5 ms·

Someone should make a search engine that only indexes sites that Google and DuckDuckgo do not index. It would serve sort of the same purpose as like, lists of b

Someone should make a search engine that only indexes sites that Google and DuckDuckgo do not index. It would serve sort of the same purpose as like, lists of banned books.

bufferoverflow 5y ago
It will be a lot of spam with a bit of useful sites sprinkled randomly.
jfengel 5y ago
You want a list of spam sites, phishing, malware, and SEO-driven gibberish with back-links? Yeah, I guess that would probably be useful for something. Academic research into just how awful people are, perhaps. And, of course, as a blackhole list. Just make sure you get a bulk discount on disk space. Such a list would be huge.
- theknocker 5y ago
- darkteflon 5y ago
  To be fair, “SEO-driven gibberish with back-links” is an apt description of Google’s actual results these days.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  "You want a list of spam sites, phishing, malware, and SEO-driven gibberish with back-links?" Yes, exactly, I want exactly whatever I search for, including that if that's what I search for. If I search for something which exists, then I want the knowledge of that existence. The value judgement is no one else's business unless I search for "X but only where approved by any governments or companies with any political or financial interest in controlling what I know." When it turns out that I would never choose to search for that, that is the proof that it's wrong to be doing it.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    You don't really get the knowledge of its existence if it's one of thirty million hits. A search engine that includes everything is a kind of Library of Babel. The info is there but it doesn't help you.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      I am the only one who may say that.
      - Kiro 5y ago
        No-one wants to see 99.99999% of the spam sites that gets purged in Google's filter. Look at all the complaints of the 0.00001% that gets through.
        Brian_K_White 5y ago
        I want whatever I say I want. There is no reason for legitimate filtering not to be voluntary, like the default porn filter that you have the option to disable. I still have access to my spam folder, and unsolicited communication is not the same as search results. If I search for something, then I searched for it. I am THE ONLY person who may judge the value of the results. The search engine's job is only to tell me what's there, not to tell me what I want.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        Kiro 5y ago
        Most spam emails do not even reach your spam folder. You wouldn't want to see those purged emails either.
        Brian_K_White 5y ago
        You can't say that for anyone else. No one can say that for anyone else. And, repeating, unsolicited communication is different from search results. But in fact yes I do wish I could trust that my spam folder was actually complete. I find false positives in there all the time. But my point was that even if it's incomplete, you still have a spam folder that you can choose whether to look at or not. The fact that some stuff is filtered by other parties before reaching my client or server is irrelevant.
eimrine 5y ago
Banned books are too dangerous for being find publicly, and list of banned books is too useless thing. Better to create a hidden torrent tracker for things nobody else wants to host.
babypuncher 5y ago
I appreciate the sentiment but such an index would be 99.9% spam, malware, and phishing.
- greggsy 5y ago
  Not to mention some incredibly horrible NSFL shit
  - hackernewds 5y ago
    Not to mention, Game of Thrones spoilers
- userbinator 5y ago
  In the eyes of some of those in power, youtube-dl is "malware".
- account42 5y ago
  How do you know or are you just assuming that?
paxys 5y ago
This is the same line of thinking as "someone should set up an alternate social network where users don't get banned". Except that 99.9% of bans at Facebook, Twitter and the like are completely justified, and so that's what the dominant content on your new platform will be.
- zarzavat 5y ago
  > Except that 99.9% of bans at Facebook, Twitter and the like are completely justified Gonna need a big citation on that. One of my Facebook accounts got banned because I accidentally left my VPN on. Whilst I take responsibility for the terrible opsec, the fact is people get banned all the time for doing things that are anti-Facebook rather than anti-social (anti each other). I would definitely use a social network that doesn’t feel like a police state.
  - rrdharan 5y ago
    Well for starters 99.9% of Facebook users don’t use a VPN.
    - account42 5y ago
      We aren't talking of 99.9% of Facebook users, we are talking about 99.9% of banned Facebook users - and a VPN is just one thing that can get a non-malicious user banned.

