Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 27th May 2012 16:12 UTC, submitted by azrael29a
Google "What is interesting is that you can use the new system to play around and notice that Microsoft doesn't always seem to take down from its search engine, Bing, the same links that it orders Google to takedown." Funny, but since Microsoft outsources their takedown requests to a different company, most likely just a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
Thread beginning with comment 519633
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Um, duh?
by Ford Prefect on Sun 27th May 2012 20:34 UTC in reply to "Um, duh?"
Ford Prefect
Member since:

If you would read the article, it would enlighten you.

The links in questions are links to pirated software from Microsoft. If Microsoft has an interest in stopping these links to be spread, it is more than natural that they take down the links in their own search engine.

Or they consider that nobody uses Bing search anyway. ;-) Seriously, though: The blatant interest of Microsoft is for these links to go away, everywhere.

Edited 2012-05-27 20:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Um, duh?
by earksiinni on Sun 27th May 2012 20:42 in reply to "RE: Um, duh?"
earksiinni Member since:

Thanks for the clarification, it seems that you're right. The article doesn't explicitly state this, however, and could be written much more clearly. Not only is giving one example regarding Xbox 360 games not necessarily indicative of the overall pattern, even that example is ambiguously worded:

"In this case, Marketly had sent a takedown to Google demanding the removal of a bunch of URLs from its index concerning a variety of XBox 360 games, including DiRT 2. The 20th URL listed goes to a page on TorrentRoom."

I didn't read "a bunch of URLs...concerning a variety of XBox 360 games" as necessarily meaning torrent links, etc. Yes, I know that the very next sentence says "goes to a page on TorrentRoom". I stand by statement that this could be more clearly phrased; and again, one example does not indicate the overall pattern. They should just state the specific pattern plainly and clearly.

But I dug further into this after reading your comment, and based on my own research it seems like you are correct. Thanks for the correction.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Um, duh?
by Ford Prefect on Mon 28th May 2012 09:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Um, duh?"
Ford Prefect Member since:

You are right, they could thrase more clearly. And include that part into the summary on OSNews' side, too.

Reply Parent Score: 2