6 ms·

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 result

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.
    - 1010101111001 15y ago
      If you want to build a search engine, there's no need to crawl the web. Just crawl Google. That's what Microsoft did. The inequities of crawling are in my opinion a huge issue with the web that receives relatively little discussion. If a majority of websites were to ban Googlebot, Google would be brought to its knees. Slowly. Their index would go stale. I like Google. But I do think crawling, who gets to do it and who does not is an underappreciated issue. Google is very lucky.
      - billpatrianakos 15y ago
        How are we blocking Googlebot? If we're using robots.txt then they can simply ignore it. Googlebot can begin to identify itself differently. There are a million ways to get around a Googlebot ban and I wouldn't be the guy who thinks he's smarter than Google. You'll lose that one. They'll find a way. But anyway, this isnt really relevant. Can you tie it in for us?
        1010101111001 15y ago
        Blocking is not done via robots.txt. It would more likely be IP-based. Impossible to block Google? Probably true. But only because they have been allowed to grow so large as to be indefeasible. And the reason they've been able to do that is because of what the commenter said: websites allowed them to crawl, fast and hard, year after year. This is not true for all bots. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the article and the specific issue. I don't disgree with what Google is doing in this case. And I understand why and where Google is headed. The issue of who is allowed to crawl and who is not is something the commenter raised. It's a huge issue that people take for granted, in my opinion.
      - 1010101111001 15y ago
        I'm guessing the reason this was downvoted was the first paragraph. It was meant as sarcasm. Bing fans on HN I did not expect.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  I don't know what the problem with that would be. I would love to at least try out a Watson search engine.
- kgen 15y ago
  Hmm, how is this any worse than reddit or stumbleupon or delicious "profiting" from sharing everyone else's content? It's just reorganizing the information that is already available?
- gldalmaso 15y ago
  I think we are reaching a point in history where giant corporations are reaching a state-like status where corporate policy begins to have the weight of law in the sense of how many people are affected by it outside the company; corporate public relations and agenda becomes diplomacy with several different states, concerning different interests for the parties involved. Not that these things weren't true when the corporations started, but as they scale, so does the influence and responsbaility. It reminds me of the old Cyberpunk 2020 rpg book where corporations have they own law, police, etc.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
I'm with Jonnie here. This whole outrage is ludicrous. This is like NAMBLA throwing a hissy fit over Google not showing suggestions for search terms like "kiddie p0rn". Like he said, the results are still there, just not the autocomplete. And stealing content? Where? A music service isn't a radical new idea and I'm sure they could have just as easily done it whether they stole content or not. This is a for profit company. There's money to be made and I really don't see anything unethical about their new Music service. You want to talk about stealing?! Let's talk about the sites moaning about Google not autocompleting queries that are likely looking for pirated material. Now those sites are stealing. The disgusting thing about them is that they want to hide behind "freedom" and "censorship" as a way to distract or even excuse what they do. I'm just shocked at how many people feel theyre entitled to free music, movies, software, you name it! You're not entitled to shit. I often wonder how many of those same people are in business for themselves. I'd venture to guess not many at all. Make no mistake here, censorship, SOPA, Protect IP are all bad things. But websites that obviously, actively, and often openly break copyright laws cannot be taken seriously when we talk about freedom and censorship. It's like the KKK hiding behind the bible to support bigotry or politicians hiding behind Patriotism to pass the Patriot Act. By using those things as shields you're essentially shitting on the very thing you say you value so much. Copyright laws have been on the books since before the web and while there's a point to be made about some parts of those laws going too far, the simple concepts of creators being able to defend themselves against the unauthorized distribution (theft) of their creations is something we should all be able to get behind. If we can't then I had better get out of the programming business because sooner or later my own colleagues will be diving for the freedom to be able to hijack and give away what I create for any price they want without any permission from me.
- bad_user 15y ago
  I upvoted you and I agree with what you're saying. However, while copyright itself is an economically and morally valid concept, the current copyright law is not. It's simply not OK for copyright protections to last for 100 years (and growing, as long as Disney is still around), when something like 10 years should be enough. It's also not OK to sue parents for singing Happy Birthday to their child in a 20 secs YouTube video. I also don't think it's OK to sue anybody for singing a song, unless he does it for commercial purposes. It's also not OK to demand tens of thousands of dollars for a single song you downloaded illegally. Or to sue children or grandmas. Another problem is that sharing is in human nature. If you can't find a way around that (like putting a tax in every Internet connection that should take care of any illegal song or movie downloads) than it's also unjust to punish people for doing something which is in their nature (it's like punishing people for having sex). It's not that copyright is unjust. The concept is OK, the authors need to live too. But they went way too far (and not for the benefit of the authors ;))
