Will Google's New Hamfisted Censorship On Autocomplete Raise Questions Of Human Meddling?

from the bad-idea dept

One of the key arguments that critics have often made against Google is that the company "meddles" in search results, effectively "picking winners and losers." Google's -- quite reasonable -- response for years has been that it's all in the algorithm, rather than any personal choices. And, the algorithm was just trying to recommend the best result, no matter what that might be. Indeed, this is a perfect and sensible response. However, after lots of pressure from the entertainment industry (and politicians closely associated with the entertainment industry), last month Google announced plans to start censoring "autocomplete" results, such that "terms that are closely associated with piracy" don't appear.

As we noted when the announcement was made, this is really difficult to do in any reasonable manner. What's "closely associated with piracy," one day becomes a legitimate format the next. Take MP3s for example. Five or six years ago, if Google had made this decision, you would imagine that Google might have decided to block "mp3" from autocomplete -- and yet, now, MP3 is the standard that is used around the world in all sorts of legitimate online music stores, including iTunes and Amazon. We pointed out that blocking things like "bittorrent" or just "torrent" would be a mistake of the same nature -- as it's just a standard that has plenty of legitimate uses, even if it's frequently used for unauthorized copying today.

Unfortunately, whoever was in charge of handling this at Google went for a simplistic sledge hammer approach, with the company now dropping a variety of terms, many of which have perfectly legitimate uses. Many of the choices seem totally arbitrary. As expected, BitTorrent and torrent are now blocked -- despite plenty of legal uses, and the fact that BitTorrent itself is a perfectly legal company with tons of companies using its technology for completely noninfringing purposes. In the TorrentFreak link above, there are reactions from a variety of companies, including BitTorrent Inc., RapidShare and Vodo, who all note that this move appears to hurt their legitimate businesses.

And that's where I wonder if this move will backfire in a big way on Google. While the concept of "search neutrality" may be one of the more ridiculous ideas to come out of Google-haters for years, the fact that the company is now clearly hand-picking "winners and losers" when it comes to searches on these kinds of technologies and services seems like something that will be used as evidence against Google at some point.

Google had a strong defense in the past to complaints of bias, in that it was focused on not meddling with its results. However, while this move doesn't directly mess with the actual results, by mucking with autocomplete, it is likely to have an impact on the kinds of searches that people do, driving them away from many perfectly legitimate solutions, for no reason other than that the company caved to pressure based on no legal rationale. All this really does is now open the door for others to demand that Google adjust its search recommendations and results in their favor as well. I'm really surprised Google would agree to do this in the first place, let alone do it in such a... simplistic and overly broad fashion.

Filed Under: autocomplete, bittorrent, censorship, search, torrent
Companies: google


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Huph, 27 Jan 2011 @ 3:15pm

    Eliminate Pirate Bay?

    A little off-topic but: Why does anyone think removing The Pirate Bay from search results would curb downloads from the site? TPB has its own self-contained search engine! (Although, maybe it's powered by Google?)

    I suppose it's a little more convenient to type "Pavement Slanted Enchanted pirate bay" and possibly be taken directly to the correct torrent link, but I don't think removing TPB from search results would affect its traffic at all. People who know torrent clients aren't *that* easy to fool.

    You know, rather than focusing on sites with infringing content that will *never* go away, could Google just stop giving listings to all those damn mp3 ringtone sites?! *THOSE* are a problem to me as a musician, since they claim to have ringtones of my band's music, but in reality it's just a circle of deeplinks that lead to whatever shitty ringtones they really sell. I find that incredibly frustrating, since someone is using our name to generate clicks and sell ad space for money and we get nothing for it. Some of the sites are malicious, too, which is another concern: I hate the idea that someone's computer might crash just because they wanted to hear our music. It seems odd to let this type of spam proliferate, yet censor words that describe sites that give you links that point to other links that point to content you want, and that you'll need an entirely separate piece of software to download.

    At least a pirate site actually has an unwitting hand in helping us distribute OUR music. They can keep the pennies they make from ads on our links since they perform a service, and besides, I don't feel like paying an accountant. Hell, I'd be happy if they made a ton of money from our music. Someone should. (It's all CC-BY-SA, so go for it!)

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.