
Google Starts Censoring BitTorrent, RapidShare and More - barredo
http://torrentfreak.com/google-starts-censoring-bittorrent-rapidshare-and-more-110126/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
======
trotsky
Wow, 22 paragraphs about the removal of 5 keywords from instant and auto?
Jesus, what will folks have to do - type out their entire search term and hit
enter? Censorship?

I don't even think this is accurate. Granted, there is something off about how
the terms stall out in instant, but for example as soon as I finish typing
bittorrent both instant and auto complete kick back in and show as normal:
<http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6820/bittorrentac.png>

In contrast, if you type out a sex term it quits instant and auto complete and
never restarts them, you must hit enter:
<http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7349/asexac.png> (mostly safe for work - no
results)

I imagine the real reason google is doing this is ad placement. After all
instant is just about having the ads up longer. Google "bittorrent" and a
standard search term like "real estate" - notice any differences? Yup, they
don't sell ads on the bittorrent serp (just like they wont sell adsense on a
torrent tracker)

~~~
Sephr
> I don't even think this is accurate. Granted, there is something off about
> how the terms stall out in instant

There's no stalling, it's completely disabled and will not suggest anything
until you type the entire word.

> In contrast, if you type out a sex term it quits instant and auto complete
> and never restarts them

So? How does that have anything to do with justifing blocking BitTorrent
terms? If I type "install bitt[orrent]" or "install ut[orrent]", I get no
suggestions as it is clearly blocked.

~~~
citricsquid
I would guess people are searching "bittorrent [copyright material]" and
someone has had their lawyers shout at google for it, because it could be seen
as prompting users into pirating. Like "torrent li[nkin park]" might have got
them in trouble because before the person was _just_ searching "torrent
li[nux]" so now a user who wants a legit torrent for linux is being told oh
hey you can pirate linkin park albums too!

(I don't agree that this is right, but it seems the sensible explanation to
me)

~~~
ecuzzillo
Er, sorry, accidental downmod from 4 to 3, intended upmod to 5.

------
patio11
If you typed "bingo card creator" into Google, two of the first ten
suggestions were "bingo card creator torrent" and "bingo card creator serial".
I have a screenshot on my blog somewhere... here we go.

[http://www.kalzumeus.com/2009/09/05/desktop-aps-versus-
web-a...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2009/09/05/desktop-aps-versus-web-apps/)

Direct link: [http://www.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/piracy-is-
dying....](http://www.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/piracy-is-dying.png)

It is more than mildly annoying to have a modern day Clippy looking over one's
users' brand searches and saying "It looks like you're looking for software...
have you considered stealing it instead?"

~~~
uxp
It appears to return similar results right now. I've always been frustrated
when I would search for software, and the entire first page results, besides
the actual first result, were rapidshare and megaupload aggregating blogs.

The query of the title of the Pragmatic Bookshelf book that happens to be open
on my desk returns 4 relevant links. The remaining 6 are sites advertising
free PDF downloads. Back in the day, one would have to go to a dedicated
search engine for these links.

As much as I dislike "Censoring", Google should decide whether it wants to be
in the business of providing links to sites that clearly are aggregators for
filesharing and fileuploading links to pirated and copyrighted content. The
Pirate Bay, et al., can take care of that.

~~~
eftpotrm
While I agree it's distasteful, a good percentage of Google's search users are
surely looking for exactly that link to illegal copies though? By providing
those links quickly and easily Google is arguably _improving_ the quality of
the search results for its end users.

Now, I'm with you that I'd rather that the search results were _worse_ in this
specific way, but this sort of thing is surely a direct result of
algorithmically optimising search results to present the user with what
they're after even if they don't necessarily know exactly how to find it, a
general good and a defeating of the sort of SEO techniques we usually complain
about here.

In general though - Google already has a 'SafeSearch' function for images,
which seems to work tolerably well without complaint. Perhaps a similar system
could be introduced both for results and suggestions so that these to illegal
content and sites they consider likely to harm my computer could be filtered
out by default and only returned if I specifically set the preference or
search terms to look for them?

------
dholowiski
It should be noted that despite the headline - Google is not censoring any
search terms. They're just not allowing certain words in the search auto-
complete. A controversial move to be sure, but something they've done with
other words since the introduction of search auto complete

~~~
radicaldreamer
Aren't there plenty of sexual terms that are already "censored" in the instant
suggestions database? That hasn't affected anything so I doubt this will have
any large scale impact on file sharing.

~~~
marshray
It's one thing for them to refrain from auto-completing the users' first few
letters with suggestions including the filthiest words in the language. That's
quite understandable to me. After all, it seems unlikely that those results
are what users ordinarily want and there is a very high attentional cost to
offering them wrongly (from the UI perspective).

But in this case, they're filtering out perfectly ordinary words for perfectly
legitimate network protocols and actual products. If I type "utorren" there's
no reason Google should withhold the "t" other that pure evil search-term
engineering.

It's incomprehensible to me that a company that refused to filter "democracy"
in China will agree to demote "utorrent" in America.