Someone should make a search engine that only indexes sites that Google and DuckDuckgo do not index. It would serve sort of the same purpose as like, lists of banned books.

bufferoverflow 5y ago

It will be a lot of spam with a bit of useful sites sprinkled randomly.

jfengel 5y ago

You want a list of spam sites, phishing, malware, and SEO-driven gibberish with back-links? Yeah, I guess that would probably be useful for something. Academic research into just how awful people are, perhaps. And, of course, as a blackhole list. Just make sure you get a bulk discount on disk space. Such a list would be huge.

theknocker 5y ago
darkteflon 5y ago
To be fair, “SEO-driven gibberish with back-links” is an apt description of Google’s actual results these days.
Brian_K_White 5y ago
"You want a list of spam sites, phishing, malware, and SEO-driven gibberish with back-links?" Yes, exactly, I want exactly whatever I search for, including that if that's what I search for. If I search for something which exists, then I want the knowledge of that existence. The value judgement is no one else's business unless I search for "X but only where approved by any governments or companies with any political or financial interest in controlling what I know." When it turns out that I would never choose to search for that, that is the proof that it's wrong to be doing it.
- jfengel 5y ago
  You don't really get the knowledge of its existence if it's one of thirty million hits. A search engine that includes everything is a kind of Library of Babel. The info is there but it doesn't help you.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    I am the only one who may say that.
    - Kiro 5y ago
      No-one wants to see 99.99999% of the spam sites that gets purged in Google's filter. Look at all the complaints of the 0.00001% that gets through.
      - Brian_K_White 5y ago
        I want whatever I say I want. There is no reason for legitimate filtering not to be voluntary, like the default porn filter that you have the option to disable. I still have access to my spam folder, and unsolicited communication is not the same as search results. If I search for something, then I searched for it. I am THE ONLY person who may judge the value of the results. The search engine's job is only to tell me what's there, not to tell me what I want.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        Kiro 5y ago
        Most spam emails do not even reach your spam folder. You wouldn't want to see those purged emails either.
        Brian_K_White 5y ago
        You can't say that for anyone else. No one can say that for anyone else. And, repeating, unsolicited communication is different from search results. But in fact yes I do wish I could trust that my spam folder was actually complete. I find false positives in there all the time. But my point was that even if it's incomplete, you still have a spam folder that you can choose whether to look at or not. The fact that some stuff is filtered by other parties before reaching my client or server is irrelevant.

eimrine 5y ago

Banned books are too dangerous for being find publicly, and list of banned books is too useless thing. Better to create a hidden torrent tracker for things nobody else wants to host.

babypuncher 5y ago

I appreciate the sentiment but such an index would be 99.9% spam, malware, and phishing.

greggsy 5y ago
Not to mention some incredibly horrible NSFL shit
- hackernewds 5y ago
  Not to mention, Game of Thrones spoilers
userbinator 5y ago
In the eyes of some of those in power, youtube-dl is "malware".
account42 5y ago
How do you know or are you just assuming that?

paxys 5y ago

This is the same line of thinking as "someone should set up an alternate social network where users don't get banned". Except that 99.9% of bans at Facebook, Twitter and the like are completely justified, and so that's what the dominant content on your new platform will be.

zarzavat 5y ago
> Except that 99.9% of bans at Facebook, Twitter and the like are completely justified Gonna need a big citation on that. One of my Facebook accounts got banned because I accidentally left my VPN on. Whilst I take responsibility for the terrible opsec, the fact is people get banned all the time for doing things that are anti-Facebook rather than anti-social (anti each other). I would definitely use a social network that doesn’t feel like a police state.
- rrdharan 5y ago
  Well for starters 99.9% of Facebook users don’t use a VPN.
  - account42 5y ago
    We aren't talking of 99.9% of Facebook users, we are talking about 99.9% of banned Facebook users - and a VPN is just one thing that can get a non-malicious user banned.