Google censors bump stocks

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Hide country (this board displays your country when you post if this is unchecked)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 58e385d05e03156⋯.jpg (67.27 KB, 847x540, 847:540, censorship .jpg)

Google censors bump stocks Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 13:58:37 f0b1b5 No.566028

Hey guys, first time poster. Has anyone else noticed that if you go to google and search "bump stocks" under the shopping tab, it comes up empty? I know for a fact this wasn't the case a few weeks ago…

Thoughts?

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 14:14:16 7ad027 No.566032

gtfo

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 14:50:20 931966 No.566038

File: 1676932789963bc⋯.jpg (135.22 KB, 861x579, 287:193, 78519d01a73d1ceb8cbdf99598….jpg)

>using google

Bing is better at the moment.

Bing word search lags a bit behind in volume and specificity, also their fine user controls are borked, but it does show things that Google search doesn't. Also you can be sure when you search something in Bing, the results are based on popularity not on who paid how much to google, or which government didn't want a result to be rated higher.

Bing image search is ridiculously better, since you can download an image just by clicking and dragging from the image menu. Google censors images heavily, their AI removes images with certain symbols, bloody images and images with too much skin showing. Not to mention they blacklist entire domains. Also Google images will NOT allow you to see the image, you have to click 3 times to go directly to the website that hosts it, which could be a virus.

Bing video search is pretty decent, lets you watch videos without even going to the other site, which is useful if you're trying to circumvent some youtube country block. Does take a while to get used to the UI.

Bing maps is just hands down better.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 15:26:09 358c1e No.566053

>Using Google

>Using fucking Bing

Duckduckgo.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 16:47:07 931966 No.566073

File: c00ffb1512e4116⋯.jpg (58.24 KB, 960x640, 3:2, Gabriel Weinberg.jpg)

>>566053

Duck duck go is a proxy for Bing, moron.

Except its owned by a (((Weinberg))).

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 17:04:12 f0a441 No.566079

>>566053

Fuckduckgo stores data, use startpage

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 17:29:38 f234b3 No.566087

>>566079

>startpage

Simply displays google search results via a proxy.

Ixquick.eu, which is where the original ixquick search engine can still be accessed, will redirect to startpage.com from the second of april.

All good search engines are dead.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 17:35:48 36720f No.566090

>>566087

I miss scroogle. That was the best google proxy.

Bing image search is the best for porn by far, though.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 17:43:51 b417dd No.566094

>>566087

Is Qwant bad, or is it botnet?

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 18:03:07 f234b3 No.566105

>>566094

You would think it would be easy to find out, but all info you find on a search engine's privacy status is either provided by the creator (and thus not trustworthy), or in some tech-"news" article, which is either praising the search engine for being "the next google" or accuses it of infringing on your privacy to gain attention.

You would think that /tech/ has some kind of list of pros and cons of search engines, but that's not the case as far as I know.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 18:19:59 6220c3 No.566111

>>566105

>you would think that /tech/ would do something actually useful

No you wouldn't.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 18:50:33 843f28 No.566123

Imagine how libshits would react if they found out about bump firing?

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 19:11:06 65a35f No.566135

>>566123

imagine how they would react if someone pulled a max headroom kind of thing but instead of the mask and talking they put in footage of cokeman

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 21:09:50 56707e No.566204

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>566038

>not startpage

>not searx

No good.

>>566135

It's a bit harder to hack digital TV broadcasting, embed related

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 21:26:09 f85d4f No.566216

>>566123

Don't tell them. If bumpstocks are declared illegal with vague enough wording they could extend it to include non-assisted bumpfiring. Once they come to the realization any semi-auto can be theoretically bumpfired without assistance they've got an inroad to take semi-autos.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 21:42:29 843f28 No.566226

>>566216

More realistically they'll try to make manufacturers add anti-bumpfire measures.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 22:33:12 f85d4f No.566244

>>566226

The only thing I can think of that might work for that purpose is horrifically heavy triggers or grip safeties. The first would suck ass of course and the second is easily defeated. Bumpfiring is a basic physics trick. They can't stop it effectively.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 22:37:10 843f28 No.566247

>>566244

>Bumpfiring is a basic physics trick. They can't stop it effectively.

You think that would stop them from trying? These are people who don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 23:13:36 f234b3 No.566265

>>566226

>anti bumpfire measures

Like a hydraulic system inside the gun that only allows the trigger to be "released" after a certain set time?

Strelok 03/26/18 (Mon) 23:34:59 eb8172 No.566273

>>566244

if congress would only repeal Newton's 2nd law, gun violence would drop to zero. how many children have to die before you give up your barbaric physics?