Google and Bing to deprecate piracy websites
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
To me this is a form of censorship together with the recent removal of fake news sites.
The approved web is what we'll have eventually with little resistance.
type "George Soros is " (with the trailing space)
Compare and contrast
Edit: Wow you got a lot of downvotes fast. I honestly don't know if you're trying to advance a viewpoint or not, and I think you pointed out a very interesting split in the behavior of major engines that's worthy of taking a look at.
I, for one, think that regardless of your political views (I didn't even know who George Soros was), this comment was very high quality.
I downvoted because I spent hours looking into the related theory that Google was trying to influence the election by only showing positive autosuggestions about Clinton, only to conclude that the algorithm generally doesn't autosuggest negative things or allegations of crimes. (You can try with figures like OJ Simpson, Bill Cosby, etc.)
So, like the tired old discussions we have all the time (but Go doesn't have generics!, "if you're not the market, you're the product", etc), I downvoted since I don't think it was related to the discussion, particular interesting, or insightful.
Google gives me bland stuff like "..is how old" and "..is he dead."
Bing gives me "..is so evil" and "..is a convicted felon."
Duckduckgo "wins" with "..is the antichrist" and "..is satan."
Which is even stranger, shouldn't we all see the exact same thing with DDG?
What are your (relevant) DDG settings? Country is set to "All Regions" and Safe Search is on for me, but changing either doesn't change anything for me.
"Browser Preferred Language" (English-US in my case)
Safe Search "On"
Instant Answers "On"
Auto Suggest "On"
Would it matter if one's filter bubble is more on the left or right here? I'm Dutch, living in Sweden and left-leaning - presumably the biggest contributors to any filter bubble that applies here.
Without getting into a discussion of politics itself, could people who do see a difference share their experience, and what they expect the search engines to infer about their political leanings?
This makes me wonder: has anyone ever looked at per-country filter bubbles?
For example, when typing in "Martin Shkreli is a" on Google, the only auto-complete is "Martin Shkreli is actually good". Try the same on Bing and DDG, you will see all of the negative auto-completes you'd expect.
You can resist. You can use a different search engine. You can use other resources to get information out there. There is a myriad of different options. They're not all 'easy', but they're not impractical either.
I'm failing to see how this is going to be an "approved web".
Soon, posting articles about illegal states or economic boycotting will deduct your social popularity on social media. It really isn't too far away. Just replace points with 'recommendations' or 'popular' and it will be done.
Social points seems too draconian. Recommendations is better. What we thought was years away has already begun.
Censorship is a strong and emotive word, and I think using it in cases like this devalues its significance. Modern search engines consider a huge number of factors, many of them subjectively chosen, when deciding what to present on their results pages. In general, they have no obligation to provide any specific service to any specific visitor.
In most contexts, actively helping someone to break the law is frowned upon, or even against the law in itself. The big online services have a very cosy deal legally speaking at the moment, getting away with a lot of things that might otherwise be legally suspect because of special safe harbour rules and the like, which in turn means they can make a great deal of money by doing things automatically without the kind of human intervention and risks that would otherwise apply. It is unlikely to be in their interests to push their luck, because it isn't inherently necessary to give them such a beneficial treatment, and few people other than their shareholders would shed a tear if the climate changed and their running costs went up dramatically as a result.
A more positive point is that people who complain about other restrictive measures, like DRM and the laws that make breaking it illegal, often claim that it would be more effective for content producers to offer better legal channels for accessing that content. Promoting legitimate, reliable sources of good quality content is surely in the interests of any search engine.
In short, it's entirely reasonable for a major corporate player like Google or Microsoft to steer clear of supporting illegal activities and to promote legal sources for material online.
https://backchannel.com/the-most-important-law-in-tech-has-a...
Wired also has an older article talking about this too:
https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/
Its what allows so much of the internet to be the way it is, but abusing it or pushing it too hard could have serious negative consequences..this will be something to watch.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/05/what-music-piracy...
I think the bigger problem the music industry has with youtube is semi-legitimate: They used the non-official uploads as a leverage to get them to sign en masse for Google Play Music / Youtube Music Key instead of doing the proper thing and enforcing the DMCA take downs of the music at scale. They could easily do most of this algorithmically by doing sample checks with automated software and it would likely work most of the time (plus, they could work with rights holders/publishers/record companies to maintain a 'white list' of channels that wouldn't be scanned if they're uploaded by the channel owner unless an actual DMCA complaint was filed against that channel and it turned out to be legitimate).
Like most things, the real story is very complicated, and there isn't usually a good vs bad side as the water is very murky in the details.
I would say having some experience with the actual business of distributing music, that alot of distributors that are used to say, get your content on iTunes and the like en masse, do have the capability of allowing a service to 'sample' a song and do a lot of pre-checks of verification in that way.
