Tldr;
Child porn writer has works deleted by service provider.
Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
201–210 of 457 posts
Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
#202From Reddit: "I've read a few of Cooper's books and the short answer is yes, pedophilia is a common theme in his writing (as is incest and necrophilia)." [1] I'm calling it now. It was child porn. Google doesn't like to go around deleting people's stuff. When this has happened in the past it's been child porn, which Google is obligated by governments everywhere to delete with extreme prejudice. And of course they're…
Which would also explain why he wouldn't have local back-ups, to avoid prosecution. Though this may be something of a case of, "Innocent until algorithms say otherwise."
Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to follow Richard Stallman in his obsession with ehtics. "Sorry mate, I find FB/Google/Skype/etc. unethical, so I won't get in touch with you using this, let's better stick with email, phone call or meeting in person".
Pots isn't open source...
It's an open protocol and there are open source implementations of the technology. I can use asterisk to set up a phone system and have numbers routed to me from a provider. It's the same as the Internet in that regard.
It's like saying email isn't open source because it has to have a connection to the Internet to be useful.
Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably instead of a domain, it should be a private key. Generated at the time your birth certificate is.
Would be able to generate keys now that will be secure for a whole lifetime? For anyone older than about 40, even state-of-the-art crypto from the time of their birth has been broken. Will modern crypto hold up any better?
Does your name mean "big goldfish-shaped space ship"?
This is a great question. Possibly related: I don't know the answer. :)
Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just income, it's speech and association (which are capitalized words in the US Constitution).
"Association" doesn't appear in the Constitution at all. "Speech" appears twice, but is only capitalized when referring to legislators' speeches: "and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place" "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Unfortunately, it's no longer possible to simply read the constitution to fully understand the rights afforded to an individual. The US Supreme Court has long upheld that a person has more fundamental rights than are explicitly enumerated in The Constitution.
Technically speaking, persons always had a freedom of association, but the court made it explicit during N.A.A.C.P. v. ALABAMA [1].
[1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/357/449.html
Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fully agree with your comments, but I fear we're going in the wrong direction with the silo-ization of the web and the decline in open standards being ratified and used by large companies. Just look at Google's hostility towards maintaining standardized IMAP/SMTP support for third party mail clients. Google Apps and Office 365 would drop IMAP access to their services in a heartbeat if they could. Furthermore a lot of…
I have wished from the beginning that Twitter was a protocol, and not a business. (I wonder if Twitter investors wish that? :) Fastmail et al. show that you can run a business on a protocol, even if it won't necessarily make you a unicorn.
This was a subject of large debate roughly 6-7 years ago at Twitter, back when Ev was CEO. This was before advertising existed on Twitter (except for a banner ad in Japan). At the time there were many strands to the debate but the tldr rolled up into three ways of being -- closed Twitter, the one that looked like FB then and Twitter today, open Twitter, the one Twitter looked like then without all the API restrictions and developer community difficulties and probably still with ads, and finally -- for lack of a better term -- Internet Twitter, which would be a federated service much like Diaspora has ended up working.
It was very hard to imagine how Twitter the company would make enough money to justify the investments it had taken by that point if Twitter the service looked more like Diaspora. You on,y have to look at Diaspora today to see that it's not obviously meeting the mission that Twitter serves today.
One interesting aspect of this is you had people like Alex Payne voting with their code in the form of the API and later with his feet after the company was clearly going down the ad-supported route (and hiring a lot to support that model -- you need to build a large amount of revenue-oriented infrastructure in that world). The API then had to be pulled substantially back because it didn't fit the revenue model, something the developer community still hasn't forgiven Twitter for.
It's amazing to me how much of what looks like corporate BS can be traced to individual personalities and their debates, or the echoes of their debates.
[to be clear, all of what I've outlined can be gleaned from media reports, books and presentations about Twitter over the years. While I am an ex-employee, this history is available to anyone who either was paying attention back then or has a small amount of investigatory skillset.]
Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only meant "renting" a reachable IP from some third party. I think that's realistic. However what you describe -- building out your own infrastructure -- still remains a lofty but worthy endeavor for anyone with the skills and determination.
No, third parties can change your IP address on fairly short notice (days or weeks) for their own reasons. And of course you can't change provider without changing IP either.
But if and how frequently such changes occur depends on the third party. And as you say, the terms should require adequate notice.
Businesses of all sizes rent stable IP addresses. Some ISPs in some countries also provide them to non-business subscribers as part of the standard subscription.
It's really not too difficult to have a persistent IP address for an individual who only needs reachability and is not trying to run a high traffic, global enterprise. Avoid the popular large, high-volume providers. Obviously do not use something like AWS.
Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
#208When my brother died in 2010, I posted to that effect on Facebook. Many friends (majority of them "real life," pre-Facebook/outside of Facebook friends) gave their condolences. Others called me. A few messaged me, etc. You get the picture. That correspondence was, and remains, important to me. Does Facebook own it? Can they delete it if they want to? Can they block me from accessing it? The answer, at least as far as…
>But should they have these rights?
Yes, because you gave them those rights when you agreed to their terms of service. The US Post Office makes no similar claim of ownership over the mail that i'm aware of, so the metaphor really doesn't work.
Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
#209The fact that every single comment in this thread amounts to "should have backed up" makes me a little sad. Is this really what we want to expect from companies like Google? Is this acceptable? Is it just a "force of nature" that I should consider beyond the ken of man? What happened here is the abrogation of human responsibility onto algorithms, TOS, with no apparent human oversight. A very disturbing trend, and I t…
Sure, but even companies like Google make mistakes or suffer disasters. In the case it seems like Google intentionally deleted the data because it was a TOS violation. But imagine the data loss was the result of a coordinated, multi-site terrorist attack. The advice would be the same - you need to have a copy of your cloud data.
Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work
#210I found the following cryptic snippet, from the Guardian's coverage of this topic: "He had a featured post, twice a month, where he would take ads by escorts and highlight their literary qualities." I have little idea what the above really means, but it almost sounds like advertising/marketing for prostitution. My best guess at the moment, is that Google considered the above to be a flagrant violation of its rules, a…
He was taking existing ads for escorts in the wild and critiquing them as satire.
Ah, I see what you're saying. By "take ads from escorts", I assumed that meant that he was literally allowing escorts to post ads on his page. What you're saying seems more reasonable.