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

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

#401

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 3:41 AM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #379

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.…

He's not a Google customer. Hard to establish standing when a property owner cleans up your graffiti.

This is a terrible metaphor and the entire thought behind it. If you provide some sort of consideration in exchange for something even if that consideration is your eyeballs which the provider can rent out you are a customer.

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

#402

Post by true_religion » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 3:51 AM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #287

true_religion wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the OP who said: > "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)." Because of the words 'book' and 'writing', I have the impression that everything there is written text and no certainly no pictures. This puts it in a nebulous position, at least in the USA. Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897), ended up ruling that text-o…

So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out. This doesn't hold true for ... most of the rest of the planet. In the UK a man was put in jail for Simpsons porn, something that's legal in the US (although potentially a trademark violatio…

> So in the US (and Japan and only a handful of other countries), fictional depictions of under age or incestual content isn't illegal (per the court case you referenced above), so long as you're not using real people to act it out.

Actually, visual incest pornography exists in the US. I am not sure why (I am within the industry, but I don't actually keep tabs on legalities that I'm not involved in), but it seems that 2 years ago VISA decided it was okay for it to take credit card payments for incest-fantasy sites, and since then there's been an explosion of mainstream studios supporting said material.

Cynically speaking, it seems to me that the adult industry is more scared of how their merchant banks will react to their content, than any chance of being taken down by the US government.

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

#403

Post by Motomorgen » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 4:08 AM UTC

arundelo wrote: post #161

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…

I've had my own domain for quite a while and have been meaning to start using an email address on that domain. The main reason I haven't is that I'm procrastinating the initial trouble of setting it up, but I'm also a bit scared from hearing stories of people who do this and then occasionally have email to them or from them bounce or disappear. (Maybe this is not as common a problem as I get the impression it is.) Ed…

Hosting was pretty easy with https://github.com/tomav/docker-mailserver

Tho FWIW I use Postmark to do my email delivery because then at least I know my email will end up in the inbox of the recipient vs their spam box which my hosted server was having problems with.

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

#404

Post by 67726e » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 4:13 AM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #329

67726e wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then suspend the blog, and allow for some process to deal with the situation. Don't just torch everything on some suspicion of something going wrong. This isn't a new issue for Google. They're notorious for fucking with people's accounts and providing no recourse or customer support. Something happens? Better hope your uncle works at Google or your shit out of luck. Hell, I've hosted most of my personal domains' emai…

>Hell, I've hosted most of my personal domains' email accounts via Google. A few months ago one of them was deleted. I never really used the email, but I certainly had things on their I would like to have for posterity. That's what you get for not making backups. This isn't rocket science. You're using someone else's free service, and they have zero obligation to continue to provide that service to you. Even if they…

Maybe I'm just a lazy fuck? I know backups, I get it, but you know what? I'm human.

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

#405

Post by wpietri » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 4:20 AM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #192

wpietri wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. My dad, a now-retired programmer, was dealing with an error at his bank in the 80s. It was a bunch of work and frustration. At some point he asked why a thing happened and the rep said, "Oh, the computer just does that." He didn't say anything to her, but he was still mad when he talked about at dinner that night. "Computers don't just do things! People make computers do things. Every thing a computer doe…

I don't think the problem is software necessarily, it's scale. Software allows for scale but it's not the underlying cause. Google is responsible for the content of maybe hundreds of millions of people; if even a small fraction of them have issues that's overwhelming. At that scale it's impossible for you to be anything other than nothing to them.

> At that scale it's impossible for you to be anything other than nothing to them.

Even if that's the case, it is not impossible. It's just a choice that they made about how to structure things. The US government has hundreds of millions of citizens, but each one of those persons has rights, responsibilities, and privileges. The Catholic Church has hundreds of millions of members, but each one can have a personal relationship with a priest.

If Google is really indifferent to what people have entrusted to them, that's a choice.

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

#406

Post by Dolores12 » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 4:21 AM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #213

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…

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.…

You are welcome to host his 'art' on your own computer.

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

#407

Post by lotharbot » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 5:37 AM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #369

tener wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's actually what's happening. Google's policy seems to be radio silence in all cases.

> "Google's policy seems to be radio silence in all cases"

This may be an intentional decision to cooperate with law enforcement. If they only go silent in the case of ongoing investigations, then "Google went silent" functions in the same way as "the warrant canary disappeared" does for other sites, which could in theory jeopardize an investigation.

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

#408

Post by DominikD » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 6:50 AM UTC

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…

You can - and should - archive your FB data. There's a built-in feature for that and I periodically archive everything for the same sentimental reasons.

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

#409

Post by DominikD » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 6:53 AM UTC

Sylos wrote: post #348

tamana wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But shouldn't satire be pointed at powerful and not powerless?

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

#410

Post by Arnt » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 8:35 AM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #357

Arnt wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

6409 contains the same wording: "MAY modify submissions to ensure compliance with standards and site policy" and gives examples.

The sections on header rewriting are essentially examples of what the document describes as "modifications that are often considered useful", they're not an exhaustive list. The only MUST NOT rule that concerns email address rewriting is about destination addresses.