5 ms·

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 othe

by 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.
  - bluecalm 13y ago
    I am pretty sure that if you publish a phone catalog with drug dealers numbers and then include all other numbers in a town that would be a problem as well. Especially if drug dealers' numbers are in shiny font in front of the book with big "DRUGS HERE!" ad to boost it and the rest is somewhere on 20-9999 page.
herghost 13y ago
It started off like your were going to provide a sound rebuttal, but it didn't materialise. Instead we got: > Google doesn't do any filtering (except the filtering that it does do) > Google doesn't give directions to somebody's house and tell you how to get in, it gives directions to everybody's houses and tells you how to get in.
- roel_v 13y ago
  "It started off like your were going to provide a sound rebuttal, but it didn't materialise. Instead we got:" What is this, a formal debate with research and fact-checking and carefully proofread dissertations? We're just a few guys writing stream-of-consciousness paragraphs between code compiles. I maintain that anybody who doesn't recognize the difference between somebody posting a link to a bunch of credit card numbers and Google showing links in their search results is being deliberately obtuse or autistic, or both. There is obviously a continuum between them (in the sense that they both revolve about 'links'), and one can argue about cases on this continuum (although I have no interest in doing so), but the argument 'a link is a link' without any consideration for context, intent, etc is prima facie stupid to any reasonable person.
  - herghost 13y ago
    >What is this, a formal debate with research and fact-checking and carefully proofread dissertations? No, you're right. Let's keep this emotional, fact-free, and useless. >the argument 'a link is a link' without any consideration for context, intent, etc is prima facie stupid to any reasonable person. No, you're making a false dichotomy of this. The fact is that a link is a link is a link. Tying this in with intent and context is a different matter altogether. The nature of a link doesn't (or at least shouldn't) change between applications of the term, whereas intent and context can. However, if the crux of the matter with regards to intent and context is that a link "posted" by a link aggregator points to something it shouldn't, the effect of that action can't be split out differently simply because a different actor was involved. By analogy, it doesn't matter that I was swinging a chain saw around my head on a rope with the intention of evenly cutting my hedges, the fact of the matter is that my neighbours are approximately one head-length shorter than they were when they stumbled upon me. Whether or not I'm a gardener or a dedicated chainsaw murderer doesn't affect the outcome here.
nateabele 13y ago
David Gregory (a nightly news anchor) waved around a high-capacity magazine on national television within the borders of the District of Columbia, which is a felony offense. No charges filed. [0] Explain that one, Mister Ideological Predisposition. [0] http://nypost.com/2013/01/12/no-charges-for-nbc-host-david-gregory-over-ammunition-magazine/ http://nypost.com/2013/01/12/no-charges-for-nbc-host-david-g...
- leobelle 13y ago
  The article you linked to includes an explanation: "Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public"
  - sigzero 13y ago
    They could have just shown a picture. He possessed it. He should have faced the consequences period.
    - leobelle 13y ago
      Why? Edit: Another question gets downvoted. Hacker News really hates when people ask questions. You can go through my recent comment history and see where other questions[1] I ask get downvoted too. Whatever you do, don't ask people on Hacker News about whatever comments they make. I think at this point pg would be doing everyone a favor if he just rebooted this site or just closed it down completely given what it the community has turned into. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7342487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7342487
      - hga 13y ago
        Because any normal person would be facing charges, like this guy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/20/dc-businessman-trial-one-shotgun-shell-wasnt-given/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/20/dc-businessm... Don't think those of us in "flyover country" aren't paying attention to this political corruption in the nation's capitol.
suprgeek 13y ago
Hmm....lets see here "Goggle doesn't do any filtering" "..doesn't willingly lead people to certain material" Are you sure we are taking about the same Google?

by roel_v 13y ago

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.
- bluecalm 13y ago
  I am pretty sure that if you publish a phone catalog with drug dealers numbers and then include all other numbers in a town that would be a problem as well. Especially if drug dealers' numbers are in shiny font in front of the book with big "DRUGS HERE!" ad to boost it and the rest is somewhere on 20-9999 page.

herghost 13y ago

It started off like your were going to provide a sound rebuttal, but it didn't materialise. Instead we got: > Google doesn't do any filtering (except the filtering that it does do) > Google doesn't give directions to somebody's house and tell you how to get in, it gives directions to everybody's houses and tells you how to get in.

roel_v 13y ago
"It started off like your were going to provide a sound rebuttal, but it didn't materialise. Instead we got:" What is this, a formal debate with research and fact-checking and carefully proofread dissertations? We're just a few guys writing stream-of-consciousness paragraphs between code compiles. I maintain that anybody who doesn't recognize the difference between somebody posting a link to a bunch of credit card numbers and Google showing links in their search results is being deliberately obtuse or autistic, or both. There is obviously a continuum between them (in the sense that they both revolve about 'links'), and one can argue about cases on this continuum (although I have no interest in doing so), but the argument 'a link is a link' without any consideration for context, intent, etc is prima facie stupid to any reasonable person.
- herghost 13y ago
  >What is this, a formal debate with research and fact-checking and carefully proofread dissertations? No, you're right. Let's keep this emotional, fact-free, and useless. >the argument 'a link is a link' without any consideration for context, intent, etc is prima facie stupid to any reasonable person. No, you're making a false dichotomy of this. The fact is that a link is a link is a link. Tying this in with intent and context is a different matter altogether. The nature of a link doesn't (or at least shouldn't) change between applications of the term, whereas intent and context can. However, if the crux of the matter with regards to intent and context is that a link "posted" by a link aggregator points to something it shouldn't, the effect of that action can't be split out differently simply because a different actor was involved. By analogy, it doesn't matter that I was swinging a chain saw around my head on a rope with the intention of evenly cutting my hedges, the fact of the matter is that my neighbours are approximately one head-length shorter than they were when they stumbled upon me. Whether or not I'm a gardener or a dedicated chainsaw murderer doesn't affect the outcome here.

nateabele 13y ago

David Gregory (a nightly news anchor) waved around a high-capacity magazine on national television within the borders of the District of Columbia, which is a felony offense. No charges filed. [0] Explain that one, Mister Ideological Predisposition. [0] http://nypost.com/2013/01/12/no-charges-for-nbc-host-david-gregory-over-ammunition-magazine/ http://nypost.com/2013/01/12/no-charges-for-nbc-host-david-g...

leobelle 13y ago
The article you linked to includes an explanation: "Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public"
- sigzero 13y ago
  They could have just shown a picture. He possessed it. He should have faced the consequences period.
  - leobelle 13y ago
    Why? Edit: Another question gets downvoted. Hacker News really hates when people ask questions. You can go through my recent comment history and see where other questions[1] I ask get downvoted too. Whatever you do, don't ask people on Hacker News about whatever comments they make. I think at this point pg would be doing everyone a favor if he just rebooted this site or just closed it down completely given what it the community has turned into. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7342487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7342487
    - hga 13y ago
      Because any normal person would be facing charges, like this guy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/20/dc-businessman-trial-one-shotgun-shell-wasnt-given/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/20/dc-businessm... Don't think those of us in "flyover country" aren't paying attention to this political corruption in the nation's capitol.

suprgeek 13y ago

Hmm....lets see here "Goggle doesn't do any filtering" "..doesn't willingly lead people to certain material" Are you sure we are taking about the same Google?