6 ms·

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

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
    You might feel differently if your kid had been raped, say. When you only have one principle to deal with, life is simple, but I think there are grey areas in all these issues. Similarly, the argument to legalise drugs. Personally, I agree with the argument, but a similar demand-supply problem exists in human trafficking (e.g. child sex slavery), but there I think the laws should continue to keep the latter illegal even while it supports the high profits that human traffickers can make. What do you think?
    - bandushrew 15y ago
      hmm? 'Rape' has auto suggestions. In general I dont think that consumption of child pornography is much of a crime, the harm has been done by then, and some poor sad git masturbating over a 3 year old isn't going to make it any worse. Personally I would rather they put significant resources into catching those people who create it, than into changing search engines and blocking dns addresses so that everyone can pretend it doesn't exist.
      - ordinary 15y ago
        Demand encourages supply.
        yohui 15y ago
        Even if nobody's paying? Given the threat our lawmakers believe piracy poses to content-producers, and that they wish to suppress the production of child porn, perhaps they should actually encourage the piracy of child porn... (I jest, of course, but the law itself is none too rational here.)
        bandushrew 15y ago
        yep. demand exists, so does supply. I am unsure what problem you actually believe is being solved by google? What google appears to be doing now is attempting to pretend that neither supply nor demand exist at all. The insanity of that must be fairly obvious?
- blub 15y ago
  You're that typical someone that chimes in with the worst possible thing that they imagine could happen if censorship is not enforced. Then when it's pointed out that censorship is still undesirable, that typical somone retorts "Well what if <horrible thing> happened to you/your mum/dog/gerbil?!". There's a balance between being afraid of your own shadow and being reasonably careful/safe. Think about that.
  - richardw 15y ago
    Because I use a specific technique to highlight an issue implies nothing about 'me' except that I can use that technique. Your argument would be stronger if you focus on the issue, not the person. You used the words "reasonably careful/safe", which I assume means you're not subscribing to an extremist position. Similarly, I don't hold an extremist position on this and am simply highlighting that there are grey areas that Google has to deal with. If it were easy, they'd have made an obvious decision years ago and wouldn't need to change it.
- nkassis 15y ago
  What if the first returned thing is the child pornography page on wikipedia and other news and resources on the subject? Doesn't have to return actual pics and videos. Yes it's still censorship of something but in this case instant search just doesn't auto complete to anything yet if you search for the term it will return the result list un filtered.
bad_user 15y ago
When I search for "torrent" on Google, the third result is The Pirate Bay, and when I search for "torren" The Pirate Bay is the first result, with a suggestion to correct the word to "torrent". Of course, as you may know, results are relative to the user profile Google builds about you. Throughout history, all episodes of censorship have been met with the response that the material isn't REALLY censored Citation needed. To me, a material is either forbidden or not forbidden. There are no gray areas. Of course, smart governments that yield control in subtle ways, like the US government, have been using tactics like disinformation to hide the truth in a mountain of noise and I can see how Google could do the same thing. However this is not censorship.
- Confusion 15y ago
  You really want a citation for something that is obviously true? Of course in any censorship debate, there is someone that says "you can always get it through the underground, the black market, the fact that the ban isn't actively upheld, insert other similar reason". These folks are always around. Asking a citation to support that assertion is silly. Otherwise I ask you to cite support for your assertion that "a material is either forbidden or not forbidden". I'd like to point out we have courts deciding whether laws apply and whether something is forbidden or isn't covered by a specific law.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    If it's so obviously true, then you should have no problem providing a citation, right? I wouldn't mind if you violated Godwin's law either :) The reason why I'm asking for a citation is that I live in an ex-Communist country. I know how censorship looks like and it ain't nothing like what you describe. Otherwise I ask you to cite support for your assertion that "a material is either forbidden or not forbidden" Providing a citation for a personal opinion which I marked as such? Fine, I'll give you a famous example of real censorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_19... Related to that event, over a period of 15 years more than 130 journalists and Internet users have been jailed, including Internet webmaster Huang Qi that has been in jail since 3 June 2000 for having allowed articles about the Tiananmen Square massacre to be posted on his website, which was hosted in the United States after being initially banned in China. I'd like to point out we have courts deciding whether laws apply and whether something is forbidden or isn't covered by a specific law. I also like to point out that your First Amendment does not refer to Google, being applicable only to the actions of your government. It's not within your right to distribute whatever information you want through a private media outlet. It is in your right however to distribute that information by yourself, as only the law can stop you. So yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious - content is either forbidden or not forbidden.

