Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work • Hacker News Board

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#271

Post by maus42 » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

jshevek wrote: post #177

DavidWanjiru wrote: post #139

When 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…

Imagine how much better the world would be if a majority of people took the time to think about these issues as you have AND were also willing to simply boycott facebook until the ToS were changed. This level of personal responsibility would be much better, IMO, than falling back on the government to coerce facebook into better behavior.

>how much better the world would be

Unfortunately it is not. Issues like this are the reason why government and state occasionally can be useful.

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#272

Post by mhurron » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:22 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #245

modeless wrote: post #196

From 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…

Writing about incest, necrophilia, sex with children; these are not child pornography. Neither are artistic renderings about such subjects. Only obscene photographs of actual children (and apparently 3d models with photographic skins) are considered to be child pornography (and those primarily because they are artifacts of child abuse). Unless he crossed that line, there's still no legal cause to pull down his materi…

> Writing about incest, necrophilia, sex with children; these are not child pornography. Neither are artistic renderings about such subjects.

In the US and a few other countries, yes, images where no real person other than the artist was involved is classified as Child Pornography.

It's disgusting and squarely in the realm of thought crime, but no one cares because once you think of the children you can do almost anything.

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#273

Post by kennywinker » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

madmax96 wrote: post #244

kennywinker wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still problematic, even if the work was distasteful or even illegal. There was no process involved, no chance for appeal, no explanation of the charges that precipitated it. If it truly is illegal materials that violate laws, then deleting it is deleting evidence and helping cover up crimes. If it was art that borders on distasteful to some then google is deciding taste and public values with private algorithms.…

The data resided on Google's servers -- their property. Read the terms and conditions you agree to, Google doesn't owe you anything. > If it was art that borders on distasteful to some > then google is deciding taste and public values with > private algorithms. But that's well within their right to do. If you don't like it, there's an easy solution: don't use Google. This behavior is well-known (remember Google Reade…

    >  the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality

A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually all of their products.

    > You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon

The first words you see when you visit https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for all your files".

    > there are alternatives to using a hosting company

Like what? Deeply technical p2p hosting solutions that are completely inaccessible to all but the most adept readers and publishers?

    > there are ways outside of the internet to distribute information

Sure, but as we move most of our communication to the internet, this kind of thing becomes more and more problematic.

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#274

Post by veridies » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #147

a3n wrote: post #71

The hindsight-prescriptive comments here focus on backing up, and that's a sensible practice. But there was another kind of damage done here, to the man's identity, location and voice. His blog and his email address were his public persona. He used his blog and his address as identity, and as his channel of communication with followers, other artists, and I assume most of his general online communication. That person…

> That persona no longer exists. He's been all but disappeared, and it's going to take a long time for him to reconnect. If the internet didn't exist, an artist would have bought storage for his art. Why this artist feels that a service he didn't pay for owes him anything is baffling to me.

And if the artist had bought that storage, and then the storage company said "oh, we burned all your art for a terms of use violation," the artist would be rightly outraged.

Sure, he's not paying, but Google doesn't ask for payment. They provide a service which is backed by Google's implicit guarantee that their web hosting is safe and reliable, and they've broken that guarantee. Google may not have a legal responsibility to not delete everything this artist made, but every time something like this happens, the rest of us should notice it and reconsider whether Google is a good platform to trust with our work.

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#275

Post by PhasmaFelis » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:27 PM UTC

clevernickname wrote: post #247

modeless wrote: post #196

From 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…

I don't know what dystopian hellhole you crawled out of, but stories and drawings of imaginary naked children aren't illegal in the US of A.

Depends entirely on which state. People have absolutely gone to prison in the US for e.g. owning loli manga.

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#276

Post by djsumdog » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:27 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #248

falcolas wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing about incest, necrophilia, sex with children; these are not child pornography. Neither are artistic renderings about such subjects. Only obscene photographs of actual children (and apparently 3d models with photographic skins) are considered to be child pornography (and those primarily because they are artifacts of child abuse). Unless he crossed that line, there's still no legal cause to pull down his materi…

It's perfectly reasonable for Google to not wish to host drawings of naked children, nor sex stories about underage children. That isn't censorship.

As a private company, yes they do. And the article even states people like the writer need to be educated about backing up their work and not trusting cloud storage alone.

On a side note though, if it's fictional stories and art involving under age people, that's actually legal (kinda/sorta/not tested often in court) in the US and Japan but not in most of Europe (including France).

For example: drawing of Bart fucking Lisa Simpson. Legal in the US (and if you argue it right, possibly not even a trademark violation under parody/satire -- depends on the judge really). In the UK, that exact drawing sent a man to prison and put him on the sex offender registry.

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#277

Post by oftenwrong » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

clevernickname wrote: post #265

elif wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't need a legal cause. It is their service, so they only need a cause defined in their own terms of service.

Google acts like it is a public utility when it is convenient to them, and a private service when it isn't.

Do have an example?

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#278

Post by FeepingCreature » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #218

andrewclunn wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Considering how few people actually take backups, I'm willing to assume laziness. You wouldn't believe how many people I know who say things like, "Yeah I'd lose my entire PhD project if this laptop died, because I haven't taken a backup in X years" (and proceed to continue not backing up their work)

Maybe we should take a day of the year and declare it "Official Set Up Automated Backups".

Oh hang on, it already exists. March 31st. http://www.worldbackupday.com/en/

Man we really need to publicize that one more.

[edit] The lesson here is: Before you start "Official Thing", actually google "Official Thing".

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#279

Post by a3n » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

schoen wrote: post #194

a3n wrote: post #117

Earlier 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"

Poetic license. I could have more accurately said that they're specifically protected rights.

Re: Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work

#280

Post by falcolas » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #262

x0x0 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly reasonable for Google to not wish to host drawings of naked children, nor sex stories about underage children. That isn't censorship.

Just because it's reasonable doesn't mean it's not censorship. Going a step further, there's nothing inherently wrong with censorship.

> Going a step further, there's nothing inherently wrong with censorship.

So long as they're censoring the things you want them to censor. Of course, everybody would like something different to be censored, which is why it's better to err on the side of "no censorship". There's a reason librarians tend to fight against any form of censorship.