10 ms·

Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More

134 points by llambda 15y ago

VonLipwig 15y ago
The title is misleading. Google still indexes these sites and they still appear in the sites search results. All Google is doing is saying they don't want sites like this to be found quicker or stumbled upon using search helpers like auto-complete. If they want to make it so you need to explicitly hunt down sites which make copyrighted material easily accessible to be download then what is the problem?
redthrowaway 15y ago
Searching for "torrent" lists tpb as the first result for me, as does "tpb" and "thepiratebay". Similarly, "isohunt" returns the expected site, and isohunt.com ranks third for "iso". It doesn't seem to matter whether or not I'm logged in.
- mburns 15y ago
  The third sentence (in bold): "Google’s blacklist prevents the names of sites appearing in their Instant and Autocomplete search services, while the pages themselves remain indexed."
  - geuis 15y ago
    All of the search terms showed up just fine in the auto complete and instant for me.
- andrewtbham 15y ago
  From the article "Google’s blacklist prevents the names of sites appearing in their Instant and Autocomplete search services, while the pages themselves remain indexed."
- ricree 15y ago
  The search results themselves are unchanged, but the instant suggestions are. From a couple quick tests, this seems to be the case for me as well, though it would be easier to be sure if I had results from a year or so ago to compare against. For example, "the pirate ba" returns "the pirate balthasar", "the pirate bar", and "the pirate bar" in several different cities. Amusingly, "bittor" doesn't complete to bittorrent, but does include at least one "piracy" related term. It also has a torrent client as its top result. Spelling suggestions don't seem effected for now. "bitorent" suggests "bittorrent". "thepirtebay" shows results for "thepiratebay".
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Well I don't see what the issue is, then. They do the same thing for porn or anything else that could be remotely offensive. I don't have a problem with that. They aren't blacklisting torrent sites; they're just not suggesting them.
    - kevingadd 15y ago
      BitTorrent is a trademark of a legal company that's trying to make money to pay employees. Google is censoring their name because they've decided they're involved in illegal activity, not because they actually are. If Google decided to censor your business would you be happy about it?
      - redthrowaway 15y ago
        >If Google decided to censor your business would you be happy about it? The millions of porn webmasters out there don't seem to be complaining too loudly. They're just as legal.
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      There is no problem. Some websites are just hiding behind "censorship" so they can look like victims when they're actually acting illegally. Now I seriously doubt that Google will begin to blacklist these sites. That would be a step just a bit far. That is true censorship. For now they'll let you find whatever you want, legal or not. They just won't give you any extra help along the way. I mean, even without the bells and whistles like autocomplete, spelling corrections, +1 suggestions, etc. you can still very easily find anything on Google without much effort. It isn't Google's job to punish illegal activity but they have every right to take away the extra helpful tools that basically shove it in your face. In fact, why would Google even want to censor sites that contain illegal material? Forget the outrage about censorship for a moment. I think law enforcement would want "bad apple" sites in Googles index so they can be easily found and their owners prosecuted.
ars 15y ago
Extremely inaccurate title, torrentfreak should be ashamed. The results are "censored" only from autocomplete, not from the index itself.
- sweely 15y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree.
- ernesto99 15y ago
  TorrentFreak here... They do censor these words right? The title is correct but we can't always include all nuances. We hope most of our readers will take the time to at least read three sentences :) I considered " Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More From Their Autocomplete and Instant Services Until A User Types In The Complete Term" but that seemed a bit too much. But yeah, I'm very ashamed.
  - yanw 15y ago
    Not all editorial action is "censorship", the sites in question are still indexed. And I think you are aware why they are doing it considering the pressure on them from politicians and harmful laws introduced all the time. The title is link-bait.
  - ars 15y ago
    Suggested title: "Google no longer autocompletes The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More". Or. "Google no longer suggests The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More in search bar".
    - benologist 15y ago
      "Title generates fewer outraged upvotes and pageviews".
  - jonhendry 15y ago
    How about "Google stops catering to lazy incompetents"?
wmf 15y ago
This doesn't really explain the back story. Google's autocomplete used to suggest searching for torrents (e.g. type "the dark knight" and it would autocomplete to "the dark knight torrent" because so many people have searched for that). While this was certainly a boon to certain sites, Google has no obligation to provide it (considering that autocomplete didn't even exist for many years). Google's new policy for pirated stuff is the same as for porn: if you're explicitly looking for it they will find it for you, but they won't suggest it. This particular article is just complaining about some new fine-tuning of the same policy.
- ernesto99 15y ago