~~~
marshray
Just out of curiosity, can someone explain what it was about what I said that
it deserves to be modded into negative numbers?

Did I break a rule, is this site overrun with fanboyism, or something else
entirely?

~~~
stanleydrew
<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it
makes boring reading."

~~~
marshray
Yeah I knew that which is why I wasn't complaining. Agreed, this is boring.

------
corin_
Think we can all hear DuckDuckGo's next advertising campaign coming round the
corner...

~~~
kkowalczyk
DuckDuckGo doesn't have an instant search at all so even less-than-perfect
Google's solution is better than DuckDuckGo's non-existent solution. I don't
see what DuckDuckGo could advertise here.

~~~
corin_
Doesn't matter that they don't offer the exact same search, just needs general
principle points to be made.

"We don't believe in censoring the web, so here's our promise to you: our
entire service will always work 100% to give you what you're looking for."

"When you search with DuckDuckGo, you know that, no matter what you're looking
for, you're receiving our very best."

"We know it's not our place to make it harder to search for certain topics, so
we'll keep providing you with the best tools for the job, and leave you to
chose how to use them."

etc.

------
tzs
Torrentfreak should protest this by stopping showing Google ads on their site.

~~~
pharrington
One person neglecting to call out of work does not make a boycott.

------
jsz0
Seems reasonable to me. Google is generating these autocomplete suggestions so
they are ultimately responsible for them. I think there's quite a big
difference between pushing search suggestions at people versus delivering the
results of a precise query. It's a bit too soon to start crying censorship.
That being said it would not surprise me at all if they end up eliminating the
results entirely someday. Various courts around the world have cracked down on
torrent/NZB sites, which are basically just search engines, if they can't get
away with this it seems hard to believe Google can either.

------
antidaily
Searching for rapidshare or torrents on Google usually just leads you to
garbage spam sites anyway.

------
Natsu
I wonder if they're doing this to avoid having someone making a claim that
they're inducing people to commit copyright infringement?

That's the only sense I can make out of this.

------
DennisP
I just typed "utor" into google, waited a bit, and "uTorrent" appeared in the
dropdown just fine.

~~~
Roritharr
doesnt work for me, until i enter that last t of utorrent nothing appears,
sad.

~~~
Semiapies
Works fine for me.

------
philthy
Luckily instant search is still in beta, has some quirks, and may never be
fully implemented. I think Google knows this and is playing both sides of the
fence. I don't use instant search because a) I am a competent and swift typist
b) any heavy user knows instant search limits results. It's a toy.

------
mcasaje
Perhaps Google, with its obviously inconsistent censorship policy, is trying
to rile up the users being affected as well as the companies of their services
to finally take action again the entertainment industry's censorship. Perhaps
Google is the Green Hornet here, posing to be the bad guy?

Then again, I think that I'm just wishfully thinking, not wanting to accept
the fact that Google has finally lost its independent mindset and vision of
connecting the internets.

The last sentence on the blog sums it up best.

"Google may have been proud to leave China because of its political
censorship, but it should be ashamed of promoting commercial censorship
worldwide."

I wonder how Google can justify those contradicting actions.

------
giberson
I'm kinda off-put about their decision to censor the software program titles,
rather then say copyrighted illegal content. Obviously the former is the
"easy" fix, while they should have approached the latter solution instead. And
while this is only a censor on the autocomplete and instant search (neither of
which I actively use) it does pave the way for eventual search result
censoring.

Then again this could be a good thing for competitors. I can see a market open
for a "censor free" search engine. Tagline "You're an adult, search like one".
Hey... any entrepreneurs feel up for a new startup? _wink wink nudge nudge_

~~~
jcr
I misread your comment the first time through, but the misreading gave me a
profound idea... "Why doesn't Google black-list the names of the copyrighted
works?"

Food for thought.

~~~
wmf
_Why doesn't Google black-list the names of the copyrighted works?_

Because they are probably available legitimately somewhere. Or the user might
be looking for information _about_ the work, not the work itself.

~~~
jcr
Yes, of course. But it's mostly a rhetorical question. You see, the new auto-
complete filters are banning the terms of legitimate services (albeit theses
services can be misused) in conjunction with terms of copyrighted works (e.g.
<photoshop rapidshare> or <rapidshare photoshop>).

It's the combination of terms, so if one should be banned to please copyright
holders, it almost makes sense to ban the terms of copyrighted works. After
all, it's the copyright holders pushing for this kind of filtering.

------
donohoe
I think the word "censorship" is being abused here.

------
marshray
I am really disgusted with Google for this.

uTorrent is a great piece of software and completely legitimate application. I
have used it to transfer open source and other content all the darn time.
Peer-to-peer is a perfectly legitimate network application architecture and
it's simply ridiculous that anyone should question it.

