>“[If Google doesn’t] respond and rectify the situation, I won’t have any choice but to sue them,” Cooper wrote. “I don’t want to do that for obvious reasons, but I will if I have to.” Really? Because you didn't take the necessary steps to create your own backups!?? Edit: Reading some of the other comments about the ... um ... content ... of his blog, no wonder he didn't keep backups!!!
Victim-blaming isn't going to help anyone. And even if he would have had backups, Google has completely dispersed his followership, too.
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.…
It's a pure risk management problem.
Child pornography is contraband. It's the virtual equivalent of a kilo of cocaine. If, as a service provider, you come across someone's artistic expression that is reckoned to be close enough to the line you have a problem. You need to worry about whether there's an elevated risk that the next post will cross the line, you shut it down.
Your freedom of speech doesn't require a third party to broadcast your speech.
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'm expressing no opinion here about what qualifies as art (or not) or what is legal (or not). But it is the type of content that, taken together, could cause a blog to be deleted for TOS violations.
It seems to me that if you want a free place to publish photos that appear to be necrophilia, anal fisting, and bestiality, well, maybe pay $5 a month to host your site somewhere yourself? I suspect that any free blog hosting service is not the place for you.
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.
If Twitter were an open protocol, I'd probably have had some interest in using it, but as a closed proprietary business service, it seems completely uninteresting, and I've never signed up or really paid any attention. Why would I want to let some random company own my communications like that?
If there's any legal thing going on they wont be able to make any statements on it anyway...
"Due to ongoing litigation we are unable to comment" would still be valuable in that case. Radio silence on the other hand, is not acceptable.
In some jurisdictions it is illegal to let your client know they are being secretely investigated. Such statement may interfere with the investigation - they may destroy the evidence etc.
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.
RFC 4409 is obsoleted by RFC 6409 (Nov. 2011), which is the one I refer to. The sections therein on header rewriting do not allow the modifications that Google makes to the From: header, which can, as I point out, lead to mismatches of personal names and email addresses and falsification of sender identity, with all the easily foreseeable damage that may result.
I don't remember. Oh, it was this: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.imap.offlineimap.genera... But what that doesn't show is that they then changed it back, and forth... for a while. It was just a UX issue that only affected computer literate people. THE BEST KIND. :( I remember when some combination of Gmail features* enabled me to upload my old mbox with years of personal email into my GAFYD account... emails f…
>> "I certainly felt confident that I would be a gmail user for life. I certainly didn't consider the possibility that they'd one day just deny my access to the whole thing because I spoke ill of them in a HN comment. ;)" Sorry I'm being a bit thick, but did this happen, or does the emoticon at the end mean it's hypothetical?
Did not happen. Hopefully it's even less than hypothetical.
> then tar autistic people for whatever Google decides to do. Who's saying that? And Google does it because of incompetence, not because of a condition they have no control over. That's the main difference I'm not implying Google does it because they suffer from autism, and maybe there's a better adjective to describe what they do.
> I'm not implying Google does it because they suffer from autism, Yes you are. Here's what you said: > Given that Google's customer support has autistic tendencies to put it mildly
Do I really have to explain figures of speech to you?
Beyond that, tendency is defined as: an inclination towards a particular characteristic or type of behaviour
More importantly, it does not mean "it (Google) is that (Autistic)"
If I had said "Google is literally autistic" I would agree with you.
Good luck getting email to work with that setup though.
"Email" as it is run today by third parties. Email dates back to timesharing, when people shared computers, each user having an "email account" on a single computer. For people today, each with their own computer, it's still possible to do email without store and forward, with each user running SMTP servers that talk directly to each other instead of connecting to "email providers". This is grassroots. Not meant to l…
it's still possible to do email without store and forward, with each user running SMTP servers that talk directly to each other