  This is true, but by Google's filter is not as smart as you would expect and the filter is too broad. Why include the word "BitTorrent" as it's the trademark of a fine US tech company? Why include ALL variations of searches with the dictionary word "torrent"? These decisions appear to be quite arbitrary, which is dangerous when we're talking about censorship.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    I'm sure the "bit" in "BitTorrwnt" is used because people don't know the difference as use the brand name as if it were the same as the technology. Do like Rollerblades? I much prefer inline skates. See what I'm saying? The real solution would be to solve the piracy problem and have the BitTorrent protocol go back to being widely used for its intended purpose. It wasnr intended as a piracy tool, it was intended to be an efficient, decentralized file sharing tool like p2p networks. If those protocols were being used to share the newest office memo in the company network or just non piracy related files in general then there'd be no need to the restriction and it's unintended consequences and we could revert the autocomplete policy. It's the rule breakers that made it this way and that's where your frustration should be directed. But I'll admit that's pretty hard these days. I'm only 25 and I'm the exception but the rest of my generation and younger seem to think piracy is fine and have this sense of entitlement about it. That needs to stop. It's pretty clear this isn't arbitrary just like the Rollerblade example I gave before. Typical users often think you have to type in a URL into the search engine. They never use the address bar! They get from site to site using a 3 step process. 1) Go to search engine of choice. 2 Type in desired URL 3) Click the first result. Those people are the reason the filter is so broad, but in the end it's the pirates who created the need for a filter to begin with.
tzs 15y ago
I'd certainly like to see less pirated stuff in search results that aren't explicitly asking for it. Several times I've been trying to find reviews or discussion of relatively obscure math books, and the top several pages of search results have all been for pirated copies of the book. The funny thing is most of those don't even actually work. The sights are often just directories linking to the alleged downloads and the links are bad.
yanw 15y ago
I don't agree with the terminology, it's not "censorship", the sites in question are still indexed the keywords don't get autocompleted is all.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  These people are abusing the terminology. They know they are supporting piracy. They know it's illegal. Theyre counting on ignorance, exaggeration, and this new Sense of entitlement to free music, movies, and software that's infected the younger generation (at least in the US, and I'm only 25 but it applies to my peers too). They're using these great ideals like freedom as shields and in the end they're going to hurt all of us because of it. They want to act innocent as if they're being persecuted unjustly. It makes me so mad that the freedom of the web might be restricted and it's these same people who say they love freedom so much who gave law makers the excuse to be able to do it!
dpkendal 15y ago
I don't see the problem. They're only blocking the terms from suggestions and requiring you to hit return to finish your search for these. As long as you can still get the same results, I'm happy. This post should probably be retitled to "Google no longer suggests or instantly searches for..." or some variant.
jellicle 15y ago
Yeah, if you just start typing "isohunt " and watch the Instant suggestions, you can see what they mean. Try typing "youtube " or "yahoo " and Google knows just what you mean, right away. Isohunt? Not so much. Typing "torren" gives me suggestions for the Torrens system, apparently a system of land titles in Australia. Who knew? But I'm guessing the number of people who complete that word with a "t" rather than a "s" is in the ratio of tens of thousands to 1. Unless the Torrens system is a lot more popular than I think it is. Oh, Google. Do we have to fight about every little thing? Here's what's best for users and arguably, best for Google in the long run: "Google search tries to find what the user wants to find" Here's what best for Google in the short run: "Google search tries to find what is most profitable for Google, Inc." I'm pretty sure you want to do the first one, not the second one, to maximize the long-term advantage to your company. Companies that intentionally make their product shittier do not actually do well in the long run. None of them. And frankly, trying to "compromise" with the RIAA/MPAA/etc. is foolish. They're paid to push toward a position which is untenable for Google. No matter how much you compromise, they'll be back next year with a further demand. In the end the RIAA/MPAA do not want to co-exist with you; they want the internet to consist of two buttons, one labeled "Buy Music" and one labeled "Buy Movies". So in the end you can't satisfy them. Why try? Nobody at the MPAA will thank you for this.
- 1010011010 15y ago
  Google gets sued by organizations all the time. They don't censor the results -- except when commanded to by law enforcement. They can't "compromise" with the police. And note that this filtering applies only to suggestions, not to actual results. Google wants to make the internet free. Organizations like the RIAA/MPAA/BSA want it to be their own private AOL.
- yanw 15y ago
  Sigh. If this small gesture would appease those trying to ruin the internet with stupid copyright laws and delay their stupidity then why not? there is no harm there, the sites are indexed, this is by no means "censorship" and some lawyer could argue in court that with autocomplete Google is helping pirates or whatever. This is a non-issue.
- 15y ago
JonnieCache 15y ago
I said this before last time around on this non-issue: Google are not preventing people reaching tpb results. They are declining to actively push these results unbidden upon people. The massive, fundamental difference between these two things should be obvious. Do we really think it's unreasonable for google to decline to actively point it's users towards largely illegal material which they had not explicitly requested? Google is a publicly traded, for-profit corporation. They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it.
- paganel 15y ago
  > They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it. Google has built its business on other people's content, is that simple. But then it started to gradually "steal" more and more of said people work, until it became the giant corporation that you mention. And before people start down-voting me, just imagine a giant like IBM (let's say) building a search engine that steals other people's content (because that's what things like Google Places have become) and then making tons of money on the back of it. Hell will break loose.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    I agree that Places and other similar parts of google's business are highly ethically suspect, far more so than the user profiling and data retention that are more often talked about. I don't understand how it's related to this particular issue though.