Those of you saying "this is effectively meaningless and not censorship" ...
well why are they bothering to do it if it doesn't mean anything?

All of you l33t web startup founders had better realize that it may be your
network architecture keyword search term that they come after next. After all,
these people are fundamentally against the transfer of raw data, whatever its
form.

~~~
boredguy8
Oh how I wish this was intended as a joke.

~~~
guelo
Either state your counter-argument or stfu, this above the fray snark is
insulting and useless.

~~~
guelo
OK, I'll burn more karma because I'm feeling feisty today.

marshray is concerned about Google's move, just like a lot of other people.
boredguy8 is obviously not concerned and thinks marshray's concerns are so
dumb that they would be better as a joke. But he doesn't say why he thinks
those concerns are a joke, he's just condescendingly pointing and laughing and
calling marshray stupid. How is that acceptable debate? Like I said it is
insulting and useless. If you are going to downvote me please explain what's
wrong with what I'm saying.

~~~
marshray
Thanks for that explanation. It's really odd how the quality of logic (and
balance of moderation) on this site sometimes seems to dip below what would be
expected on Slashdot.

------
redthrowaway
And yet, they still have this:

[http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=off&client=g...](http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=off&client=google-
coop&cof=FORID:13;AH:left;CX:Torrent%2520Search;L:http://www.google.com/intl/en/images/logos/custom_search_logo_sm.gif;LH:30;LP:1;VLC:%23551a8b;DIV:%23cccccc;&adkw=AELymgWxJcaNa-
prJyUwY_M91Qmzs6-B1XzPgzKYs9ErsutE3YBVOs-
bGwidEU9qNGmFvTO5tGmkyw1ZGBit1gEnAGhcZZPhUosChXO77W2k_tb19uGwL_0&boostcse=0&q=&btnG=Search&cx=003849996876419856805:erhhdbygrma)

------
vacri
Given that I don't particularly like "instant" and that these results still
appear on the full search, I would consider this a feature, not a fault...

------
aj700
“There’s no reason for Google to throttle search results for our trademarks,
including BitTorrent, µTorrent and torrent. Indeed, they do still enable
autocomplete for many third-party clients that use the BitTorrent protocol,
including BitComet, BitLord, and even sites like The Pirate Bay and Isohunt.”

so you'll be more successful in terms of search traffic if your client doesn't
contain the word torrent!

------
bugsy
I read the article and it is not censoring. It's just not including these
sites in the instant results. They do turn up in the search results though.
It's like the library putting the Playboys behind the counter and you have to
ask for them.

------
jacquesm
It's not censorship, it's just a feature that they decide not to apply to one
branch of queries because 'suggesting' such a search might get them in hot
water with entities with very deep pockets.

------
stretchwithme
I don't think choosing what you're going to republish is censorship.

------
mrschwabe
Another reason to use DuckDuckGo. Slowly but surely Google is losing the
patronage of nerds everywhere. Censorship like this will help to ensure an
even more rapid abandonment.

------
imkevingao
I think this is very hypocritical of Google.

Just a few months ago they pulled out of China because of censorship, and now
they're censoring stuff themselves. Sure it's not _Exactly_ the same, but
everything starts with a small precedent. Now that Google is powerful, it
first starts off with censoring torrents, then what next? If Google starts to
censor and control the outflow of data, it just kills the current perception I
have for Google.

This is nothing innovative.

------
yemkay
This is evil. They should rather tweak their algorithm instead of blacklisting
phrases?

~~~
jacquesm
Nonsense. They are perfectly within their rights to _not_ suggest that people
behave in ways that are against the law.

You may not like that it is against the law in many places but (1) legally
aggressive companies don't like other companies suggesting their stuff gets
pirated and google is a much juicier target than John Doe, (2) it would not
help google if Jane Doe brought up google suggesting she download a torrent
when she was doing a search to buy the album if Justin Bieber and pirated it
instead.

This is just a sound business decision by google, _not_ evil.

~~~
mwg66
I don't agree. A simple keyword match does not determine if a keyword result
is suggesting that I break the law in any given region. "Ubuntu torrent" being
a prime example of this.

~~~
jacquesm
As soon as you've completed the word 'torrent' a whole slew of suggestions
pops up.

~~~
mwg66
That is correct but the original point still stands.

------
mwg66
2010 - the year the free Internet died.

------
GrandMasterBirt
Sorry guys, I am having trouble believing this...

typing in "bittorrent" will yield bittorrent.com and 4th result as utorrent.
Nothing is filtered.

~~~
michael_dorfman
Re-read the article. It's not claiming that anything is filtered.

The author of the article is up in arms because Google has removed
"bittorrent" and other terms _from auto-complete._ In other words, if you type
"bittorr" in the search box and pause, it will not suggest "bittorrent" as a
completion.

Here's a teacup. Good luck finding the tempest.

