Live data from Hacker News

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

fusion.net

341–350 of 457 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whelp. I hope you're wrong. A former in-law was detained and deported by the USA, leaving family behind. I hate this man and all he's done. So while my liberal pinko commie sensibilities opposes everything done to him, and how it was done, it couldn't have happened to a nicer person. Being conflicted like that is a terrible feeling. It shows the need for rules. If the rules are applied unevenly, especially against th…

I hate this man and all he's done... it couldn't have happened to a nicer person. I'm... confused. Do you mean it wouldn't have happened to a nicer person? "couldn't have happened to a nicer person" suggests this individual is the nicest person you've ever met. Edit: completely missed the ironic usage.

Apologies. Idiomatic sarcasm. Too late for me to edit for clarity.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/it-couldn-t-happen-to-a-nic...

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

#342

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…

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.…

Trust me, there was very much a process involved here. You just don't know it. And there was no removal of evidence - you can be sure everything is very well documented - just not on the public internet.

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

#343
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does not the ol' Don't-Be-Evil corporation owe it to society to maintain features that support the common good? I know from my experience in hwops that plenty of people on the corp domain DO believe that they are working towards a better world--and that making more money will only accelerate progress towards that goal. The question is: are they wrong? Has Google lost its way? Let's look not just at this IMAP issue bu…

XMPP is even better example than IMAP.

Rumour had it that they tore down the federation due to an unmanageable spam wave. Something about friend requests from spam puppets. I've never heard details. Has anyone else here?

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

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whelp. I hope you're wrong. A former in-law was detained and deported by the USA, leaving family behind. I hate this man and all he's done. So while my liberal pinko commie sensibilities opposes everything done to him, and how it was done, it couldn't have happened to a nicer person. Being conflicted like that is a terrible feeling. It shows the need for rules. If the rules are applied unevenly, especially against th…

I hate this man and all he's done... it couldn't have happened to a nicer person. I'm... confused. Do you mean it wouldn't have happened to a nicer person? "couldn't have happened to a nicer person" suggests this individual is the nicest person you've ever met. Edit: completely missed the ironic usage.

"Couldn't have happened to a nicer person" is often used in an ironic sense.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually > all of their products. This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. > The first words you see when you visit > https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for > all your files". And clearly in the terms of service (the only thing that actually matters,) it says:…

This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. It's true that no obligation is created under our current legal structure, but I think the statement still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people who defaulted were fre…

It's true that a lot of those subprime loans were legal - however, they were moved off the originators books in a fraudulent manner. If no one would have bought the loans from the originator then they most likely would have never offered them to people with little means to repay.

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

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back when I set up a client to pull from Gmail it would break twice a year: when the changed their TLS cert, and when the later changed it BACK. My conclusion at the time was that they wanted to keep the percentage of users of the IMAP service below some value, and every time the jerked the config around, they'd see a dip in the graph on their end. My setup is currently non-functional. The maintenance cost was too hi…

In addition, what Google claims is an "SMTP server" does surprising things in violation of the relevant RFCs, in furtherance of Google's business models: http://lee-phillips.org/gmailRewriting/

That blog posting is from 2012, so I think it's surprising that its author clearly hadn't read RFC 4409, published in 2006.

The first paragraph about message modification is: "Sites MAY modify submissions to ensure compliance with standards and site policy. This section describes a number of such modifications that are often considered useful." From is typically modified to comply with SPF and/or DKIM.

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

#347

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…

> Can they delete it if they want to? Can they block me from accessing it?

Since they are paying to store this data, and you agreed to let them do that for you, then yes they can.

But it's not in some kind of escrow. They even make it easy for you to get all of it for your own storage:

https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467/ https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout

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

#348
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was taking existing ads for escorts in the wild and critiquing them as satire.

Are you sure it is "satire"?

Definitely fits the definition: > A literary device of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. Humour, irony and exaggeration are often used to aid this.

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

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually > all of their products. This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. > The first words you see when you visit > https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for > all your files". And clearly in the terms of service (the only thing that actually matters,) it says:…

This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. It's true that no obligation is created under our current legal structure, but I think the statement still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people who defaulted were fre…

    > It's true that no obligation is created under our 
    > current legal structure, but I think the statement 
    > still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people 
    > that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage 
    > crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people 
    > who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that 
    > is true, and we definitely would all be better off if 
    > people took the accountability and personal 
    > responsibility to avoid getting into these situations.
I know what you're getting at here, but it's not really right to compare a policy that resulted in the loss a blog with a set of ethically questionable banking practices that objectively caused one of the worst recessions we've ever seen, resulting in literal death, poverty, and all-around regress.

There's also this key component: the average user is not Google's customer -- they never pay a penny for the services they receive. I think that you and I both agree that consumer protection laws are a good thing; if you pay for access to Google's data storage services then it should be illegal if they suddenly revoke that access. That is an obvious case of breach-of-contract.

Outside the context of a customer-business relation, this amounts to the government ordering Google to supply a service at no charge. Note that certain things (I believe in the states water) have to be given freely to people who request it, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that access to data that you knowingly stored some place with questionable data persistence guarantees is as fundamental as access to water. You may disagree.

In the end, I suggest educating consumers about the generally sketchy cloud data persistence guarantees is easier and wiser than requiring companies to offer free services. You and I both probably agree that the cloud is a significantly easier approach to organizing, storing, and using data than traditional approaches. Since it has become so ubiquitous, its users should know the dangers. This avoids setting a somewhat strong precedent that such a protection law would make.

After a quick Google (heh, the irony!) there doesn't seem like there's an easy way to backup cloud data. This seems like it might actually be a good personal project for me...

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

#350

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.

Please comment civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Post reply on HN