    - paganel 15y ago
      > I don't understand how it's related to this particular issue though. Because when it first started I think there was a mutual, non-spoken agreement between web content-owners and Google, sort of "I give you our content for free to use it on your search engine and you bring me back visitors by trying to be impartial in your SERPs; but I don't expect you to compete against me, not now, not ever". That didn't last long, to say the least, but said content owners are now prisoners of Google (yes, it's a big word, but that's the fact). If my personal experience counts, I let Googlebot crawl my website like crazy, at speed rates for which I would certainly ban any other potential search engine bots, and that's because Google brings in 98% of my search engine traffic. And I'm sure I'm not the only one banning strange-looking bots, which could belong to potential new, wonderful search engines, but which at this rate will never see the light of day. And, unfortunately, things like DuckDuckGo are sub-optimal outside of the English sphere of influence, at least that's what I could see in my case.
mMark 15y ago
I see no problem with this. It's not "censorship" as TorrentFreak wants to linkbait. All results are still indexed, even sites that are obviously piracy related. All Google is trying to do is cover their asses when it comes to contributory infringement. If they were ever sued search engines are USUALLY safe. The exception being when sites actively push users towards pirated content - as we've seen through cases such as the isoHunt case where having a "Top Torrents" list that had mainly studio IP condemned them to heavy losses. I think the last thing anyone wants is Google to lose a copyright infringement case. The precedent would be the gold standard against search engines and would be enough to start knocking out indexers and torrent sites all over the place. If they see cause to do a bold move such as this to protect themselves, I say all the more to them.
gwern 15y ago
https://torrentfreak.com/googles-anti-piracy-filter-110712/ https://torrentfreak.com/googles-anti-piracy-filter-110712/ astonishes me. The autocomplete stuff actually matters that much? I would not have guessed it, which is just another reminder that I am a geek whose Internet usage differs considerably from much of the population.
artursapek 15y ago
Recently I noticed that Google Chrome has a custom search built in for what.cd (a huge, exclusive music sharing website). When logged in, typing in the URL "what.cd" and hitting space brings up "Search What.CD Artists:" Autocomplete also continues to suggest "what.cd faq" as the first result for "what." It makes sense though. What.CD is a tacit community, much less known about than any of the more "mainstream" file-sharing networks mentioned in this article. I wonder if Google is consciously just leaving it alone because reckons it can afford to. This move is no doubt a PR move and a legal precaution (understandably). It's just funny how they've been selective against the public networks.
- murz 15y ago
  Chrome adds sites that you visit to your list of search engines [1]. It's not built in.. typing in what.cd and hitting space does nothing for me. [1] http://superuser.com/questions/276069/google-chrome-automatically-adding-websites-to-my-list-of-search-engines http://superuser.com/questions/276069/google-chrome-automati...
  - artursapek 15y ago
    Whoops, you're right. My bad
nextparadigms 15y ago
I'm fine with this move, but I hope this is as far as they are about to go. I really hope this isn't a precursor to much more aggressive censorship, like removing those sites from the index or giving them a much lower priority in the search results even when you're specifically looking for them. I know Google is the easy target for RIAA/MPAA and their politician allies lately, but Google really doesn't have to "give in" at all here. At least not until a law like SOPA gets passed. But until the ink is dry on a passed law like that, Google doesn't have to do any concessions. The only reason I could see them doing this anyway is by trying to appease the content industry when making content deals with them for their own services, but for Google's sake, I hope they won't be going that road, because there won't be any turning back. They will just ask for more and more censorship in future deals. They just need to tell them that's absolutely off the table in negotiations, and not even agree to start the negotiations before they acknowledge that.
- draggnar 15y ago
  or just stop using google - at least that would be an option if they took more agressive steps at censorship, which I don't think they will, these seem obvious. The key is that it is not written into law.
prophetjohn 15y ago
I don't find this to be particularly surprising or outrageous. If someone types in "thep", what are they supposed to suggest "thepiratebay.com - download free..."? I think it's a little misleading to say that Google is censoring anything. They're just modifying the Instant algorithm so that they're not suggesting infringing content to their users.
OoTheNigerian 15y ago
My people have a saying, "it is from clapping that dancing begins." I specifically do not have a problem with this. However, each 'moral' step Google makes takes it nearer to dancing and wanting to be the conscience of the web. One day Google might go SOPA and decide to stop linking to sites that America decides support terrorism. I am afraid of when US embargos will mean country domains will stop being indexed. It is dangerous the way Google is so powerful that they can determine the success of other sites. In the words of PG "I worry, I worry". Not for now, but the future.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
I wonder if some of the reaction to this is with a consideration in mind, of Google's search being essential for finding things... and the threat of censorship from them affecting discoverability and cohesiveness that Google enables.
richardw 15y ago
Possibly related: I sell a shareware app. Google has been helpfully suggesting the suffixes 'crack' and 'keygen' for years. Today it isn't - wonder if it's related to the original topic or if it's just a blip.

