What if?

[The Annoyed Man]

DuckDuckGo Search Engine Gets Boost After PRISM Scandal
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825956

[Jaguar]

Been using DDG for over a year now, I bet it chaps someone's behind.

I still use Google for maps, but web searches are all on DDG.

[VMI77]

What remedy, if any, could be taken if search engines such a Google, Mozilla, Bing, etc. started writing their programs to exclude/block any search referencing, gun, bullets, cartridges, weapon.....etc? Are there any protections provided legally or are we at their mercy?

Use IXQUICK, aka startpage --you shouldn't be using Google anyway if you care about privacy.

[VMI77]

Why would they do that? These are not government companies. They're private companies. When you search and click, they get paid. And they get paid a LOT.

Take away those search results, consumers (us) will go elsewhere. Sparing you the technical details, even if the USA were to outlaw such search results and mandate compliance at private tech companies, it could be worked around by most moderately intelligent people.

Because they're all operated by anti-gun liberals who often are more concerned with the liberal agenda than losing a little money alienating guns owners; and because they know that even if they do take away such search results, most people won't even realize it, and most of those who do will still use their services anyway...just like people on this forum, who are much more pro-gun and informed than the average gun owner, will still give money to anti-gun businesses because it happens to be convenient.

Also, "most moderately intelligent people" comprise, at most, about 20% of the population, and a large percentage of those people aren't going to care, either because they're anti-gun, or for one of the reasons above.

[cb1000rider]

Because they're all operated by anti-gun liberals who often are more concerned with the liberal agenda than losing a little money alienating guns owners; and because they know that even if they do take away such search results, most people won't even realize it, and most of those who do will still use their services anyway...just like people on this forum, who are much more pro-gun and informed than the average gun owner, will still give money to anti-gun businesses because it happens to be convenient.

VM,
I really hope there is some sarcasm in your above statement. Characterizing all tech professionals - especially the ones making the business decisions in one "liberal agenda" bucket... Well, I guarantee that you'll *never* get that right.

Google is a public company. It's beholden to stockholders and owners. Those stock holders care more about money than they care about a liberal or conservative political agenda.
And sure, individual owners can have their own agenda, but saying that all tech companies are liberal is absolutely false. Remember, we're talking about a demographic that is most typically: highly educated, high income, Caucasian, male, and professional. What political party does that sound like to you?

I work in tech. The only anti-gun agenda that I know about around here has to do with insurance and lawyers requiring a "safe place" to work. I can go on to give more details up and down the food chain here, but suffice to say that technology companies are not "anti-gun liberals concerned with the liberal agenda"...

When your google search results come back with nothing when searching for "Ruger 9mm" then you can claim that Google has an anti-gun agenda. The technology exists to filter those results quickly and easily.

If tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Craigslist choose not to participate in the sales of firearms, you should assume that it's due to potential liability, not liberal agenda. Thank the attorneys.

[Barbi Q]

Remember, we're talking about a demographic that is most typically: highly educated, high income, Caucasian, male, and professional. What political party does that sound like to you?

Libertarian