Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Bullsh*t: Google & Microsoft agree to block child abuse images

123 replies to this topic
StormerBoy
  • StormerBoy

    Tribe Leader

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#1

Posted 18 November 2013 - 11:51 AM

"Leading search engine companies Google and Microsoft have agreed measures to make it harder to find child abuse images online.

 

As many as 100,000 search terms will now return no results that find illegal material, and will trigger warnings that child abuse imagery is illegal."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24980765

 

This will make no difference to protecting children because; just as bank robbers don't leave their name and address before they leave the bank, paedophiles don't use f*cking Google anyway to look for illegal content, believe it or not.

 

This is about one thing, and that is censorship and restricting content on the Internet. Controlling our freedom. Sorry if I sound like a mad conspiracy theorist, but this move by the government is the start!

 

The government are using societies fear of the 'boogeyman' ie paedophiles to get what they want. If you don't believe me then Google 'culture of fear'.


RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#2

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:00 PM

I find it correct. There are things that should actually be censored. Unless you are interested in searching that kind of things I don't understand why else would you be pissed off.


StormerBoy
  • StormerBoy

    Tribe Leader

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#3

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:13 PM

Because of the content-restricting 'infrastructure' that they are putting in place. Once that is in place, it will be very easy for them to restrict other content on grounds of terrorism or whatever. Anything to meet their political needs.

 

For example, some large organisation that funds a certain political party, gives a'wink wink' about not thinking a certain thing should a be available online, and it is not too hard to justify blocking it.

  • Joe Chip likes this

Justin..
  • Justin..

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013

#4

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:19 PM

Why are you bothered? Do you look for child abuse images? It shouldn't bother you if you don't do it, regardless of how it's sourced.

Justin..
  • Justin..

    Thug

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013

#5

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:20 PM

It's not like we live in North Korea and can only view heavy political bullsh*t. Just remember that if you think we are getting it bad.

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#6

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:22 PM Edited by F4L?, 18 November 2013 - 12:27 PM.

 

 

This will make no difference to protecting children because; just as bank robbers don't leave their name and address before they leave the bank, paedophiles don't use f*cking Google anyway to look for illegal content, believe it or not.

You said it yourself right here, why does it matter then if google blocks content of that nature if the people looking for it don't even use google?

Look I can see the point you're getting at, how this is just the beginning, but to be honest, the domino effect doesn't ever really end up actually occurring like you believe it will. Just because google block this, considering it's illegal anyway, it doesn't mean they are then going to block porn sites and so forth, they are only blocking something that is irrefutably wrong (Kids getting raped, ect) and it makes them look bad indexing it anyway.

Basically what they are doing is drawing a line in the sand, that doesn't necessarily mean that the line is going to continually be pushed until we can't search anything, that won't happen because:
A) It's not in google's interests to restrict content for the most part, unless it's something that looks bad on google to the overwhelming majority. 
B) If they start blocking and restricting everything, some competitor who doesn't  is simply going to gain on google and perhaps even take their place.

They are only drawing a line in the sand, that's it.

Also in future, I recommend more carefully thinking out your titles, I mean this just looks bad on you, read the title back to yourself and you can see what people are going to think haha.
Untitled-2.png

  • Ermac. likes this

Joe Chip
  • Joe Chip

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2010
  • Palau

#7

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:26 PM Edited by Joe Chip, 18 November 2013 - 01:01 PM.

Why are you bothered? Do you look for child abuse images? It shouldn't bother you if you don't do it, regardless of how it's sourced.

 

He just said why. First they'll lock out pedophiles, and that shouldn't bother anyone who isn't a pedophile. Then they'll lock out the "eco-terrorists", anarchists, and other far leftists, and a few more people will be bothered, but hey, those guys are mostly terrorists anyway, right? Then some extremist religious groups will get locked out, and there'll be a few pissed off churches, but what loon needs such strong religion in this day and age? And it'll just keep on going like that.

 

The scary thing is that google's willing to censor things.

  • StormerBoy likes this

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#8

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:29 PM

Even if we are talking about a possible beginning of the censorship, which would be worrisome matter, I honestly think that there are things that should be censored, i.e. child abuse related things or sites that exalt the terrorism.


StormerBoy
  • StormerBoy

    Tribe Leader

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#9

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:34 PM

 

Why are you bothered? Do you look for child abuse images? It shouldn't bother you if you don't do it, regardless of how it's sourced.

 

He just said why. First they'll lock out pedophiles, and that's not going to bother anyone who isn't a pedophile. Then they'll lock out the "eco-terrorists", anarchists, and other far leftists, and a few more people will be bothered, but hey, those guys are mostly terrorists anyway, right? Then some extremist religious groups will get locked out, and there'll be a few pissed off churches, but what loon needs such strong religion in this day and age? And it'll just keep on going like that.

