The past News Corp - MySpace deal is a good indication of what a non-internet company will do for an internet company. Five years down the line, the members of techdirt should get together, pool our lunch money, and buy Yahoo ...
500 db would take out the continent you are standing on ...
"Yes, you would also die. Sound is just pressure waves through air which our ears can hear, and since decibels are logarithmic they increase really quickly. A whisper is 40 dB, talking is 60, and hearing damage starts at 85. The loudest scream ever was 116 dB at 8 feet. A train horn is about 130. At 150 decibels you stop being able to breath. You feel like you are underwater from the amount of air being hurled at you. Past 160 flashlights and other battery-powered equipment will begin to fail due to electrical interference and your brain and eyes will start getting permanent damage. Humans exposed to 170 decibels have about a 50% chance of surviving. Above that the scale just kinda falls apart (edit: As many comments have pointed out, decibels aren't really an appropriate measure for things above this energy, because sound starts doing weird things. 194 dB is the same as the ambient air pressure in PSI at sea level, so beyond that it's not so much a sound as it is a blast or shockwave.) Around 185 dB you get the types of forces involved in tornadoes or pressure blasts from large bombs, capable of destroying everything in their path. The largest bomb used in Europe during WWII only made 220 decibels, and the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki created 250. Krakatoa's eruption was 310 and blew out concrete walls 300 miles away. Tambora, the loudest sound ever recorded, was 325 decibels and had enough energy to dig a crater 12 miles wide and as deep as Yosemite. 500 decibels would likely annihilate large sections of whatever landmass you were on, possibly with enough force to launch debris into space. TL;DR: Yes, 500 dB for a thousandth of a second will make you go deaf. 120 decibels is usually considered the lower limit on instantaneous hearing loss. So don't stick your head in a jet engine or a subwoofer at a music festival, it might break your ears -- or kill you."
Your missing the big picture. It is not Googles job to police the internet, it is the content companies. It is not Googles job to scold, or educate based on some other corporations loosely defined and delusional wishes.
Here is the big picture, it is not up to Google to interpret what peoples motives are, when they are searching for "free (insert phrase here)" or "(phrase) download".
"Taylor Swift download" could mean the Apple IStore, etc. "Taylor Swift free download" could be part of a promotion. "Taylor Swift free" could be anything, tee shirts, music, key rings, pictures, song lyrics, YouTube videos, music from her record label, etc.
Also responding to this with arguments like, its a good bet..., Google knows what these people are asking for..., Google can tell who is going to ..., Google knows "X" means... , etc, will go unanswered as it implies the ability to read minds, or predict the future.
watching many sites retreat from interacting with their own audience has been a giant step backwards for on-line media
It is a giant step forward from their perspective. No more pesky kids, coming in and destroying their carefully crafted narratives. No more people calling them out for their bullshit, and out and out lies. No more people coming in and commenting on the inaccuracy of a given story. No more inconvenient "FACTS" showing up in the comments, making the authors and media company look totally clueless, or worse yet like utter and complete liars.
Again, from their perspective, it is a step forward.
Neural nets, evolutionary algorithms, and deep learning are inherently difficult to understand. Explaining why they came to a particular decision is almost impossible. When the model is sufficiently complex, and continuously updating itself based on the current input(s), it becomes impossible to describe the rationale, for a given decision after the fact, as the "state" of the machine will have changed.
Basically, the EU just shot itself in the foot where AI is concerned.
This election cycle is about people being really fed up with politics as usual. Hence the rise of Sanders and Trump.
With how many people are getting news through social media, and online through various other sources, bypassing traditional media, lets hope these politicians and bureaucrats keep this business as usual for another 4 or 5 years. Perhaps then we can have term limits in the form of a "vote them all out" campaign.