Legitimately doesn't come into it.
censorship
noun
"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that
are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."Should it be? Different question all together, but currently it is not.
Side note, I'd like to hear the age of people who argue either side of this topic.
Yes, it is a censorship. It is manipulating the output in order to not provide an information, that would be otherwise available, caused by interest of some third party.
To expand on the topic:
1) it is not illegal to tell other people where to find bootleg software or media,
2) in many countries it is legal to download such software or media (and they pay for the privilege in the form of an extra fee on their blank media, memory cards and hard drives, whether they do it or not)
3) what is illegal is to distribute software or media without the consent of the rights owners.
Point 3) is an issue between those sites that do it and the rights owners, nothing between the end users or search engines. Neither of them do 3) themselves.
Nobody of us might like spam, but there is obviously something that keeps these in the business. What? Eradicate that, remove their cash flow.
I might not like sites that aren't mobile friendly, but fortunately, when I'm not in a mood so scroll around it, I can always close it. No need for Google to step in.
I also do not like children being presented with porn/cigarette/alcohol/whatever advertising/results. But - these result do not come themselves, they are initiated, usually by those children. There is more need for parenting, than for Google protection. If it really bothers you, most routers allow for filtering the web, and some ISPs provide that as a service - for those interested, as it should be.
The problem with common sense vs censorship is: where you draw the line? That's the hard question, and easily abused one at that. Especially by entities like Google, who are not a harmless protector of innocent or knight in shiny armor. They are businesses, who have interest that may not align with yours, especially in the long run.
There are a myriad of search engines out there. They have competition.
I would say Google's right to do what google wants to do trumps any real arguments against them doing this here. I doubt they'll have any notable downtick in users.
Of course, you right to have an opinion on their practices is valid, i hope its not coming across as if its not, i just wanted to focus on the realities of the situation for the broader reading audience
And arguments for it are similar to the usual "think of the children" way of thinking which eventually leads to harder censorship, more surveillance and generally poor place to live.
Is that censorship to you?
They're a private company doing business in China. They're going to have to make a decision: Either subvert the 'man' or comply with the law.
While i would choose subvert the 'man', I would not say i'm doing it because its legal.
Different arguments. Also worth noting: These voluntary actions are also legal. They're also private businesses in the USA, and they are free to do this with impunity.
One can always take their business elsewhere, or otherwise get information in other ways. They aren't stopping you from accessing anything.
I think you meant "They're not censoring content that you aren't able to access legitimately".
This is bullshit. There are a lot of things you can't buy (especially in smaller countries) but which are available on pirate sites. Heck, you can't even watch Netflix own shows in some countries using Netflix because Netflix geoblocked them.
However, you knowingly are getting content that the content rights holders have deemed is not going to be published in x area. Netflix has a right (and some would say a duty) to enforce whats in their contractual deals with content/rights holders in pursuant with being able to do the business they do.
So the question is: you can't get that content, that much is clear. Why does that mean you should be able to pirate that content because its not distributed in the way you like it to be? This isn't medical care. This isn't news stories. Its TV shows and music and movies. These are pleasure items after all.
Does that mean you are entitled to this content because they don't offer it in a way you find acceptable?
Edit: really any content getting downloaded illegally (colloquially known as pirated) I haven't ever seen someone argue that the content say, saved a life, or was so important to x that it had to be done.
Lets be real: what we're talking about here isn't subverting a totalitarian regime and allowing citizens to talk on the world stage. I reckon most if not all of these sites just shuffle illegal copies of digital goods.
E.g. in Poland if you have bought a copy of given software, you can download if also from the site and use whichever version you prefer (but only one) - this is a fare use case.
Example would be if given software is in a poor way DRM protected and you would like to run it on an OS that doesn't support DRM.
Or in the days of games distributed on CDs, we were downloading those pirated versions (while owning a proper one) because they didn't require a CD to be always in the computer.
You could argue that they should apply it to a country by country specifics, sure. Though i fail to see how its google's problem if you can or can't find a website per se. They are, yes a search engine, and that is what google.com's primary purpose of use is. What they aren't saying, nor have they really ever guaranteed, is that they will give you unfiltered results. Its actually quite the contrary. It's google's indexing and filter algorithms that make it so effective in the first place.
With all that said, there is always an alternative. Google's a private company. They can't shut down these websites. They aren't even attempting to do that. They are just making casual access more complicated I suppose more than anything.
Its within their right to do that.
(Notice how no one seems to be scoffing at Bing, its all about what Google does or doesn't do)
What we used to call 'going without'.
If you don't like this, it's clearly just a symptom of copyright laws you don't like, and not really an issue with the search engines.
Then you feel sorry for not having resistet.
So i still wouldn't say they're stopping free speech by not including a website in a google search. You can argue, and I think rightly, that it would stifle the freedom of information to be discovered that wants to be discovered and consumed in that way, however, its not actually silencing or shutting down the website it may be censoring and/or not including, and it is still accessible.
Its not 'my speech' either. Illegally downloading and spreading content isn't speech in the first place, and the courts have ruled as such, as do the laws we currently have in place reflect that.
At the end of the day, I'm not seeing much of a justification for people getting content illegally.
The government has made its decisions on this many times. They're largely following the patterns laid out in those lawsuits cases laws etc.
Can't imagine anyone disagreeing the sites they are banning don't distribute illegal content as a primary reason why people visit them in the first place.
I'd say thats a good (and strong) litmus test for this sort of thing.
The article never claimed it was unconstitutional
Just trying to get ahead of misconceptions, or admittedly, what I believe to be common misconceptions.
They're stifling an illegal act of procuring content that is within the confines of the current law, agree with it or not, thats all these sites allow you to do.
I don't think for instance, pirate bay has ever been known for its breaking news on current events.
Edit: For what its worth, these are private companies after all. So 'censorship' in terms of a legal or constitutional definition under freedom of speech, would not apply here anyway.