 

The scary thing is that google's willing to censor things.

 

 

The company that does what the f*ck they want in most cases, yes it does for sure raise questions as to why they have buckled? And that's where the problems lay. Who is to say that the Government don't now owe Google a favour or two. So the next time Google or MS are seen to be monopolising a market a little too much, how keen will the Government be to intervene?

 

And once we have got content being blocked left, right and centre, how long before it isn't even news worthy to report that something has just been restricted. ie We won't even know it is happening.


018361
  • 018361

    Human

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2010
  • None

#10

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:38 PM Edited by 018361, 18 November 2013 - 12:40 PM.

I wanna see Lucid's reaction when they hear the bad news.  :lol: Jk

 

As far as this goes i'm completely alright with it. I mean I never look up kids being abused or whatever, so it really doesn't bother me at this moment. Now if they start blocking websites base on religion or politics then I can understand being upset. The only thing that I saw close to it was a video of a stroller rolling off of a platform and into the train tracks in a subway, but the baby survived thankfully. As of now I don't really see any reason to start yelling " conspiracy ". If they do anything wrong you can rest assured that it will be protested against or fought against in a court of law. Probably both actually.  


StormerBoy
  • StormerBoy

    Tribe Leader

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#11

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:40 PM

I wanna see Lucid's reaction when they hear the bad news.  :lol: Jk

 

As far as this goes i'm completely alright with it. I mean I never look up kids being abused or whatever, so it really doesn't bother me at this moment. Now if they start blocking websites base on religion or politics then I can understand being upset. The only thing close to it was a video of a stroller rolling off of a platform and into the train tracks in a subway, but it survived thankfully. As of now I don't really see any reason to start yelling " conspiracy ". If they do anything wrong you can rest assured that it will be protested against or fought against in a court of law. Probably both actually.  

 

If the media tell us it is happening, perhaps.


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#12

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:46 PM

Making child pornography and the like even harder to find is good riddance i'd say. However there are two sides to that coin, if pedophiles-in-the-closet can't get their fix online anymore they might just move on to the real thing.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#13

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:46 PM

 Then they'll lock out the "eco-terrorists", anarchists, and other far leftists, and a few more people will be bothered, but hey, those guys are mostly terrorists anyway, right?

You're acting like it's a small step from blocking (heavily illegal) child abuse images to blocking semi-mainstream political content. The far-left are heavily involved in the global justice movement (usually called the "anti-globalisation movement" which is a misnomer but whatever) and are active on blogging sites like tumblr. It would be a pretty huge freaking deal if the government tried to ban the nebulous "far left" from the internet. 

 

Also, I can't think of a single act of terror in the western world that could be attributed to the far left since the Weatherman Group, so I don't know where you got the impression that the far left are "mostly terrorists."


Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2KSG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#14

Posted 18 November 2013 - 12:57 PM

This has nothing to do with internet censorship.

  • F4L?, Raavi and theadmiral like this

Joe Chip
  • Joe Chip

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2010
  • Palau

#15

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:02 PM Edited by Joe Chip, 18 November 2013 - 01:06 PM.

You're acting like it's a small step from blocking (heavily illegal) child abuse images to blocking semi-mainstream political content.

 

The point was that this is one step in what could possibly be a series of steps. It's a small step, sure, but it's a step in a direction that I don't like.

 

 

 

The far-left are heavily involved in the global justice movement (usually called the "anti-globalisation movement" which is a misnomer but whatever) and are active on blogging sites like tumblr. It would be a pretty huge freaking deal if the government tried to ban the nebulous "far left" from the internet.

 

By "far left" I meant those guys out there who legitimately threaten violence. Groups like Liberación Total (Who have pictures of a bomb they supposedly sent to a nanotechnology professor in April 2011 sitting right on the front page of their website. *see spoilered section below*) I phrased what I meant to say wrong.

 

 

 

Also, I can't think of a single act of terror in the western world that could be attributed to the far left since the Weatherman Group, so I don't know where you got the impression that the far left are "mostly terrorists."

 

The quotation marks around eco-terrorists, and the (apparently failed in execution) sarcastic tone were meant to tip you off that it was sarcasm.

 

 

e: Forgot spoilered thing I promised. Don't click the link at the bottom if you don't want the website responsible for it in your browser history.

 

Spoiler

theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#16

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:05 PM

Good to see them do something, anything, to cut back on it. You guys that are worried about this leading to some conspiracy where all of your favorite terrorism and  far out there political content is filtered are using a slippery slope argument with no evidence.