grecy 15y ago
I agree. To keep the discussion going, how would you feel if in the future, Google removed the "offending" sites from it's index entirely?
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Do you mean offensive sites in general or just these file sharing sites? For torrent sites I think I'd be pissed. I'm no fan of piracy and I'm not an apologist for those sites at all but I don't think it's Google's place to do that. Google's mission is to index and organize the world's information and blacklisting websites like that would be hypocrisy. Even if we all agreed it was okay for one site it becomes a slippery slope where Google can use that for their own or their partners' benefit. There'd be an exodus and Google would slowly lose market share from that point on. It's one thing to stop making it so easy to find a site that you barely have to type 2 letters before you get what you want. Its an entirely different thing to limit access to certain sites. If its not on Google then it doesn't exist on the Internet for all intents and purposes. We're back to emailing each other links in that case. This should be as far as Google reaches on this short of banning these sites. From there it's the job of users to stop supporting piracy and law enforcement to shut down illegal sites in their own jurisdictions using the current laws and without creating new laws to prosecute people unless it's absolutely positively necessary.
  - grecy 15y ago
    It's interesting you point out it would be a "slippery slope" to be on. It isn't a hard stretch to imagine in the future, you need to turn safeSearch off to see them in search results. Sometime further in the future you'll need to add some other preference or something to see them. Then, you'll need to be logged in and have a "verified" account. Then.... I think it's safe to say Google are well and truly on the slope of slipperiness.
nitrogen 15y ago
I think the problem people have with Google's control over the search results is that they (perhaps mistakenly) expect Google to be an impartial facilitator for accessing the world's information. It could be argued that organic placement of piratical content in autocomplete and instant searches is a desired outcome, as it shows the average person what's "out there" on the web. Removing actually-popular searches from the autocomplete and instant results is, in a way, lying about reality. People may be thinking, "If they're lying about this, what else aren't they telling us?" From my perspective, if those of us arguing for things like shorter copyright terms are to have any success convincing the broader public (whose access to information is largely through the media conglomerates), maybe having those people accidentally stumble upon torrent sites when they search for their favorite movie or pop idol is a good thing. Not because we want them to pirate the content, but because we want them to know that technology provides another way -- that there is a conceivable, technically possible existence that doesn't depend on a controlled feed of entertainment from the existing media players. If only they could experience the digital utopia that could be created if not for the impossibility of negotiating licenses, they might be willing to support a reform of copyright that is in the best long-term interests of society as a whole, both creators and customers.
jellicle 15y ago
Out of all those users typing "torren" in Google's search bar, what percentage are trying to reach "torrent" and what percentage are trying to reach the Torrens land title system? Because right now Google is only showing me Torrens, and I suspect 99.99%+ of all users typing "torren" want torrents. Just so you know, the lame arguments you are making are not new or novel. Throughout history, all episodes of censorship have been met with the response that the material isn't REALLY censored, not for sufficiently determined readers. Douglas Adams provided the definitive mocking of that idea: >`But look you found the notice didn't you?' >`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".' Just because it's not 100% effective - Arthur did find the notice, after all - doesn't mean it's not censorship. The word has never meant that. Google is attempting to make this material less available to people who want to get it, and is succeeding. 100% effectiveness is not part of the definition, and never has been.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  "Out of all those users typing "torren" in Google's search bar, what percentage are trying to reach "torrent" and what percentage are trying to reach the Torrens land title system? Because right now Google is only showing me Torrens, and I suspect 99.99%+ of all users typing "torren" want torrents." Type into search field: baldur's gate torren Response: Showing results for baldur's gate torrent You were saying? Looks fine to me.
- richardw 15y ago
  So if someone types "child por" in, should Google autocomplete if a common request is "child porn"? Also, don't call the guy's argument lame, just answer it. Be civil.
  - bandushrew 15y ago
    yes? why wouldn't they?
    - richardw 15y ago
quadhome 15y ago
Where is there a public domain index?

