Re:Google: Financial Embargo Of WikiLeaks Shows How To Deal ...
by zerostar07 on Thursday November 17, 2011 @09:42AM
(#3247770)
First, is this realistic? Most torrent sites advertise porn or malware, which none of the big advertising companies serve anyway. Wikileaks doesn't use advertising, but by popular demand they may raise money in any possible way, even in cash from selling t-shirts. Very weak argument from Google
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Google: Financial Embargo Of WikiLeaks Shows How To Deal ...
by eogas on Thursday November 17, 2011 @11:44AM
(#3248213)
Not to mention that the best torrent sites tend not to advertise at all, and are able to stay afloat solely on user donations. This could be a key point on this whole issue. If regular people are able to organize to create, share, and distribute content between each other more efficiently and, most of all, cheaper than corporations can do it, is this really a viable business strategy anymore?
EDIT: I don't think it will be very long (less than 15 years) before the content industries are dwindling, and regular people band together to replace it. It's already happening at a small scale.
Re:Google: Financial Embargo Of WikiLeaks Shows How To Deal ...
by icebraining on Thursday November 17, 2011 @10:50AM
(#3247990)
Why would it have to be the big advertising companies? If there's ads, there's a money trail - you just cutoff at that point. Torrent sites can be hosted in some safe heaven or Tor site, but if they can't get money from the US and other "cooperative" countries, they won't last much.
Re:Google: Financial Embargo Of WikiLeaks Shows How To Deal ...
by nitrogen on Thursday November 17, 2011 @04:59PM
(#3249414)
The further you go down that money trail, the more people and companies there will be traveling it. The further from your target you cut off funding, the more collateral damage you will inflict.
Re:Google: Financial Embargo Of WikiLeaks Shows How To Deal ...
by zerostar07 on Friday November 18, 2011 @05:44AM
(#3251326)
Many of the advertised companies are not us-based legally