 

This is about cleaning up disgusting, illegal content from google image searches.


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#17

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:08 PM

 

You're acting like it's a small step from blocking (heavily illegal) child abuse images to blocking semi-mainstream political content.

 

The point was that this is one step in what could possibly be a series of steps. It's a small step, sure, but it's a step in a direction that I don't like.

 

It's only making already illegal material you shouldn't be searching for in the first place, even harder to find. It's not like all of a sudden online news articles get redacted  and a SWAT team drags you out of your house if you search for some sort of wacko conspiracy theory.


StormerBoy
  • StormerBoy

    Tribe Leader

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#18

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:19 PM Edited by StormerBoy, 18 November 2013 - 01:19 PM.

Open your eyes people ... Google 'culture of fear'

 

https://www.google.c...culture of fear


Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2KSG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#19

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:30 PM

^ You have yet to demonstrate how that has anything to do with banning clearly illegal and damaging (to children) material.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#20

Posted 18 November 2013 - 02:23 PM


Why are you bothered? Do you look for child abuse images? It shouldn't bother you if you don't do it, regardless of how it's sourced.

 
He just said why. First they'll lock out pedophiles, and that shouldn't bother anyone who isn't a pedophile. Then they'll lock out the "eco-terrorists", anarchists, and other far leftists, and a few more people will be bothered, but hey, those guys are mostly terrorists anyway, right? Then some extremist religious groups will get locked out, and there'll be a few pissed off churches, but what loon needs such strong religion in this day and age? And it'll just keep on going like that.
 
The scary thing is that google's willing to censor things.

Not at all. The entire argument is one slippery slope fallacy. The infrastructure for blocking certain kinds of content via Google's indexing system is the best part of a decade old and has never been used as you suggest.

It's also an absurd straw man of an argument because Google aren't "blocking" these web pages. To claim they are just demonstrates that you're totally clueless as to how the Internet works. They're preventing their search engine from indexing pages that contain this kind of material. That doesn't make the pages inaccessible so regardless how it would be applied and to what it wouldn't constitute censorship. Plus Google are a business. They can index whatever the f*ck they like and if you disapprove there are a raft of other alternatives for you to use.

Seriously people; if you don't know what you're talking about it is better not to voice your opinion.

StormerBoy
  • StormerBoy

    Tribe Leader

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#21

Posted 18 November 2013 - 02:41 PM

 

 

Why are you bothered? Do you look for child abuse images? It shouldn't bother you if you don't do it, regardless of how it's sourced.

 
He just said why. First they'll lock out pedophiles, and that shouldn't bother anyone who isn't a pedophile. Then they'll lock out the "eco-terrorists", anarchists, and other far leftists, and a few more people will be bothered, but hey, those guys are mostly terrorists anyway, right? Then some extremist religious groups will get locked out, and there'll be a few pissed off churches, but what loon needs such strong religion in this day and age? And it'll just keep on going like that.
 
The scary thing is that google's willing to censor things.

Not at all. The entire argument is one slippery slope fallacy. The infrastructure for blocking certain kinds of content via Google's indexing system is the best part of a decade old and has never been used as you suggest.

It's also an absurd straw man of an argument because Google aren't "blocking" these web pages. To claim they are just demonstrates that you're totally clueless as to how the Internet works. They're preventing their search engine from indexing pages that contain this kind of material. That doesn't make the pages inaccessible so regardless how it would be applied and to what it wouldn't constitute censorship. Plus Google are a business. They can index whatever the f*ck they like and if you disapprove there are a raft of other alternatives for you to use.

Seriously people; if you don't know what you're talking about it is better not to voice your opinion.

 

 

And if you are missing the point, I don't mind if you DO voice your opinion.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#22

Posted 18 November 2013 - 02:44 PM

What is the point? That you can't google image search child porn? Beyond that fact the argument is a slippery slope with no evidence or justification for fear.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#23

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:00 PM


 

 

Why are you bothered? Do you look for child abuse images? It shouldn't bother you if you don't do it, regardless of how it's sourced.

 
He just said why. First they'll lock out pedophiles, and that shouldn't bother anyone who isn't a pedophile. Then they'll lock out the "eco-terrorists", anarchists, and other far leftists, and a few more people will be bothered, but hey, those guys are mostly terrorists anyway, right? Then some extremist religious groups will get locked out, and there'll be a few pissed off churches, but what loon needs such strong religion in this day and age? And it'll just keep on going like that.
 
The scary thing is that google's willing to censor things.
Not at all. The entire argument is one slippery slope fallacy. The infrastructure for blocking certain kinds of content via Google's indexing system is the best part of a decade old and has never been used as you suggest.

