhere to German child protection laws. SO we have the case against that DNS provider, one against adult sites and one from the Netherlands against Pirate Bay. Two thoughts: What the fuck happened to the free internet? It seems that the EU is slowly, intentionally or not, building a Chinese wall around European internet. And secondly, apparently those courts didn't realize that VPNs are a thing. My son used VPNs on his phone before I even thought about it. And he didn't pick the worst ones. He is 13.
  - lgl 5y ago
    Ok, I'm from the EU and even I disagree many times with some of the more ridiculous laws that the EU tries to impose on the internet, but on your examples I'm not really sure what exactly is the big deal? What alternatives do you propose except passing laws? Just allow corporations or individuals on the internet to exploit people and children for their own profit without any repercussions because they're on "the free internet"? To allow stealing and profiting out of copyrighted works without repercussions because they're on "the free internet"? There was never such a thing as "the free internet" except in the ideological minds of some people. In reality, when you don't place laws and guards in place, things will always get abused and go downhill pretty fast. For instance, children can't get into strip clubs or casinos in most countries. Those laws exist for a reason and there's no argument you can make that they shouldn't just because those venues are now on the internet, so if a company wants do do business in country X, then they have to abide by that country's laws. It's a perfectly logical and reasonable thing to do and being an "internet company" shouldn't exempt you from all the laws in all the countries, that's just a silly proposition. The fact that VPNs and other workarounds exist also shouldn't preclude such laws from being put in place, otherwise there would be no legal ground on which to prosecute any offenders. There are workarounds for breaking and entering but you wouldn't argue that there shouldn't be such a law because "apparently those courts didn't realize that lockpicks are a thing". So I'm not sure why you're getting so angry about on your specific examples? Laws being put in place that target certain internet behaviors that are already unlawful when not on the internet? Kids not being able to easily access porn websites? Being slightly harder to find pirated content online? It's a strange set of arguments to put your foot down on imho. Also, the country's name is Cyprus.
- dang 5y ago
  I don't think the title implies that. If anything, it weakly implies the opposite - that's how I read the word 'citing'. If the court had ordered them to do it, the headline would have been something like 'Dutch court orders Google [etc.]' or whatever. If there's a misleading aspect, it's that they only removed the search results in the Netherlands while the headline doesn't really make that clear. I think it's borderline though.
dang 5y ago
Fixed now. Thanks! (Submitted title was "Google voluntarily de-lists The Pirate Bay")

nosianu 5y ago

It is accurate though and it's an important detail. The headline makes it sound as if Google was ordered, which is not the case. > The order targets ISPs and doesn't name Google but the company chose to voluntarily comply. does allow changing the title sometimes: HN guidelines do allow changing the title on one condition: > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. The original title is misleading, leading one to believe Google was ordered.

sct202 5y ago
Considering how often Google gets slapped with billion dollar fines in the EU, I'm not surprised they're voluntarily complying.
CyberShadow 5y ago
This is subjective to my non-native English skill, but I found the editorialized title much more misleading. "Voluntarily" to me meant with zero obligation or coercion, explicit or implied, from any authority, i.e. doing it out of their sense of duty or something like that. Happy to compromise on that both titles are not ideal :)
lolive 5y ago
The legal department of Google is probably doing that to avoid a second court decision, targetting them directly.
dustintrex 5y ago
Not really? The original title is careful to say "citing court order", not "per court order" etc. If anything, I think your title is more editorialized, since Google is clearly doing this for legal reasons, not exactly "voluntarily".
- nosianu 5y ago
  "citing court order" to me as a non-legal person indicates that it is one they received. I hope you don't expect this non-legal forum's headlines to be parsed like legal text? How does "citing" indicate it is not an order Google received? I merely gave my opinion as a non-legal casual news reader. To me at lest this new headline conveyed what happened more clearly before I delved into the article.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    "citing a court order against ISPs" would be sufficient, I think.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  As a non-native speaker, the difference between "citing" and "per" would have me confused. The HN title is much more explicit.
hef19898 5y ago
No idea what's going on there in the EU right now. But there has been an other case in Germany where certain adult sides are blocked unless they put "strict" measures in place to verify the age of users. Because porn causes severe damage to children and youth. Those sites, xhamster among them, are based on Zyprus in the EU. And a German court found that they have to adhere to German child protection laws. SO we have the case against that DNS provider, one against adult sites and one from the Netherlands against Pirate Bay. Two thoughts: What the fuck happened to the free internet? It seems that the EU is slowly, intentionally or not, building a Chinese wall around European internet. And secondly, apparently those courts didn't realize that VPNs are a thing. My son used VPNs on his phone before I even thought about it. And he didn't pick the worst ones. He is 13.
- lgl 5y ago
  Ok, I'm from the EU and even I disagree many times with some of the more ridiculous laws that the EU tries to impose on the internet, but on your examples I'm not really sure what exactly is the big deal? What alternatives do you propose except passing laws? Just allow corporations or individuals on the internet to exploit people and children for their own profit without any repercussions because they're on "the free internet"? To allow stealing and profiting out of copyrighted works without repercussions because they're on "the free internet"? There was never such a thing as "the free internet" except in the ideological minds of some people. In reality, when you don't place laws and guards in place, things will always get abused and go downhill pretty fast. For instance, children can't get into strip clubs or casinos in most countries. Those laws exist for a reason and there's no argument you can make that they shouldn't just because those venues are now on the internet, so if a company wants do do business in country X, then they have to abide by that country's laws. It's a perfectly logical and reasonable thing to do and being an "internet company" shouldn't exempt you from all the laws in all the countries, that's just a silly proposition. The fact that VPNs and other workarounds exist also shouldn't preclude such laws from being put in place, otherwise there would be no legal ground on which to prosecute any offenders. There are workarounds for breaking and entering but you wouldn't argue that there shouldn't be such a law because "apparently those courts didn't realize that lockpicks are a thing". So I'm not sure why you're getting so angry about on your specific examples? Laws being put in place that target certain internet behaviors that are already unlawful when not on the internet? Kids not being able to easily access porn websites? Being slightly harder to find pirated content online? It's a strange set of arguments to put your foot down on imho. Also, the country's name is Cyprus.
dang 5y ago
I don't think the title implies that. If anything, it weakly implies the opposite - that's how I read the word 'citing'. If the court had ordered them to do it, the headline would have been something like 'Dutch court orders Google [etc.]' or whatever. If there's a misleading aspect, it's that they only removed the search results in the Netherlands while the headline doesn't really make that clear. I think it's borderline though.

dang 5y ago

Fixed now. Thanks! (Submitted title was "Google voluntarily de-lists The Pirate Bay")