134 points by llambda 15y ago

The title is misleading. Google still indexes these sites and they still appear in the sites search results. All Google is doing is saying they don't want sites like this to be found quicker or stumbled upon using search helpers like auto-complete. If they want to make it so you need to explicitly hunt down sites which make copyrighted material easily accessible to be download then what is the problem?

redthrowaway 15y ago

Searching for "torrent" lists tpb as the first result for me, as does "tpb" and "thepiratebay". Similarly, "isohunt" returns the expected site, and isohunt.com ranks third for "iso". It doesn't seem to matter whether or not I'm logged in.

mburns 15y ago
The third sentence (in bold): "Google’s blacklist prevents the names of sites appearing in their Instant and Autocomplete search services, while the pages themselves remain indexed."
- geuis 15y ago
  All of the search terms showed up just fine in the auto complete and instant for me.
andrewtbham 15y ago
From the article "Google’s blacklist prevents the names of sites appearing in their Instant and Autocomplete search services, while the pages themselves remain indexed."
ricree 15y ago
The search results themselves are unchanged, but the instant suggestions are. From a couple quick tests, this seems to be the case for me as well, though it would be easier to be sure if I had results from a year or so ago to compare against. For example, "the pirate ba" returns "the pirate balthasar", "the pirate bar", and "the pirate bar" in several different cities. Amusingly, "bittor" doesn't complete to bittorrent, but does include at least one "piracy" related term. It also has a torrent client as its top result. Spelling suggestions don't seem effected for now. "bitorent" suggests "bittorrent". "thepirtebay" shows results for "thepiratebay".
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Well I don't see what the issue is, then. They do the same thing for porn or anything else that could be remotely offensive. I don't have a problem with that. They aren't blacklisting torrent sites; they're just not suggesting them.
  - kevingadd 15y ago
    BitTorrent is a trademark of a legal company that's trying to make money to pay employees. Google is censoring their name because they've decided they're involved in illegal activity, not because they actually are. If Google decided to censor your business would you be happy about it?
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      >If Google decided to censor your business would you be happy about it? The millions of porn webmasters out there don't seem to be complaining too loudly. They're just as legal.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    There is no problem. Some websites are just hiding behind "censorship" so they can look like victims when they're actually acting illegally. Now I seriously doubt that Google will begin to blacklist these sites. That would be a step just a bit far. That is true censorship. For now they'll let you find whatever you want, legal or not. They just won't give you any extra help along the way. I mean, even without the bells and whistles like autocomplete, spelling corrections, +1 suggestions, etc. you can still very easily find anything on Google without much effort. It isn't Google's job to punish illegal activity but they have every right to take away the extra helpful tools that basically shove it in your face. In fact, why would Google even want to censor sites that contain illegal material? Forget the outrage about censorship for a moment. I think law enforcement would want "bad apple" sites in Googles index so they can be easily found and their owners prosecuted.

