8 ms·

Google links to a lot of sites, even a large number that contain Hacked/Obscene/Defamatory/Copyrighted material as defined by appropriate laws. Since Google is

Google links to a lot of sites, even a large number that contain Hacked/Obscene/Defamatory/Copyrighted material as defined by appropriate laws. Since Google is posting these publicly (using many fancy techniques to improve their relevance no less) how many billion years of Sentencing will Brin & Page face under these extremely well worded/just/sane Federal Laws?

kjjw 13y ago
But google is a corporation, and America loves corporations so much it treats them with more rights than people.
- Cless 13y ago
  Corporations are people, my friend.
  - Crito 13y ago
    People that cannot be imprisoned or executed, unlike real people.
    - Cless 13y ago
      Or taxed.
      - mitmatt 13y ago
        Corporations are taxed in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St...
        Cless 13y ago
        I think when people speak of "corporations," they aren't talking about Joe's Pop Shop.
- woogle 13y ago
  Here is the place where the troll began.
heinrich5991 13y ago
They're a safe haven under DMCA, they're allowed to do that if they respond to DMCA takedown notices.
roel_v 13y ago
I think you could have up with this explanation had you tried, or had you done an objective evaluation of the situation before posting, but for the sake of other posters who might be less entrenched in their ideological predispositions: the difference is clearly that Google doesn't do any filtering or doesn't willingly lead people to certain material. Google presents an uncurated (within limits, like DMCA takedown notices, court-mandated filtering, ...) overview of all links out there. To go along with the (strained) analogy above of giving driving directions to somebody's house and telling them how to get in: what Google does is provide an atlas, and maybe a way to search therein.
- JetSpiegel 13y ago
  > uncurated Say what? When DDG said they didn't personalize searched based on your individual interests, much came crying foul, because they wanted their personalized searches, for some reason. What gives? Can't have it both ways.
  - psykovsky 13y ago
    Uncurated started to mean personalized in the new era we live now.
- danbruc 13y ago
  So breaking into a house and taking the TV is illegal, but if you take just everything and also take out the garbage, it becomes legal. You can of course make such laws but this would be just madness. (Don't take the analogy to serious. ;)
  - noselasd 13y ago
    It's more akin to publishing a phone catalog, where one of the entries say "Drugs, Inc." vs someone telling you to go to "Drugs, Inc." to buy crack. There may (or may not) be specific laws that deal with explicit referrals to illegal activities.
    - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- ds9 13y ago
  "trying to distribute" is a false characterization of "posting a hyperlink". It was factual, newsworthy information that certain documents were present at a certain address. Regardless of intent, communicating this fact is not and cannot be a case of "trying to distribute" what is at the link, because the link is not the documents. The only thing he distributed or even tried to distribute (as far as I can tell from the article) was a small piece of truthful information, not the documents.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You're right, that "trying to distribute" seems to be an incorrect characterization of Brown's intent, which is why I have deleted the comment. However, it's incorrect to fixate on the issue of hyperlinking per se. Whether a "link is not the documents" is just technicality. If he had intended, by hyperlinking, to actually distribute the documents, I don't believe the fact that he did so by hyperlinking as opposed to some other means would matter. However, here he has a strong case that he didn't intend to distribute the documents, but was just reporting the factual information that the documents were available. It all revolves around his intent, not the fact of hyperlinking.

kjjw 13y ago

But google is a corporation, and America loves corporations so much it treats them with more rights than people.

Cless 13y ago
Corporations are people, my friend.
- Crito 13y ago
  People that cannot be imprisoned or executed, unlike real people.
  - Cless 13y ago
    Or taxed.
    - mitmatt 13y ago
      Corporations are taxed in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_St...
      - Cless 13y ago
        I think when people speak of "corporations," they aren't talking about Joe's Pop Shop.
woogle 13y ago
Here is the place where the troll began.

heinrich5991 13y ago

They're a safe haven under DMCA, they're allowed to do that if they respond to DMCA takedown notices.

roel_v 13y ago

I think you could have up with this explanation had you tried, or had you done an objective evaluation of the situation before posting, but for the sake of other posters who might be less entrenched in their ideological predispositions: the difference is clearly that Google doesn't do any filtering or doesn't willingly lead people to certain material. Google presents an uncurated (within limits, like DMCA takedown notices, court-mandated filtering, ...) overview of all links out there. To go along with the (strained) analogy above of giving driving directions to somebody's house and telling them how to get in: what Google does is provide an atlas, and maybe a way to search therein.

JetSpiegel 13y ago
> uncurated Say what? When DDG said they didn't personalize searched based on your individual interests, much came crying foul, because they wanted their personalized searches, for some reason. What gives? Can't have it both ways.
- psykovsky 13y ago
  Uncurated started to mean personalized in the new era we live now.
danbruc 13y ago
So breaking into a house and taking the TV is illegal, but if you take just everything and also take out the garbage, it becomes legal. You can of course make such laws but this would be just madness. (Don't take the analogy to serious. ;)
- noselasd 13y ago
  It's more akin to publishing a phone catalog, where one of the entries say "Drugs, Inc." vs someone telling you to go to "Drugs, Inc." to buy crack. There may (or may not) be specific laws that deal with explicit referrals to illegal activities.
  - 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ds9 13y ago
"trying to distribute" is a false characterization of "posting a hyperlink". It was factual, newsworthy information that certain documents were present at a certain address. Regardless of intent, communicating this fact is not and cannot be a case of "trying to distribute" what is at the link, because the link is not the documents. The only thing he distributed or even tried to distribute (as far as I can tell from the article) was a small piece of truthful information, not the documents.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You're right, that "trying to distribute" seems to be an incorrect characterization of Brown's intent, which is why I have deleted the comment. However, it's incorrect to fixate on the issue of hyperlinking per se. Whether a "link is not the documents" is just technicality. If he had intended, by hyperlinking, to actually distribute the documents, I don't believe the fact that he did so by hyperlinking as opposed to some other means would matter. However, here he has a strong case that he didn't intend to distribute the documents, but was just reporting the factual information that the documents were available. It all revolves around his intent, not the fact of hyperlinking.