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.
  - 1010101111001 15y ago
    If you want to build a search engine, there's no need to crawl the web. Just crawl Google. That's what Microsoft did. The inequities of crawling are in my opinion a huge issue with the web that receives relatively little discussion. If a majority of websites were to ban Googlebot, Google would be brought to its knees. Slowly. Their index would go stale. I like Google. But I do think crawling, who gets to do it and who does not is an underappreciated issue. Google is very lucky.
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      How are we blocking Googlebot? If we're using robots.txt then they can simply ignore it. Googlebot can begin to identify itself differently. There are a million ways to get around a Googlebot ban and I wouldn't be the guy who thinks he's smarter than Google. You'll lose that one. They'll find a way. But anyway, this isnt really relevant. Can you tie it in for us?
      - 1010101111001 15y ago
        Blocking is not done via robots.txt. It would more likely be IP-based. Impossible to block Google? Probably true. But only because they have been allowed to grow so large as to be indefeasible. And the reason they've been able to do that is because of what the commenter said: websites allowed them to crawl, fast and hard, year after year. This is not true for all bots. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the article and the specific issue. I don't disgree with what Google is doing in this case. And I understand why and where Google is headed. The issue of who is allowed to crawl and who is not is something the commenter raised. It's a huge issue that people take for granted, in my opinion.
    - 1010101111001 15y ago
      I'm guessing the reason this was downvoted was the first paragraph. It was meant as sarcasm. Bing fans on HN I did not expect.
Dylan16807 15y ago
I don't know what the problem with that would be. I would love to at least try out a Watson search engine.
kgen 15y ago
Hmm, how is this any worse than reddit or stumbleupon or delicious "profiting" from sharing everyone else's content? It's just reorganizing the information that is already available?
gldalmaso 15y ago
I think we are reaching a point in history where giant corporations are reaching a state-like status where corporate policy begins to have the weight of law in the sense of how many people are affected by it outside the company; corporate public relations and agenda becomes diplomacy with several different states, concerning different interests for the parties involved. Not that these things weren't true when the corporations started, but as they scale, so does the influence and responsbaility. It reminds me of the old Cyberpunk 2020 rpg book where corporations have they own law, police, etc.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I'm with Jonnie here. This whole outrage is ludicrous. This is like NAMBLA throwing a hissy fit over Google not showing suggestions for search terms like "kiddie p0rn". Like he said, the results are still there, just not the autocomplete. And stealing content? Where? A music service isn't a radical new idea and I'm sure they could have just as easily done it whether they stole content or not. This is a for profit company. There's money to be made and I really don't see anything unethical about their new Music service. You want to talk about stealing?! Let's talk about the sites moaning about Google not autocompleting queries that are likely looking for pirated material. Now those sites are stealing. The disgusting thing about them is that they want to hide behind "freedom" and "censorship" as a way to distract or even excuse what they do. I'm just shocked at how many people feel theyre entitled to free music, movies, software, you name it! You're not entitled to shit. I often wonder how many of those same people are in business for themselves. I'd venture to guess not many at all. Make no mistake here, censorship, SOPA, Protect IP are all bad things. But websites that obviously, actively, and often openly break copyright laws cannot be taken seriously when we talk about freedom and censorship. It's like the KKK hiding behind the bible to support bigotry or politicians hiding behind Patriotism to pass the Patriot Act. By using those things as shields you're essentially shitting on the very thing you say you value so much. Copyright laws have been on the books since before the web and while there's a point to be made about some parts of those laws going too far, the simple concepts of creators being able to defend themselves against the unauthorized distribution (theft) of their creations is something we should all be able to get behind. If we can't then I had better get out of the programming business because sooner or later my own colleagues will be diving for the freedom to be able to hijack and give away what I create for any price they want without any permission from me.

bad_user 15y ago
I upvoted you and I agree with what you're saying. However, while copyright itself is an economically and morally valid concept, the current copyright law is not. It's simply not OK for copyright protections to last for 100 years (and growing, as long as Disney is still around), when something like 10 years should be enough. It's also not OK to sue parents for singing Happy Birthday to their child in a 20 secs YouTube video. I also don't think it's OK to sue anybody for singing a song, unless he does it for commercial purposes. It's also not OK to demand tens of thousands of dollars for a single song you downloaded illegally. Or to sue children or grandmas. Another problem is that sharing is in human nature. If you can't find a way around that (like putting a tax in every Internet connection that should take care of any illegal song or movie downloads) than it's also unjust to punish people for doing something which is in their nature (it's like punishing people for having sex). It's not that copyright is unjust. The concept is OK, the authors need to live too. But they went way too far (and not for the benefit of the authors ;))

grecy 15y ago

I agree. To keep the discussion going, how would you feel if in the future, Google removed the "offending" sites from it's index entirely?

