3 ms·

This is some pretty hillarious bureaucracy we're seeing here. First, the world was noticed [0] that google would begin blocking "Unwanted Software", and include

This is some pretty hillarious bureaucracy we're seeing here. First, the world was noticed [0] that google would begin blocking "Unwanted Software", and included a link [1] to their "unwanted software policy". This means that they can claim they gave all the torrent sites good faith notice since february, and even though none of them realized that they would be considered unwanted software, the time ran out, and google quietly swept these sites under the rug. They don't seem to be retracting this, either, which means this is business as usual. I consider this action to be further proof that "Don't Be Evil" died with Eric Schmidt coming on board. This is stuff I'd expect out of Microsoft, but it still surprises me when Google does it. 0. http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.nl/2015/02/more-protection-from-unwanted-software.html http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.nl/2015/02/more-protect... 1. https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/unwanted-software-policy.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/unwanted-softwa...

rancur 11y ago
> Don't be evil heavy load to carry financially and liably speaking
- glimmung 11y ago
  Sure - but Google chose that mantra themselves. As you suggest, it may not be something we can reasonably expect, all things being equal. However, that's not the case here - in this case the commenter is comparing their actual behaviour to their stated policy, which is perfectly reasonable.
neotek 11y ago
What evidence do you have that Google is trying to block torrent sites specifically? It would seem to me, given the way the safe browsing report is worded, that it isn't the torrent sites themselves that are considered malicious, it's the content being delivered via third parties (i.e., ad networks) that Google's flagging. You're basically implying a conspiracy by Google to police the internet by limiting access to sites that enable piracy, but I don't understand why you think they'd choose this route rather than just de-indexing torrent sites completely, which they could easily and justifiably do.
Steko 11y ago
Shouldn't this also block Chrome updates since they have been known to download malware that allows Google to override your microphone settings?

rancur 11y ago

> Don't be evil heavy load to carry financially and liably speaking

glimmung 11y ago
Sure - but Google chose that mantra themselves. As you suggest, it may not be something we can reasonably expect, all things being equal. However, that's not the case here - in this case the commenter is comparing their actual behaviour to their stated policy, which is perfectly reasonable.

neotek 11y ago

What evidence do you have that Google is trying to block torrent sites specifically? It would seem to me, given the way the safe browsing report is worded, that it isn't the torrent sites themselves that are considered malicious, it's the content being delivered via third parties (i.e., ad networks) that Google's flagging. You're basically implying a conspiracy by Google to police the internet by limiting access to sites that enable piracy, but I don't understand why you think they'd choose this route rather than just de-indexing torrent sites completely, which they could easily and justifiably do.

Steko 11y ago

Shouldn't this also block Chrome updates since they have been known to download malware that allows Google to override your microphone settings?