It's also an absurd straw man of an argument because Google aren't "blocking" these web pages. To claim they are just demonstrates that you're totally clueless as to how the Internet works. They're preventing their search engine from indexing pages that contain this kind of material. That doesn't make the pages inaccessible so regardless how it would be applied and to what it wouldn't constitute censorship. Plus Google are a business. They can index whatever the f*ck they like and if you disapprove there are a raft of other alternatives for you to use.

Seriously people; if you don't know what you're talking about it is better not to voice your opinion.
 
 
And if you are missing the point, I don't mind if you DO voice your opinion.

Are you alleging I'm missing the point? Because given the context of your initial statements (this amounts to censorship, this will be used to target other people ect) I sort of haven't.

Search providers have a business model which revolves around indexing some content and not others. You can't find web-facing SCADA portals indexed on Google and they don't index things subject to DMCA claims or other litigation. They won't index restricted and password protected access pages that require connection via TLS, or anything using non-HTTP protocols, or anything the robots.txt tells them not to index, or hardware interfaces for routers, so why are you moaning now? They're a business, they provide a service they define on their terms.
  • S5L3T0 likes this

Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#24

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:03 PM

I don't know whether or not this is censorship, but I am pretty sure that Paedophiles don't use google and if I can say that with a degree of certainty, then I'm sure that the British government can figure it out too. Maybe it isn't censorship, but it certainly is either ideologically focused, or a pure vote grabbing mechanic similar to the mandatory block on internet pornography being implemented.

 

Jesus Christ please change the title though.


haythem09
  • haythem09

    Honorbru Dispray

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#25

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:16 PM

Better off actually shutting down those websites rather than making them harder to find. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#26

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:29 PM Edited by sivispacem, 18 November 2013 - 04:30 PM.

I don't know whether or not this is censorship, but I am pretty sure that Paedophiles don't use google and if I can say that with a degree of certainty, then I'm sure that the British government can figure it out too. Maybe it isn't censorship, but it certainly is either ideologically focused, or a pure vote grabbing mechanic similar to the mandatory block on internet pornography being implemented.
 
Jesus Christ please change the title though.

Oh, I agree entirely that it will do next to nothing to address a problem that's been blown vastly out of proportion by a couple of tragic recent incidents. It's clearly an attempt to save face and placate the screaming, uneducated masses far more than it is an attempt to actually prevent the proliferation of illicit material but Google are a business and their public image is very important to them.

My point was more that the nay-sayers who bitch and moan about Google filtering the Internet don't have the first clue how it works, apparently, and seem to forget that Google are a business and not their own personal web content management service.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#27

Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:05 PM

I thought the idea was to stop people from accidentally stumbling across child porn...

  • F4L? likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#28

Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:13 PM

My understanding is that it focuses primarily on common search terms and indexed pages. If people are searching for it that doesn't really suggest "accidental stumbling". If stuff isn't indexed the idea would be that offenders would actively seeking it out but I really can't imagine there's that much of it being indexed by Google anyway given that much of it is buried on the deep web and invitation only forums and boards- the same as goes for other illegal content like malware or pilfered credit card details.

I'm not saying it won't have any effect but I certainly interpret it as more of a gesture than a workable policy. If one was to be cynical, you could say that it was Google trying to get themselves out of a potentially sticky legal situation where they could be accused of enabling access and fined or sanctioned like they have been with DMCA and other file sharing content.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#29

Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:15 PM

The way I see it, if the images are of real children being abused, by all means censor them, do whatever the f*ck you can to protect children from abuse and exploitation.

However, pedophilia is an orientation like any other and this is where I start to find fault in the law. Images of real children are, quite rightly, prohibited. However, upon researching this subject, I discovered that artificial images of children, drawing and so on, are also illegal in the UK.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - you must leave these people an option to sate their desires in a legal manner which harms no one. You can no more stamp out pedophilia than you could erase homosexuality. Stop trying and allow them the small, insignificant courtesy of at least being able to look at artificial images in which no child was harmed.

 

We are needlessly criminalising people for impulses they cannot control and shouldn't have to.

  • D- Ice, F4L? and Flight180Victm like this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#30

Posted 18 November 2013 - 05:23 PM

Y'all realize that there is the possibility Google (or any other company) could find themselves in extremely hot water for even just caching this type of sh*t, aye? The problematic power that Google holds over the internet is a different conversation, but this is a Good Thing™.

 

After all, you know the old saying: Pedos love Yahoo!

 

 

Edit - Typhus? Phrasing. Having the desires? Sure. Not controlling impulses? Irr-re-f*ckin-sponsible.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users