They could tap into that ecosystem for legitimacy. It certainly does get harder beyond that though.
The largest argument against google making an autonomous car is the fact that they have zero capability to automatically and reliably detect copyright violations on their services.
The more content on youtube, the better for them ...
I'm 100% certain that was the main motivation for the change. /s
While I can't say I'm full of sympathy for pirates who get hoist by their own petard, plenty of innocent people also get hurt because they don't realise the site they are visiting is not kosher. It was high up on their favourite search engine, after all!
Sending their users to those dangerous sources is hardly in any search engine's best interests, regardless of any other incentives that may be at work here.
Exactly like it is now.
They're stifling an illegal act of procuring content that is within the confines of the current law, agree with it or not, thats all these sites allow you to do.
I don't think for instance, pirate bay has ever been known for its breaking news on current events.
Edit: For what its worth, these are private companies after all. So 'censorship' in terms of a legal or constitutional definition under freedom of speech, would not apply here anyway.
If you don't like this, it's clearly just a symptom of copyright laws you don't like, and not really an issue with the search engines.
Legitimately doesn't come into it.
censorship
noun
"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that
are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."Side note, I'd like to hear the age of people who argue either side of this topic.
Yes, it is a censorship. It is manipulating the output in order to not provide an information, that would be otherwise available, caused by interest of some third party.
To expand on the topic:
1) it is not illegal to tell other people where to find bootleg software or media,
2) in many countries it is legal to download such software or media (and they pay for the privilege in the form of an extra fee on their blank media, memory cards and hard drives, whether they do it or not)
3) what is illegal is to distribute software or media without the consent of the rights owners.
Point 3) is an issue between those sites that do it and the rights owners, nothing between the end users or search engines. Neither of them do 3) themselves.
Nobody of us might like spam, but there is obviously something that keeps these in the business. What? Eradicate that, remove their cash flow.
I might not like sites that aren't mobile friendly, but fortunately, when I'm not in a mood so scroll around it, I can always close it. No need for Google to step in.
I also do not like children being presented with porn/cigarette/alcohol/whatever advertising/results. But - these result do not come themselves, they are initiated, usually by those children. There is more need for parenting, than for Google protection. If it really bothers you, most routers allow for filtering the web, and some ISPs provide that as a service - for those interested, as it should be.
The problem with common sense vs censorship is: where you draw the line? That's the hard question, and easily abused one at that. Especially by entities like Google, who are not a harmless protector of innocent or knight in shiny armor. They are businesses, who have interest that may not align with yours, especially in the long run.
There are a myriad of search engines out there. They have competition.
I would say Google's right to do what google wants to do trumps any real arguments against them doing this here. I doubt they'll have any notable downtick in users.
Of course, you right to have an opinion on their practices is valid, i hope its not coming across as if its not, i just wanted to focus on the realities of the situation for the broader reading audience
And arguments for it are similar to the usual "think of the children" way of thinking which eventually leads to harder censorship, more surveillance and generally poor place to live.
Should it be? Different question all together, but currently it is not.
Then you feel sorry for not having resistet.
So i still wouldn't say they're stopping free speech by not including a website in a google search. You can argue, and I think rightly, that it would stifle the freedom of information to be discovered that wants to be discovered and consumed in that way, however, its not actually silencing or shutting down the website it may be censoring and/or not including, and it is still accessible.
Its not 'my speech' either. Illegally downloading and spreading content isn't speech in the first place, and the courts have ruled as such, as do the laws we currently have in place reflect that.
At the end of the day, I'm not seeing much of a justification for people getting content illegally.
The government has made its decisions on this many times. They're largely following the patterns laid out in those lawsuits cases laws etc.
Can't imagine anyone disagreeing the sites they are banning don't distribute illegal content as a primary reason why people visit them in the first place.
I'd say thats a good (and strong) litmus test for this sort of thing.
Is that censorship to you?
They're a private company doing business in China. They're going to have to make a decision: Either subvert the 'man' or comply with the law.
While i would choose subvert the 'man', I would not say i'm doing it because its legal.
Different arguments. Also worth noting: These voluntary actions are also legal. They're also private businesses in the USA, and they are free to do this with impunity.
One can always take their business elsewhere, or otherwise get information in other ways. They aren't stopping you from accessing anything.
I think you meant "They're not censoring content that you aren't able to access legitimately".
This is bullshit. There are a lot of things you can't buy (especially in smaller countries) but which are available on pirate sites. Heck, you can't even watch Netflix own shows in some countries using Netflix because Netflix geoblocked them.
