It started off like your were going to provide a sound rebuttal, but it didn't materialise. Instead we got:
> Google doesn't do any filtering (except the filtering that it does do)
> Google doesn't give directions to somebody's house and tell you how to get in, it gives directions to everybody's houses and tells you how to get in.
"It started off like your were going to provide a sound rebuttal, but it didn't materialise. Instead we got:"
What is this, a formal debate with research and fact-checking and carefully proofread dissertations? We're just a few guys writing stream-of-consciousness paragraphs between code compiles. I maintain that anybody who doesn't recognize the difference between somebody posting a link to a bunch of credit card numbers and Google showing links in their search results is being deliberately obtuse or autistic, or both. There is obviously a continuum between them (in the sense that they both revolve about 'links'), and one can argue about cases on this continuum (although I have no interest in doing so), but the argument 'a link is a link' without any consideration for context, intent, etc is prima facie stupid to any reasonable person.
>What is this, a formal debate with research and fact-checking and carefully proofread dissertations?
No, you're right. Let's keep this emotional, fact-free, and useless.
>the argument 'a link is a link' without any consideration for context, intent, etc is prima facie stupid to any reasonable person.
No, you're making a false dichotomy of this. The fact is that a link is a link is a link. Tying this in with intent and context is a different matter altogether. The nature of a link doesn't (or at least shouldn't) change between applications of the term, whereas intent and context can. However, if the crux of the matter with regards to intent and context is that a link "posted" by a link aggregator points to something it shouldn't, the effect of that action can't be split out differently simply because a different actor was involved.
By analogy, it doesn't matter that I was swinging a chain saw around my head on a rope with the intention of evenly cutting my hedges, the fact of the matter is that my neighbours are approximately one head-length shorter than they were when they stumbled upon me. Whether or not I'm a gardener or a dedicated chainsaw murderer doesn't affect the outcome here.
"However, if the crux of the matter with regards to intent and context is that a link "posted" by a link aggregator points to something it shouldn't, the effect of that action can't be split out differently simply because a different actor was involved."
head explodes
If you're trolling, congratulations, you got me.
If not, it doesn't make any sense to continue this. I don't see a way to convince anyone who doesn't see the difference between somebody posting a specific link to stolen data and a link aggregator. It's not about the link, it's about posting the link, and the intent and context of that action. I honestly don't see how to go deeper on that.
The 'analogies' game is quite tiring, I'm not even going there.
> Google doesn't do any filtering (except the filtering that it does do)
> Google doesn't give directions to somebody's house and tell you how to get in, it gives directions to everybody's houses and tells you how to get in.