Add in cloud services that allow you to spin up a web server in a matter of minutes, and the whole idea of hiding the content instead of getting rid of it seems utterly insignificant.
It's never been easier to set up your own web server, create your own forum about anything and let it do its own thing. Their tiny pea brains were actually able to realize that illegal content will be harder to find if it doesn't come up on search engines, but they massively failed by not realizing that people can still create forum sites, dedicated search engine sites, and other online meeting places to distribute the links that get removed from Google. The RIAA and any lawmakers trying to enforce this get a D- for their efforts.
#NEEDED ME RIHANNA MP3SKULL PLUS#
How is it that you can get your balls busted simply for documenting the Internet exactly as it stands? Sure, there are going to be bad guys doing bad things out there, but why is it Google's responsibility to censor the searches it provides? I want Google to show me what their algorithm things is most relevant to my search terms, not what their algorithm thinks plus or minus a few courtesy of the RIAA.
How many takedown requests do you think they get? (Again, keeping in mind the number of absurd takedown requests that occur commonly though Wikipedia is very good about tracking the exact copyrights on its media, I can't imagine they don't get frivolous requests at all) Thus, I conclude that the number of takedown requests (and possibly metadata on said requests) is merely one factor in the ranking, and only weighs down the site, instead of purging it.Īs such, a sufficiently popular/highly ranked site will still be high in the rankings even with tons of takedown requests, because the other factors are high enough to keep it there.Īs an aside - Wikipedia is almost always one of the top results for broad queries on a subject. (The moment this became public, someone would make a takedown request bot to sink targeted sites to the bottom anyways - people are always trying to manipulate Google's algorithm.) Since removing something entirely makes the inevitable false positives unacceptable, this doesn't make sense for their implementation (though it certainly seems this is what the RIAA expects). Since it's obvious that not all takedown requests are legitimate (Who remembers NASA's videos getting taken down by some tiny station?), the algorithm can't just do something like setting ranking to zero if there's X requests. My guess is that Google has added a step to its ranking algorithm that incorporates takedown requests into it.
0 kommentar(er)
