federal judge orders Google to de-index sites

[Michael Martinez]

...it potentially sets the stage for de-index requests that sit on much shakier ground and that it represents another attempt by the USFG to unilaterally apply US law to a global environment.

I feel like you're arguing against a very small, altho vocal, cadre of free speech advocates. Very few people would advocate the absolute free use of any content for any purposes.

Having moderated forums for many years where people adamantly insisted I was trampling their first amendment rights by enforcing the forum rules, I feel I'm arguing against a fairly large but fluid group of people who are mostly governed by their feelings at the moment (and it would be fair to say that this group includes me at times if you think about other "causes").

More specifically to the point here, I feel that most people who oppose SOPA and Protect IP have no clear idea of what it is they are opposing. For example, above you suggest you're concerned about sites being de-indexed "on much shakier ground" (than presumably happens today). In fact, Google has been honoring DMCA takedown requests by deindexing sites for several years now. The new laws would not change that.

What the new laws WOULD change, however, is Google's revenue stream as they would no longer be allowed to accept advertising from Websites that are shown to be violating intellectual property rights.

This isn't about the US government trying to tell the rest of the world what to do -- this is about the US government having to force its own citizens and corporations to comply with the existing laws that they have been openly and blatantly violating (and Google just paid a $500 million fine for openly and blatantly profiting from illegal activity).

Believe me -- no one operating a Website LEGALLY stands to lose anything by this law. It's imperfect for a number of reasons, but until companies like Google stop profiting from the widespread theft that is going on, they will do everything they can to passively support it. That is why we need such "draconian" laws. They're not draconian for the people who are being robbed of their rights -- they are draconian for the parasitical advertising services that should never have built revenue models on the basis of other people's misbehavior in the first place.

I will weep no tears if SOPA is passed.

[ak]

Michael Martinez once again 100% right!

[parttimepoker]

Having moderated forums for many years where people adamantly insisted I was trampling their first amendment rights by enforcing the forum rules, I feel I'm arguing against a fairly large but fluid group of people who are mostly governed by their feelings at the moment (and it would be fair to say that this group includes me at times if you think about other "causes").

Those people are not first amendment advocates, they're idiots. You can't be an advocate for the 1st amendment if you think it extends to forum posting. You're just spouting random noise at that point. I think grouping those people in with / labeling those people as first amendment advocates is a bit disingenuous.

As far as my concern about de-indexing happening on shakier grounds (and I said "potentially", in the context of "what I assumed most people's concerns were", not "I believe this is the inexorable result of the decision"), I think that it's reasonable to assume that each time de-indexing is used a proposed remedy in very public cases like this one, the bar for using it as a remedy in the future lowers a little.

Anyhow, I'm not arguing for / against SOPA or IPP. I thought it was an interesting decision that might generate some discussion, but I can't really debate the SOPA / IPP line of the thread because I'm not informed enough on either.

[Michael Martinez]

Those people are not first amendment advocates, they're idiots. You can't be an advocate for the 1st amendment if you think it extends to forum posting. You're just spouting random noise at that point. I think grouping those people in with / labeling those people as first amendment advocates is a bit disingenuous.

Perhaps, but then I've seen a lot of support expressed for the anti-SOPA camp among people on Twitter and Google+ who are clearly not reading the details and who have apparently never had to enforce their own intellectual property rights. I have done both. And much as I appreciate AK's support, I don't consider myself ever to be "100% right" -- but I'm certainly covering some familiar ground on this issue.

As far as my concern about de-indexing happening on shakier grounds (and I said "potentially", in the context of "what I assumed most people's concerns were", not "I believe this is the inexorable result of the decision"), I think that it's reasonable to assume that each time de-indexing is used a proposed remedy in very public cases like this one, the bar for using it as a remedy in the future lowers a little.

Anyhow, I'm not arguing for / against SOPA or IPP. I thought it was an interesting decision that might generate some discussion, but I can't really debate the SOPA / IPP line of the thread because I'm not informed enough on either.

Yeah, I probably should not have tied the court decision so closely to the SOPA debate but others have elsewhere. It's on my mind, although I have tried not to make it a major cause. I'm not blogging about it.

The thing is, de-indexation already occurs for all sorts of reasons. People are constantly asking me if they can use it against their competitors (who are obviously violating Google's guidelines). It's a blunt sword and people are trying to throw it from a distance, in my opinion -- but the standard is already pretty low.

The search engines have been inconsistent about de-indexation. They act like it's a huge process to do it, but their algorithms will spit a site out of the index faster than you can say Quidditch for the right reasons.

And both Google and Bing have publicly admitted to using "exception lists" to portions of their algorithms. Complying with this and future court decisions might be an inconvenience but it would not be that big a deal for them.

[absolutetilt]

Like the Far West before it, the Internet will be not be run by gunslingers anymore but by suits and ties. In other words, expect more control not less.