2 ms·
> "the organization" Therein lies the problem. Courts can play whack-a-mole all day, but it's very hard to suppress something on the Internet. The only sensi
by dasil003 13y ago
> "the organization"
Therein lies the problem. Courts can play whack-a-mole all day, but it's very hard to suppress something on the Internet. The only sensible thing to do is go after the original publisher and then Google takes care of itself. This idea of forcing takedown on search engines is treating the symptom not the disease.
- izacus 13y agoTaking down the source is pointless when Google keeps the results and caches the contents.
- Sanddancer 13y agoGoogle only caches for a limited period of time, and also observes robots.txt . So adding a NOARCHIVE directive to the url would get google to flush its cache of the page.
- ghshephard 13y agoThe difference is that once it's removed from Google/Bing - it's effectively removed from the Internet. That is, the material may still be present, but if you can't find it with a random search, then it's not going to do too much damage. Also - it's much, much, much easier to send a request to "De-Index" to two, large, organized, law-abiding organizations (Google/Microsoft) - than it would be to try and remove content from umpteen million various websites - that would be whack-a-mole.
- magicalist 13y agoThis sounds a whole lot like the argument of the Recording, Movie, and other IP Industries of the world against safe harbor provisions. Why should they have to play whack-a-mole when then could get the government/your ISP/search engines of the world to do their work for them?
- ghshephard 13y agoCorrect - and indeed, Google/Bing respond to DMCA (and other takedown) requests all the time. Removing content from search engines (for some definition of search engine. I.E. Bing, Google, PirateBay, etc...) for, 99% of the population, does remove it from the internet.