Title is editorialized by submitter. Actual title: "Google Removes Pirate Bay Domains from Search Results Citing Dutch Court Order".
(Submitted title was "Google voluntarily de-lists The Pirate Bay")
> The order targets ISPs and doesn't name Google but the company chose to voluntarily comply. does allow changing the title sometimes:
HN guidelines do allow changing the title on one condition:
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
The original title is misleading, leading one to believe Google was ordered.
If there's a misleading aspect, it's that they only removed the search results in the Netherlands while the headline doesn't really make that clear. I think it's borderline though.
SO we have the case against that DNS provider, one against adult sites and one from the Netherlands against Pirate Bay.
Two thoughts: What the fuck happened to the free internet? It seems that the EU is slowly, intentionally or not, building a Chinese wall around European internet. And secondly, apparently those courts didn't realize that VPNs are a thing. My son used VPNs on his phone before I even thought about it. And he didn't pick the worst ones. He is 13.
What alternatives do you propose except passing laws? Just allow corporations or individuals on the internet to exploit people and children for their own profit without any repercussions because they're on "the free internet"? To allow stealing and profiting out of copyrighted works without repercussions because they're on "the free internet"?
There was never such a thing as "the free internet" except in the ideological minds of some people. In reality, when you don't place laws and guards in place, things will always get abused and go downhill pretty fast.
For instance, children can't get into strip clubs or casinos in most countries. Those laws exist for a reason and there's no argument you can make that they shouldn't just because those venues are now on the internet, so if a company wants do do business in country X, then they have to abide by that country's laws. It's a perfectly logical and reasonable thing to do and being an "internet company" shouldn't exempt you from all the laws in all the countries, that's just a silly proposition.
The fact that VPNs and other workarounds exist also shouldn't preclude such laws from being put in place, otherwise there would be no legal ground on which to prosecute any offenders. There are workarounds for breaking and entering but you wouldn't argue that there shouldn't be such a law because "apparently those courts didn't realize that lockpicks are a thing".
So I'm not sure why you're getting so angry about on your specific examples? Laws being put in place that target certain internet behaviors that are already unlawful when not on the internet? Kids not being able to easily access porn websites? Being slightly harder to find pirated content online? It's a strange set of arguments to put your foot down on imho.
Also, the country's name is Cyprus.
If anything, I think your title is more editorialized, since Google is clearly doing this for legal reasons, not exactly "voluntarily".
I merely gave my opinion as a non-legal casual news reader. To me at lest this new headline conveyed what happened more clearly before I delved into the article.
Happy to compromise on that both titles are not ideal :)