However, you knowingly are getting content that the content rights holders have deemed is not going to be published in x area. Netflix has a right (and some would say a duty) to enforce whats in their contractual deals with content/rights holders in pursuant with being able to do the business they do.
So the question is: you can't get that content, that much is clear. Why does that mean you should be able to pirate that content because its not distributed in the way you like it to be? This isn't medical care. This isn't news stories. Its TV shows and music and movies. These are pleasure items after all.
Does that mean you are entitled to this content because they don't offer it in a way you find acceptable?
Edit: really any content getting downloaded illegally (colloquially known as pirated) I haven't ever seen someone argue that the content say, saved a life, or was so important to x that it had to be done.
Lets be real: what we're talking about here isn't subverting a totalitarian regime and allowing citizens to talk on the world stage. I reckon most if not all of these sites just shuffle illegal copies of digital goods.
What we used to call 'going without'.
E.g. in Poland if you have bought a copy of given software, you can download if also from the site and use whichever version you prefer (but only one) - this is a fare use case.
Example would be if given software is in a poor way DRM protected and you would like to run it on an OS that doesn't support DRM.
Or in the days of games distributed on CDs, we were downloading those pirated versions (while owning a proper one) because they didn't require a CD to be always in the computer.
You could argue that they should apply it to a country by country specifics, sure. Though i fail to see how its google's problem if you can or can't find a website per se. They are, yes a search engine, and that is what google.com's primary purpose of use is. What they aren't saying, nor have they really ever guaranteed, is that they will give you unfiltered results. Its actually quite the contrary. It's google's indexing and filter algorithms that make it so effective in the first place.
With all that said, there is always an alternative. Google's a private company. They can't shut down these websites. They aren't even attempting to do that. They are just making casual access more complicated I suppose more than anything.
Its within their right to do that.
(Notice how no one seems to be scoffing at Bing, its all about what Google does or doesn't do)
The article never claimed it was unconstitutional
Just trying to get ahead of misconceptions, or admittedly, what I believe to be common misconceptions.
I've paid Steam and Spotify for 13 and 9 years respectively to not have to do any work in getting games and music.
Now if only the movie (and to a lesser extent TV) industry caught on.
1) This could open up the market again for search engines (ie - "we don't censor your search, so use us instead of the other guys".
2) How long until you try to search for "{name of research paper} pdf" and you only get links back to the pay-for-access sites for research papers?
Personally I think this is BS, but I understand why they are doing it. It won't stop piracy or other illegal crap - it will just move it elsewhere, like it always has. If you want the stuff, you can find it. You always have, you always will.
The second one, though, bothers me. All too often, I read an article about a research paper I want to read, only to be paywalled by one of the big research paper companies. But usually - if the paper is older than 6 months or so - I can google for it, and find a copy (sometimes a draft). In many cases, it will be off of one of the researcher's sites or blogs. Other times, it will be in an FTP archive somewhere, or linked by someone else.
It really bothers me when for a research paper, I am asked to pay anywhere from $25.00 USD or more for a PDF, as an interested individual or hobbyist. Researchers are also expected to do the same, but are largely insulated from it by their institutions, who shell out big $$$ for a subscription to the services (so for the researcher, they don't see the cost - though most know about it otherwise - plus they usually have to pay thru the nose themselves just to get it on the path to publishing!).
I have found that sometimes - in certain cases - finding the author(s) of a paper and emailing them asking for a copy (stating that I am a hobbyist interested in their work) generally works well enough to get a copy sent to me (and sometimes much more).
Ultimately - I wouldn't be surprised to see Google and Bing do this after a few threats from the publishing companies...
It feels or seem the p2p era has seen its time at least for us in the UK, because of censorship and legitimate alternatives.
The lobbyist have finally influenced far enough.
And promptly unblocked by using a different DNS server or a VPN, both things no longer limited to the realm of the computer-savvy.
I see this response all the time but fail to see how it addresses the real problem.
It's being pragmatic rather than an idealist. Politics sucks, and nothing may change even if you do the right thing or in this case, specially if you do the right thing since your opponents don't give a shit about such concepts.
It's sad and it's dumb, but that's human nature.
There's a short story im not able to find, that has this very idea as a plot.
Search will always be biased, it's inherent to the problem space. Word appearance, cross linking, and every other metric used to sort and score results are always going to optimize certain things over others.
So in this case it's a matter of ethics, and I find it hard for anyone to morally suggest that illegal content should score higher and be considered more relevant, unless you want to debate over the legality of it.
Everything above is written with the full knowledge that there is some irony in talking about ethics and trustworthiness in relation to copyright infringement. Nonetheless - I think the terms still carry some validity in context.
I think they haven't fully factored in the longer term losses they might incur when people might look for, find, and switch to an alternative good-enough uncensored search engine, e.g. Yandex.