4 ms·

Yes it is, I think it's unfair to dismiss literally the biggest search platform in the world. The image search tab isn't the destination, it can be, but it's al

Yes it is, I think it's unfair to dismiss literally the biggest search platform in the world. The image search tab isn't the destination, it can be, but it's also easy to find video thumbnails that take you to somewhere you can watch things or download things. It's also a very powerful search tool for Tumblr blogs. I enjoy reading stories as well and so Google Search as a whole plays a big part. I have found alternatives, but there's a reason Google stays at the top despite these kinds of decisions. This kind of move makes me wonder when text results will also become locked down. It's now a question of when, not if.

version_five 4y ago
I don't agree with any censorship, but in this case I find the idea of text censorship especially scary. It's a short trip to google not letting you see "misinformation" without being logged in
- knaik94 4y ago
  I agree and while search results are censored already because of DMCA or to remove personal info, it feels really different when the reasoning becomes moral judgement. I understand the goal and I can even believe that is being done with good intent, but it feels like there's a shift in how proactive Google will be in hiding explicit or sensitive results. Does something like evidence of police brutality count as explicit content? This policy isn't targetting just NSFW content but also NSFL content, like video released of the savage killing of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police and the SCORPION unit. Those videos are extremely disturbing and would easily have been at home on a place like LiveLeak. If someone searches police brutality without being logged in, will links to the real video be blurred/hidden? I have a feeling this was a response to the Louisiana ruling on porn and the continued fight by current President Biden to weaken Sec 230. This would make sense if it was in response to a new definition of companies acting in good faith to remove illegal content. There hasn't been anything explicit about Sec 230, a critical court hearing is happening later this month. I hope this isn't a signal that the weakening of Sec 230 is likely going to happen. This kind of censorship will be a direct consequence if it does, and this'll only be the beginning. https://www.axios.com/2023/02/07/tech-firms-section-230-supreme-court-small-midsize https://www.axios.com/2023/02/07/tech-firms-section-230-supr...

version_five 4y ago

I don't agree with any censorship, but in this case I find the idea of text censorship especially scary. It's a short trip to google not letting you see "misinformation" without being logged in

knaik94 4y ago
I agree and while search results are censored already because of DMCA or to remove personal info, it feels really different when the reasoning becomes moral judgement. I understand the goal and I can even believe that is being done with good intent, but it feels like there's a shift in how proactive Google will be in hiding explicit or sensitive results. Does something like evidence of police brutality count as explicit content? This policy isn't targetting just NSFW content but also NSFL content, like video released of the savage killing of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police and the SCORPION unit. Those videos are extremely disturbing and would easily have been at home on a place like LiveLeak. If someone searches police brutality without being logged in, will links to the real video be blurred/hidden? I have a feeling this was a response to the Louisiana ruling on porn and the continued fight by current President Biden to weaken Sec 230. This would make sense if it was in response to a new definition of companies acting in good faith to remove illegal content. There hasn't been anything explicit about Sec 230, a critical court hearing is happening later this month. I hope this isn't a signal that the weakening of Sec 230 is likely going to happen. This kind of censorship will be a direct consequence if it does, and this'll only be the beginning. https://www.axios.com/2023/02/07/tech-firms-section-230-supreme-court-small-midsize https://www.axios.com/2023/02/07/tech-firms-section-230-supr...