ars 15y ago

Extremely inaccurate title, torrentfreak should be ashamed. The results are "censored" only from autocomplete, not from the index itself.

sweely 15y ago
I wholeheartedly agree.
ernesto99 15y ago
TorrentFreak here... They do censor these words right? The title is correct but we can't always include all nuances. We hope most of our readers will take the time to at least read three sentences :) I considered " Google Now Censors The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More From Their Autocomplete and Instant Services Until A User Types In The Complete Term" but that seemed a bit too much. But yeah, I'm very ashamed.
- yanw 15y ago
  Not all editorial action is "censorship", the sites in question are still indexed. And I think you are aware why they are doing it considering the pressure on them from politicians and harmful laws introduced all the time. The title is link-bait.
- ars 15y ago
  Suggested title: "Google no longer autocompletes The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More". Or. "Google no longer suggests The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, 4Shared and More in search bar".
  - benologist 15y ago
    "Title generates fewer outraged upvotes and pageviews".
- jonhendry 15y ago
  How about "Google stops catering to lazy incompetents"?

wmf 15y ago

This doesn't really explain the back story. Google's autocomplete used to suggest searching for torrents (e.g. type "the dark knight" and it would autocomplete to "the dark knight torrent" because so many people have searched for that). While this was certainly a boon to certain sites, Google has no obligation to provide it (considering that autocomplete didn't even exist for many years). Google's new policy for pirated stuff is the same as for porn: if you're explicitly looking for it they will find it for you, but they won't suggest it. This particular article is just complaining about some new fine-tuning of the same policy.

ernesto99 15y ago
This is true, but by Google's filter is not as smart as you would expect and the filter is too broad. Why include the word "BitTorrent" as it's the trademark of a fine US tech company? Why include ALL variations of searches with the dictionary word "torrent"? These decisions appear to be quite arbitrary, which is dangerous when we're talking about censorship.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  I'm sure the "bit" in "BitTorrwnt" is used because people don't know the difference as use the brand name as if it were the same as the technology. Do like Rollerblades? I much prefer inline skates. See what I'm saying? The real solution would be to solve the piracy problem and have the BitTorrent protocol go back to being widely used for its intended purpose. It wasnr intended as a piracy tool, it was intended to be an efficient, decentralized file sharing tool like p2p networks. If those protocols were being used to share the newest office memo in the company network or just non piracy related files in general then there'd be no need to the restriction and it's unintended consequences and we could revert the autocomplete policy. It's the rule breakers that made it this way and that's where your frustration should be directed. But I'll admit that's pretty hard these days. I'm only 25 and I'm the exception but the rest of my generation and younger seem to think piracy is fine and have this sense of entitlement about it. That needs to stop. It's pretty clear this isn't arbitrary just like the Rollerblade example I gave before. Typical users often think you have to type in a URL into the search engine. They never use the address bar! They get from site to site using a 3 step process. 1) Go to search engine of choice. 2 Type in desired URL 3) Click the first result. Those people are the reason the filter is so broad, but in the end it's the pirates who created the need for a filter to begin with.

tzs 15y ago

I'd certainly like to see less pirated stuff in search results that aren't explicitly asking for it. Several times I've been trying to find reviews or discussion of relatively obscure math books, and the top several pages of search results have all been for pirated copies of the book. The funny thing is most of those don't even actually work. The sights are often just directories linking to the alleged downloads and the links are bad.

