By removing “extremist content,” platforms are purging human rights evidence

Post by haroldp » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 4:01 AM UTC

corodra wrote: post #62

corndoge wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, exact title searches will usually not turn up videos with that title unless you use quotes. YouTube will return clickbait and Jimmy Kimmel, entirely unrelated to the search, for exact title searches of videos with only a few tens of views.

Heaven forbid I ever accidentally click on or get interested in some random talk show video, video roughly about video games or a big media news video. All of my normal engineering, business, programming, guns, history, and mechanics recommendations go right the fuck out the window. For the next week, half my recommendations are just filled with dogshit because of one accidental video. I stopped watching movie traile…

Post by marshray » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

taneq wrote: post #95

kazinator wrote: post #21

Is this pure populism, or does the principle apply to the "little guy" as well? If I set up a machine under my desk at home with a domain (courtesy of dynamic DNS), and provide a few terabytes of free-of-charge storage to a small bunch of people, am I "erasing history" if I can't keep all their stuff forever? Or do I have to be a Youtube-sized corporate entity before I'm a fucking asshole?

Depends what you say to them. If you say "hey guys, feel free to use this storage to host stuff" and then delete it, then yes, you're an asshole. If you say "hey guys, I have some hard drive space, send me stuff you think I might like and if I like it I'll host it for a while before deleting it" then no, you're not an asshole. If you say something that sounds like the first statement but is actually the second statem…

Post by anfilt » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 4:33 AM UTC

  Strict
   *No Adult content*
  Moderate
   *No Explicit images or video*
  Off
   *Don't filter content*

Post by bigwavedave » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 5:00 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #83

adventured wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've recently made the process intentionally more annoying. You used to be able to exclude a site you control via a robots.txt file. That wouldn't actually delete archived content and would merely hide it from viewing. They no longer honor that approach. You now have to send them an email and specifically request content removal.

I consider this to be acceptable.

Post by wolco » Thu, Oct 24, 2019, 5:15 AM UTC

codingslave wrote: post #40

LeftHandPath wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of times I've taken a google search that gave me useless results, copied-and-pasted it into duck-duck-go, and immediately found what I'm looking for, is astounding. I do think that they are starting to lose the power-user userbase when it comes to browsers and search engines. But their email, docs/sheets/whatever, drive, and now their DNS registrar services are all cemented into business flow. It makes sen…

Yeah lately I've been shocked about the search result quality as well, way too often I am getting almost all seo spam results on google. I was actually reading their 10k earnings report a while back, Google specifically highlighted spam/seo results as a threat to their business. Most google users probably have never even heard of duck duck go before, I doubt they are in any kind of risk of losing market share.