alphanumeric said:

Good stuff, if it works

"If it works" is the question indeed.

Either it will end up blocking/demoting legitimate things it shouldn't (Like this: UBUNTU users -- Paramount orders Google to take down Links to the OS !) or will be ineffective in stopping people who are determined anyway.

My guess is it will fail on both counts.

Whether search engines should censor results at all is another question of course - most likely one for another forum :)

Again we have another scenario where good people, good websites are going to get the shaft because of bad people and websites. Reminds me of a trivial medication thing. The FDA saw fit to take off the shelves a nasal decongestant because they found out illegal drug people were using it to make crack or whatever. Mind you, I have had chronic sinusitis for years and it is the best medicine I have found to clear my sinuses. Now I have to sign for it and only allowed a certain amount. Is this fair? I have to be a second class citizen because of drug dealers/makers? When you start things like this you are taking away from good people. Nobody sees it that way for some reason.....I wonder why?

lol Kari! You see my point was that when does it become impossible to call the internet a free place? If they keep adding more and more restrictions based on "some" misuse where does it end? I am 57 and have been around computers and the internet a long time and the path keeps getting narrower and narrower. What once we thought would "free" or "unleash" the world is now becoming a nightmare. lol Do we want unimpeded internet or a closed internet which is very unuseful? First they said the internet will bring the world together. Now they say wait a minute we can't let you access a whole bunch of stuff or we will hide it from search results. Free or not? That is the question. I'm afraid the answer is going to be or not and the demise of the internet as we once knew it.

chuck1959 said:

Do we want unimpeded internet or a closed internet which is very unuseful? First they said the internet will bring the world together. Now they say wait a minute we can't let you access a whole bunch of stuff or we will hide it from search results.

That is what AOL tried to do is it not? It didn't work for them (not that what happened in the past is a predictor of the future of course).

I'm not against a bit of default filtering on search engines TBH. I certainly don't want to get hundreds of results for porn sites if I'm looking for something else using the TV as a screen in front of my kids. Nor do they I imagine - it is embarrassing for everyone.

As long as you can turn it off if you want and it is clearly explained what is being blocked. Filtering as some pressure group disapproves seems unfortunate whether you agree with their argument or not.

There are countries (I don't currently live in one but I have) where sharing things copyrighted in the same country (let alone another) was perfectly legal if it was not for personal gain. Conversely I lived in UAE where Skype was banned (as it reduce income for the Telecom company owned by the ruling Family) and everyone (literally almost everyone, even the poorest) would simply pop over to Oman or wherever and download it.

The argument that some sites should not be shown on Google is rather like suggesting one should not be able to buy fertilizer for your garden and sugar for your tea as you may mix them together. Perhaps 1 in a million would but for the other 999,999 it just makes life more annoying.

I guess 'search result removed as a result of a DMCA complaint...' is too labour intensive.

I therefore look forward to a Google and Bing (LOL) free of all mention of pirates and torrents, and other such keywords.

curious.....couldn't one just log on with tor browser and look for things in other search engines, seems to me it will always be out there whether Microsoft or google try to hide it.