yanw 15y ago

I don't agree with the terminology, it's not "censorship", the sites in question are still indexed the keywords don't get autocompleted is all.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
These people are abusing the terminology. They know they are supporting piracy. They know it's illegal. Theyre counting on ignorance, exaggeration, and this new Sense of entitlement to free music, movies, and software that's infected the younger generation (at least in the US, and I'm only 25 but it applies to my peers too). They're using these great ideals like freedom as shields and in the end they're going to hurt all of us because of it. They want to act innocent as if they're being persecuted unjustly. It makes me so mad that the freedom of the web might be restricted and it's these same people who say they love freedom so much who gave law makers the excuse to be able to do it!

dpkendal 15y ago

I don't see the problem. They're only blocking the terms from suggestions and requiring you to hit return to finish your search for these. As long as you can still get the same results, I'm happy. This post should probably be retitled to "Google no longer suggests or instantly searches for..." or some variant.

jellicle 15y ago

Yeah, if you just start typing "isohunt " and watch the Instant suggestions, you can see what they mean. Try typing "youtube " or "yahoo " and Google knows just what you mean, right away. Isohunt? Not so much. Typing "torren" gives me suggestions for the Torrens system, apparently a system of land titles in Australia. Who knew? But I'm guessing the number of people who complete that word with a "t" rather than a "s" is in the ratio of tens of thousands to 1. Unless the Torrens system is a lot more popular than I think it is. Oh, Google. Do we have to fight about every little thing? Here's what's best for users and arguably, best for Google in the long run: "Google search tries to find what the user wants to find" Here's what best for Google in the short run: "Google search tries to find what is most profitable for Google, Inc." I'm pretty sure you want to do the first one, not the second one, to maximize the long-term advantage to your company. Companies that intentionally make their product shittier do not actually do well in the long run. None of them. And frankly, trying to "compromise" with the RIAA/MPAA/etc. is foolish. They're paid to push toward a position which is untenable for Google. No matter how much you compromise, they'll be back next year with a further demand. In the end the RIAA/MPAA do not want to co-exist with you; they want the internet to consist of two buttons, one labeled "Buy Music" and one labeled "Buy Movies". So in the end you can't satisfy them. Why try? Nobody at the MPAA will thank you for this.

1010011010 15y ago
Google gets sued by organizations all the time. They don't censor the results -- except when commanded to by law enforcement. They can't "compromise" with the police. And note that this filtering applies only to suggestions, not to actual results. Google wants to make the internet free. Organizations like the RIAA/MPAA/BSA want it to be their own private AOL.
yanw 15y ago
Sigh. If this small gesture would appease those trying to ruin the internet with stupid copyright laws and delay their stupidity then why not? there is no harm there, the sites are indexed, this is by no means "censorship" and some lawyer could argue in court that with autocomplete Google is helping pirates or whatever. This is a non-issue.
15y ago

JonnieCache 15y ago

I said this before last time around on this non-issue: Google are not preventing people reaching tpb results. They are declining to actively push these results unbidden upon people. The massive, fundamental difference between these two things should be obvious. Do we really think it's unreasonable for google to decline to actively point it's users towards largely illegal material which they had not explicitly requested? Google is a publicly traded, for-profit corporation. They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it.

paganel 15y ago
> They have every right to do whatever the hell they want, within law, to make their business as successful as possible. If you don't like it, go use DuckDuckGo, or start your own engine. There's a public domain page index available now, have at it. Google has built its business on other people's content, is that simple. But then it started to gradually "steal" more and more of said people work, until it became the giant corporation that you mention. And before people start down-voting me, just imagine a giant like IBM (let's say) building a search engine that steals other people's content (because that's what things like Google Places have become) and then making tons of money on the back of it. Hell will break loose.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  I agree that Places and other similar parts of google's business are highly ethically suspect, far more so than the user profiling and data retention that are more often talked about. I don't understand how it's related to this particular issue though.
  - paganel 15y ago
    > I don't understand how it's related to this particular issue though. Because when it first started I think there was a mutual, non-spoken agreement between web content-owners and Google, sort of "I give you our content for free to use it on your search engine and you bring me back visitors by trying to be impartial in your SERPs; but I don't expect you to compete against me, not now, not ever". That didn't last long, to say the least, but said content owners are now prisoners of Google (yes, it's a big word, but that's the fact). If my personal experience counts, I let Googlebot crawl my website like crazy, at speed rates for which I would certainly ban any other potential search engine bots, and that's because Google brings in 98% of my search engine traffic. And I'm sure I'm not the only one banning strange-looking bots, which could belong to potential new, wonderful search engines, but which at this rate will never see the light of day. And, unfortunately, things like DuckDuckGo are sub-optimal outside of the English sphere of influence, at least that's what I could see in my case.

mMark 15y ago

I see no problem with this. It's not "censorship" as TorrentFreak wants to linkbait. All results are still indexed, even sites that are obviously piracy related. All Google is trying to do is cover their asses when it comes to contributory infringement. If they were ever sued search engines are USUALLY safe. The exception being when sites actively push users towards pirated content - as we've seen through cases such as the isoHunt case where having a "Top Torrents" list that had mainly studio IP condemned them to heavy losses. I think the last thing anyone wants is Google to lose a copyright infringement case. The precedent would be the gold standard against search engines and would be enough to start knocking out indexers and torrent sites all over the place. If they see cause to do a bold move such as this to protect themselves, I say all the more to them.

gwern 15y ago

https://torrentfreak.com/googles-anti-piracy-filter-110712/ https://torrentfreak.com/googles-anti-piracy-filter-110712/ astonishes me. The autocomplete stuff actually matters that much? I would not have guessed it, which is just another reminder that I am a geek whose Internet usage differs considerably from much of the population.

artursapek 15y ago

Recently I noticed that Google Chrome has a custom search built in for what.cd (a huge, exclusive music sharing website). When logged in, typing in the URL "what.cd" and hitting space brings up "Search What.CD Artists:" Autocomplete also continues to suggest "what.cd faq" as the first result for "what." It makes sense though. What.CD is a tacit community, much less known about than any of the more "mainstream" file-sharing networks mentioned in this article. I wonder if Google is consciously just leaving it alone because reckons it can afford to. This move is no doubt a PR move and a legal precaution (understandably). It's just funny how they've been selective against the public networks.

murz 15y ago
Chrome adds sites that you visit to your list of search engines [1]. It's not built in.. typing in what.cd and hitting space does nothing for me. [1] http://superuser.com/questions/276069/google-chrome-automatically-adding-websites-to-my-list-of-search-engines http://superuser.com/questions/276069/google-chrome-automati...
- artursapek 15y ago
  Whoops, you're right. My bad

nextparadigms 15y ago

I'm fine with this move, but I hope this is as far as they are about to go. I really hope this isn't a precursor to much more aggressive censorship, like removing those sites from the index or giving them a much lower priority in the search results even when you're specifically looking for them. I know Google is the easy target for RIAA/MPAA and their politician allies lately, but Google really doesn't have to "give in" at all here. At least not until a law like SOPA gets passed. But until the ink is dry on a passed law like that, Google doesn't have to do any concessions. The only reason I could see them doing this anyway is by trying to appease the content industry when making content deals with them for their own services, but for Google's sake, I hope they won't be going that road, because there won't be any turning back. They will just ask for more and more censorship in future deals. They just need to tell them that's absolutely off the table in negotiations, and not even agree to start the negotiations before they acknowledge that.

draggnar 15y ago
or just stop using google - at least that would be an option if they took more agressive steps at censorship, which I don't think they will, these seem obvious. The key is that it is not written into law.

prophetjohn 15y ago

I don't find this to be particularly surprising or outrageous. If someone types in "thep", what are they supposed to suggest "thepiratebay.com - download free..."? I think it's a little misleading to say that Google is censoring anything. They're just modifying the Instant algorithm so that they're not suggesting infringing content to their users.

OoTheNigerian 15y ago

My people have a saying, "it is from clapping that dancing begins." I specifically do not have a problem with this. However, each 'moral' step Google makes takes it nearer to dancing and wanting to be the conscience of the web. One day Google might go SOPA and decide to stop linking to sites that America decides support terrorism. I am afraid of when US embargos will mean country domains will stop being indexed. It is dangerous the way Google is so powerful that they can determine the success of other sites. In the words of PG "I worry, I worry". Not for now, but the future.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

I wonder if some of the reaction to this is with a consideration in mind, of Google's search being essential for finding things... and the threat of censorship from them affecting discoverability and cohesiveness that Google enables.

richardw 15y ago

Possibly related: I sell a shareware app. Google has been helpfully suggesting the suffixes 'crack' and 'keygen' for years. Today it isn't - wonder if it's related to the original topic or if it's just a blip.