Majority of US citizens want search engines to block pirated content

The decision as to whether or not to block pirated movies and music from search results has been raging on for some time now. It is believed that Google received some 50 million link removal requests in 2012 – led...

Read more

So who'd they ask about this, upper middle class families that they already knew would give this answer?

Trash Survey!

BS. No one wants content blocked for them...

After which, 99% of respondents said, "I'm sorry, I have to get off the phone now, I need to go check on my download"......!

Where did they take the poll? Senior day at the grocery store @ 5am?

OK. Your phone rings, so you walk over and pick it up. Hello, you say? A voice says, do you think websites that offer illegal downloads should be blocked? You say, "why yes, of course they should.
I mean, after all, you have absolutely no ****ing idea whatsoever, who's on the other end of the phone.

Hell, they said they were from the university, for all you know, it could be the FBI.

So, the whole thing sounds like a trumped up bunch of BS funded by the RIAA /MPAA, (who of course made a generous contribution toward the new AV lab). Or, the whole thing is some lame a** excuse for a masters thesis from someone whose only chance to get out of college, is for their parents to phone in a bomb threat.

Sounds like they called a bunch of people who don't know how the Internet works.

Dude....."interweb"...., I-N-T-E-R-W-E-B....., "interweb"........!!

Since when does 2,000 people represent a country of 311 MILLION, 53% of those 2,000 means only 1,060 people are against piracy. I'm surprised it isn't higher, given the fact that most people will tell the answer that makes them look like a law abiding citizen regardless of the survey. They should have also further asked these people if they understand what piracy is or if they know how to do it. I'm almost positive the majority of the people who are against it have no idea what it is or how to actually do it. Americans are generally against stuff they don't understand, but its not only them, people in general are like that. Also age comes into play very quickly and the survey does take that into account, just it has been left out of the article here, maybe its an important thing to include? At any rate this survey is biased and I wouldn't considered it of any particular value. I'd wipe my backside with it if possible. But it would be a waste of both paper and ink to print it out.

I'd stop using Google if they did that.

I rather like to use Google exclusively, while I'm blocking their tracking cookies.

So what exactly where they expected to say? That they want an illegal activity to be supported by search engines?
Gee, took them a long time to come up with this survey.

The majority of US citizens are retarded.

Funny how I thought that was a representatives job within congress. Thats a maximum of 435 people representing everyone within the states. The question you should be asking is what qualifies them for that position. If you ask me nothing qualifies someone to represent one side, if the other side is going to be ignored in a final tally.

Not trying to sound too much of a snob but this is fundamental statistics, there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with the fact the asked 2000 people, in the actual article they would post the error margins they are working in, which shows the expected error of that 53%.

Put it quite simply, pretend you have a box of 2000 coins and you tip it on the floor. After 50 or so, you should be around 50% for heads and 50% for tails, and you can be confident that it is essentially 50% of both for all 2000 even if you don't count all of it, because that is just a waste of effort. If you are going to ask how accurate it is, you ask if that 2000 is representative of the population, and in many cases the answer is likely to be no. As who own landlines? Who answers the calls? And how was the question asked? Younger generation may not even own a landline. But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using 2000 (which is an okay sample size) and use that to represent what the country thinks, if there isn't any bias in the survey itself (unlikely).

I've had one of these phonecall, it was limiting violent media on prime time television.
When I asked to clarify a question, do you think that media are more violent now aday then in the past, they said, I said yes, and that I agree with their poll that violent media need to be curtailed on Prime time TV.
Aka. They already have an answer set, and will either only take in polls that agree or just fill it in for you.

This post is based on falsified information and we all know it.

Now, go out and ask people from normal/lower class cities/townships and we'll see a completely different survey all together.

Whoever did the studies on this needs to go and yank one out.

Boy that just burns my butt, How can you sit here and and ask a question like, "what qualifies a politician for office". The ability to hire someone to write the most hateful TV ad about his opponent, that's WTF qualifies a person for office here in the great ol' U.S of A.. Remember, if you can't denigrate, degrade, detract from, render despicable, and most importantly demoralize your opponent during a simple campaign, then you're not fit to, "serve at the pleasure of the people"! (*)

(*) Although, as attested to by House Speaker John Beynard, it helps greatly to be able to "cry at will".
It's actually a genetic defect seen most often in Hollywood starlets, but Rep. Beynard uses it to his, (and of course his constituency's), great and mutual benefit!

How about they ask people do you want your tax dollars spent combating piracy? I did phone surveys before they can be quite biased and yes they do know where they are calling, it is not random numbers. I never liked the idea that someone can survey 2,000 people then claim the results reflect on the entire nation.