Why are search engines getting involved in censorship? I understand that they need to blank out certain sites as required by law, but omitting them entirely is a bad move. When I perform a search I want it to search the web, not the approved-web.
Because they're afraid of having iy forced down their throats. Pre-emptive complicance with regulations that don't exist yet is a way for businesses to maintain their autonomy in uncertain regulatory climates. Cf. antibiotic use in animal factory farming.
This is pretty brutal, because in the end these "chilling effects" versions of censorship can be much harsher than any actual government censorship (which would be constrained by the First Amendment and judicially reviewable).
Same reason the ESRB came to be. Government basically said "Figure this crap out, or we will" and publishers and devs came together to hammer out the rating system.
Don't think any of those websites were taken offline. There are always going to be other channels for those news sites to flourish.
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".
Why are search engines getting involved in censorship?
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.
The DMCA (specifically safe harbor) has been a god send to businesses like Google, Facebook, many of Microsofts ventures etc.. This what AirBNB is currently using as their defense in the court cases they are having with cities, most notably San Fransisco. I read a great article about this not long ago:
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.
Web freedom have gone 'softly' which is the best way to do something outrageous I suppose. Softly and slowly.
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.
So you're good with just displaying porn / alcohol / drug / cigarette ads at the top then right? Kids use google too. And don't use blockers, because that's censorship.
Although, the elephant in the room is most piracy happens under their roof, at least for music. I used to "steal" music on p2p. Now I just "watch" youtube.
I would argue however that in some instances its a bit ambiguous if it is 'stealing' in that way with Youtube. While i think there are obvious examples of this (user freemusc69 certainly is NOT the legitimate copyright holder or the artist known as Kayne West, for instance), I do not believe official music video uploads like those from Vevo to youtube on behalf the recording artist or the record label are piracy in the same respect....or why would they even bother?
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 believe they do what you described, but it's not perfect. In order to do it, they need to know what a song sounds like and who owns that sound. If the owner hasn't uploaded it, then they can't take down copies. They also have the problem that the copyright on a certain song might have expired, and therefore one uploader can't claim copyright to every recording (but will try). Another thing is that they will sometimes catch someone for just having a snippet of a song in a video (fair use). The result is that they can't just take every matching video down, they have to hold it in dispute, which means it will stay up for a while.
>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).
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.
It might not be the main motivation, but it's certainly a legitimate concern. Malware does get distributed via illegal content sharing sites. Those sites do get used for phishing and card fraud.
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.
I'm 100% certain that users searching for content will still be taken to fake pirate sites still advertising non-existent downloads or hosting malicious files to hijack their computer.
I fail to see how this is censorship. They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately nor are they stopping you from finding content that you agree or disagree with. They aren't stopping facts from coming to light. They aren't stifling news sites.
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.
> I fail to see how this is censorship... They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately
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."
And they aren't censoring anything. I mention legitimately in the context of the article. True censorship would be say...stopping all Reuters news from showing up in google searches might be a decent example. It get murky in the real world because google is a private company and isn't bound by censorship laws the same way the government is.
Should it be? Different question all together, but currently it is not.
Imagine if China force google from showing any sites that mention "Tiananmen Square", because that is the law in China.
And now no one in the world would have a way to find it in google, because one country didn't want it to be found.
They're likely complying with the laws where they do business in this case. censorship? You bet! Government sanctioned censorship.
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.
> They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately.
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.
You are right to believe this is hogwash. I'll concede that all day.
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.
Also, it doesn't sound like they're making blanket removals of a blacklist, they're just factoring copyright violations into their ranking algorithms. I'm surprised they weren't already doing this, as it seems like not doing so would cross the line from "we can't be responsible for what our links point to" to "we are actively ignoring illegal use of our platform".
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.
As a relative blanket statement, since thats what we're making here, its not a free speech issue. I believe most western countries that hold the embodiment of free speech, largely exempt private entities from being adhered to the same free speech laws as the government is. There are caveats and things in every country, and I'm not educated enough on that to list all the exemptions and caveats, but broadly speaking, I believe this to be true in most western countries that hold free speech as a right and/or common law
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.
It depends on how they determine which websites are piracy websites. For example, if they go by how many DMCA takeout requests a site receives, then someone could file frivolous DMCA takeout requests against a site they want to censor.
>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.
Nope. it did not. I was simply pre-emptively shoring up my argument for those who may throw out a strict legal or constitutional definition of censorship.
Just trying to get ahead of misconceptions, or admittedly, what I believe to be common misconceptions.
In another reality it's easier to offer services people want, made available by technological developments, than spend billions of dollars in lobbying to force people to use antiquated modes of purchase.
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...
I think a lot of the torrent clients already have search built in. Personally, I hope these anti-piracy measures just push stuff underground and people could just organize sneaker-net lan-parties to share content, or allow poor people to sell bootleg HDD's on the street corner just like they used to sell pirated DVD's. This day and age you can buy 30-50 terabyte NAS systems for ~1-2k. Rather than try to find a particular album, show, or movie, it's more economical to just take all of them.
Readit News
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.
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".
type "George Soros is " (with the trailing space)
Compare and contrast
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.
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.
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
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.
Legitimately doesn't come into it.
Should it be? Different question all together, but currently it is not.
Deleted Comment
Side note, I'd like to hear the age of people who argue either side of this topic.
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.
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.
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 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.