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
  You might feel differently if your kid had been raped, say. When you only have one principle to deal with, life is simple, but I think there are grey areas in all these issues. Similarly, the argument to legalise drugs. Personally, I agree with the argument, but a similar demand-supply problem exists in human trafficking (e.g. child sex slavery), but there I think the laws should continue to keep the latter illegal even while it supports the high profits that human traffickers can make. What do you think?
  - bandushrew 15y ago
    hmm? 'Rape' has auto suggestions. In general I dont think that consumption of child pornography is much of a crime, the harm has been done by then, and some poor sad git masturbating over a 3 year old isn't going to make it any worse. Personally I would rather they put significant resources into catching those people who create it, than into changing search engines and blocking dns addresses so that everyone can pretend it doesn't exist.
    - ordinary 15y ago
      Demand encourages supply.
      - yohui 15y ago
        Even if nobody's paying? Given the threat our lawmakers believe piracy poses to content-producers, and that they wish to suppress the production of child porn, perhaps they should actually encourage the piracy of child porn... (I jest, of course, but the law itself is none too rational here.)
      - bandushrew 15y ago
        yep. demand exists, so does supply. I am unsure what problem you actually believe is being solved by google? What google appears to be doing now is attempting to pretend that neither supply nor demand exist at all. The insanity of that must be fairly obvious?
blub 15y ago
You're that typical someone that chimes in with the worst possible thing that they imagine could happen if censorship is not enforced. Then when it's pointed out that censorship is still undesirable, that typical somone retorts "Well what if <horrible thing> happened to you/your mum/dog/gerbil?!". There's a balance between being afraid of your own shadow and being reasonably careful/safe. Think about that.
- richardw 15y ago
  Because I use a specific technique to highlight an issue implies nothing about 'me' except that I can use that technique. Your argument would be stronger if you focus on the issue, not the person. You used the words "reasonably careful/safe", which I assume means you're not subscribing to an extremist position. Similarly, I don't hold an extremist position on this and am simply highlighting that there are grey areas that Google has to deal with. If it were easy, they'd have made an obvious decision years ago and wouldn't need to change it.
nkassis 15y ago
What if the first returned thing is the child pornography page on wikipedia and other news and resources on the subject? Doesn't have to return actual pics and videos. Yes it's still censorship of something but in this case instant search just doesn't auto complete to anything yet if you search for the term it will return the result list un filtered.

bad_user 15y ago

When I search for "torrent" on Google, the third result is The Pirate Bay, and when I search for "torren" The Pirate Bay is the first result, with a suggestion to correct the word to "torrent". Of course, as you may know, results are relative to the user profile Google builds about you. Throughout history, all episodes of censorship have been met with the response that the material isn't REALLY censored Citation needed. To me, a material is either forbidden or not forbidden. There are no gray areas. Of course, smart governments that yield control in subtle ways, like the US government, have been using tactics like disinformation to hide the truth in a mountain of noise and I can see how Google could do the same thing. However this is not censorship.

Confusion 15y ago
You really want a citation for something that is obviously true? Of course in any censorship debate, there is someone that says "you can always get it through the underground, the black market, the fact that the ban isn't actively upheld, insert other similar reason". These folks are always around. Asking a citation to support that assertion is silly. Otherwise I ask you to cite support for your assertion that "a material is either forbidden or not forbidden". I'd like to point out we have courts deciding whether laws apply and whether something is forbidden or isn't covered by a specific law.
- bad_user 15y ago
  If it's so obviously true, then you should have no problem providing a citation, right? I wouldn't mind if you violated Godwin's law either :) The reason why I'm asking for a citation is that I live in an ex-Communist country. I know how censorship looks like and it ain't nothing like what you describe. Otherwise I ask you to cite support for your assertion that "a material is either forbidden or not forbidden" Providing a citation for a personal opinion which I marked as such? Fine, I'll give you a famous example of real censorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_19... Related to that event, over a period of 15 years more than 130 journalists and Internet users have been jailed, including Internet webmaster Huang Qi that has been in jail since 3 June 2000 for having allowed articles about the Tiananmen Square massacre to be posted on his website, which was hosted in the United States after being initially banned in China. I'd like to point out we have courts deciding whether laws apply and whether something is forbidden or isn't covered by a specific law. I also like to point out that your First Amendment does not refer to Google, being applicable only to the actions of your government. It's not within your right to distribute whatever information you want through a private media outlet. It is in your right however to distribute that information by yourself, as only the law can stop you. So yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious - content is either forbidden or not forbidden.