Hacker News Reader

Comment by marshray | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Oh how I wish this was intended as a joke.

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

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.

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.

Google is putting the interests of other corporations over those of its users or investors. This is not a laughing matter.

> This is not a laughing matter.

The fact that they're not actively pushing users to searching for certain bittorrent-related terms may not be a laughing matter, but the way people are responding to it certainly is.

I think that this idea that Google's autocomplete functionality is "actively pushing users" is dangerous because it could equally be applied to search results, or anything else. It seems to imply that anything Google returns has equivalent potential agenda and bias. The idea of Google being "fair" seems based on the premise of a strict firewall between advertising/promoted links and the famous algorithm for recommending results that users most likely actually want to find. If they're any smarter than Yahoo, they'll understand the second is what enables the first.

It would sure turn my world upside-down if it ends up that Bing wins takes the "fairest search" title in the minds of the users. But we may be seeing early hints of Google faltering here.

Could there be any connection with the recent executive rearrangement here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com