[lalffibra]

I don't see a problem with this. Google doesn't have to link to everything directly. If they don't want to provide a link to certain content through their service, that's their right.

Just a guess, but sites that distribute malware displayed within their frame may have some legal implications they are trying to avoid.

[rootoronpunty]

What about the link in the line that says:

Or you can see the image in its own context www.someaddress.com at your own risk

Isn't that the link to where you were planning to go?

[avodeinst]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
How is meddling in search results beyond the basic ranking good? It's easy enough to see how sites that distribute malware might be frowned upon by some. To be honest, I quite like that a search engine would filter out malware sites. Even though the likelyhood of my computer being affected is minimal, I just don't want to go to sites like that in the first place, and hopefully the reduced traffic from such a major search engine will get them to remove the malware.

If it bothers you, use another search engine. There are plenty of options to choose from.

And anyways - if you point me to this page, at least have a decency to let me reach it eventually. They do give the URL to the page. They just don't send you there within their frame.

[Adamanta]

Further evidence that libertarianism doesn't work.

[LesLattis]

Not really, because Google is a private business which has every right to determine what it will, or will not, allow through it's service. (Within legal limits of course.) It's not an issue of free speech, just an issue of how well Google can match up it's service to it's user's preferences.

If on the other hand this was due to a law being passed about what kind of sites could be allowed to show up in search engines, I know I'd be against it. I'd guess almost everyone here would as well, simply because of the free speech implications.

[Niobaralegra]

I like this and I've seen it before as well.

[fiettariaps]

I'd hit it.

[ffflyer]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
actually it leads to the picture URL, which oddly seems to be in a different domain that the site But that's what you were looking for, right? The location for the actual picture, not a link to the page where the picture is displayed

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
and it isn't a link but requires copy paste. It's more secure that way, if they had just made a link most people would click the link without even considering the security of their computer. Forcing you to copy/paste the link will give you more time to think "Hey wait a minute, this might harm my computer, maybe I shouldn't go to that site anyway"

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'm generally surprised that google makes a huge warning webpage, instead of using some filter on the search results. IMHO googles way of doing it is better as it still gives you an option to go to that page if you really want to go there (for whatever reason that might be)
But on the other hand it probably would be better if they had an option to filter "bad" sites (having it "on" as default"

[Celeliamend]

stupid question, but what is malware in this sense?

What would viewing that site do to your computer? What are they trying to proetect you against? adware?