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Do you mean offensive sites in general or just these file sharing sites? For torrent sites I think I'd be pissed. I'm no fan of piracy and I'm not an apologist for those sites at all but I don't think it's Google's place to do that. Google's mission is to index and organize the world's information and blacklisting websites like that would be hypocrisy. Even if we all agreed it was okay for one site it becomes a slippery slope where Google can use that for their own or their partners' benefit. There'd be an exodus and Google would slowly lose market share from that point on. It's one thing to stop making it so easy to find a site that you barely have to type 2 letters before you get what you want. Its an entirely different thing to limit access to certain sites. If its not on Google then it doesn't exist on the Internet for all intents and purposes. We're back to emailing each other links in that case. This should be as far as Google reaches on this short of banning these sites. From there it's the job of users to stop supporting piracy and law enforcement to shut down illegal sites in their own jurisdictions using the current laws and without creating new laws to prosecute people unless it's absolutely positively necessary.
- grecy 15y ago
  It's interesting you point out it would be a "slippery slope" to be on. It isn't a hard stretch to imagine in the future, you need to turn safeSearch off to see them in search results. Sometime further in the future you'll need to add some other preference or something to see them. Then, you'll need to be logged in and have a "verified" account. Then.... I think it's safe to say Google are well and truly on the slope of slipperiness.

nitrogen 15y ago

I think the problem people have with Google's control over the search results is that they (perhaps mistakenly) expect Google to be an impartial facilitator for accessing the world's information. It could be argued that organic placement of piratical content in autocomplete and instant searches is a desired outcome, as it shows the average person what's "out there" on the web. Removing actually-popular searches from the autocomplete and instant results is, in a way, lying about reality. People may be thinking, "If they're lying about this, what else aren't they telling us?" From my perspective, if those of us arguing for things like shorter copyright terms are to have any success convincing the broader public (whose access to information is largely through the media conglomerates), maybe having those people accidentally stumble upon torrent sites when they search for their favorite movie or pop idol is a good thing. Not because we want them to pirate the content, but because we want them to know that technology provides another way -- that there is a conceivable, technically possible existence that doesn't depend on a controlled feed of entertainment from the existing media players. If only they could experience the digital utopia that could be created if not for the impossibility of negotiating licenses, they might be willing to support a reform of copyright that is in the best long-term interests of society as a whole, both creators and customers.

jellicle 15y ago

Out of all those users typing "torren" in Google's search bar, what percentage are trying to reach "torrent" and what percentage are trying to reach the Torrens land title system? Because right now Google is only showing me Torrens, and I suspect 99.99%+ of all users typing "torren" want torrents. Just so you know, the lame arguments you are making are not new or novel. Throughout history, all episodes of censorship have been met with the response that the material isn't REALLY censored, not for sufficiently determined readers. Douglas Adams provided the definitive mocking of that idea: >`But look you found the notice didn't you?' >`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".' Just because it's not 100% effective - Arthur did find the notice, after all - doesn't mean it's not censorship. The word has never meant that. Google is attempting to make this material less available to people who want to get it, and is succeeding. 100% effectiveness is not part of the definition, and never has been.

jonhendry 15y ago
"Out of all those users typing "torren" in Google's search bar, what percentage are trying to reach "torrent" and what percentage are trying to reach the Torrens land title system? Because right now Google is only showing me Torrens, and I suspect 99.99%+ of all users typing "torren" want torrents." Type into search field: baldur's gate torren Response: Showing results for baldur's gate torrent You were saying? Looks fine to me.
richardw 15y ago
So if someone types "child por" in, should Google autocomplete if a common request is "child porn"? Also, don't call the guy's argument lame, just answer it. Be civil.
- bandushrew 15y ago
  yes? why wouldn't they?
  - richardw 15y ago

quadhome 15y ago

Where is there a public domain index?