12/28/2023 0 Comments Download my ip hide 4shared![]() People may be thinking, "If they're lying about this, what else aren't they telling us?"įrom my perspective, if those of us arguing for things like shorter copyright terms are to have any success convincing the broader public (whose access to information is largely through the media conglomerates), maybe having those people accidentally stumble upon torrent sites when they search for their favorite movie or pop idol is a good thing. Removing actually-popular searches from the autocomplete and instant results is, in a way, lying about reality. It could be argued that organic placement of piratical content in autocomplete and instant searches is a desired outcome, as it shows the average person what's "out there" on the web. I think the problem people have with Google's control over the search results is that they (perhaps mistakenly) expect Google to be an impartial facilitator for accessing the world's information. So yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious - content is either forbidden or not forbidden. It is in your right however to distribute that information by yourself, as only the law can stop you. It's not within your right to distribute whatever information you want through a private media outlet. I also like to point out that your First Amendment does not refer to Google, being applicable only to the actions of your government. Whether laws apply and whether something is forbidden I'd like to point out we have courts deciding Related to that event, over a period of 15 years more than 130 journalists and Internet users have been jailed, including Internet webmaster Huang Qi that has been in jail since 3 June 2000 for having allowed articles about the Tiananmen Square massacre to be posted on his website, which was hosted in the United States after being initially banned in China. Providing a citation for a personal opinion which I marked as such? Fine, I'll give you a famous example of real censorship. That "a material is either forbidden or not forbidden" Otherwise I ask you to cite support for your assertion I know how censorship looks like and it ain't nothing like what you describe. The reason why I'm asking for a citation is that I live in an ex-Communist country. If it's so obviously true, then you should have no problem providing a citation, right? I wouldn't mind if you violated Godwin's law either :) 100% effectiveness is not part of the definition, and never has been. Google is attempting to make this material less available to people who want to get it, and is succeeding. Just because it's not 100% effective - Arthur did find the notice, after all - doesn't mean it's not censorship. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".' >`But look you found the notice didn't you?' Douglas Adams provided the definitive mocking of that idea: Throughout history, all episodes of censorship have been met with the response that the material isn't REALLY censored, not for sufficiently determined readers. Just so you know, the lame arguments you are making are not new or novel. Out of all those users typing "torren" in Google's search bar, what percentage are trying to reach "torrent" and what percentage are trying to reach the Torrens land title system? Because right now Google is only showing me Torrens, and I suspect 99.99%+ of all users typing "torren" want torrents.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |