201–210 of 309 posts
I wonder what checks and balances are in place. Can someone be a complete dirtbag and request that legitimate criticism be removed simply because they don't want folks to know they're a dirtbag? Can convicts request the results be removed? How about sex offenders? How about people convicted of domestic violence assaults or similar?
Disclaimer: Work at Google in this area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, no information should ever be banned from any public/commons - the end. You want to ban certain information from a particular place you control? Go nuts. The wider public? No. The power to ban information is too great to be entrusted to any authority at all. Depending on how thorough the "ban" (web text filter at the ISP level? mandatory AR implants at birth filtering banned content? worse?), it's anywhere from a…
Hm - I think something to consider is who's information it really is that you want removed. Information that I put up isn't Google's to remove, but if I want to do that, should I have the right? Especially if it's actively harmful to me and benefits nobody (see previous mentions of non-consensual sharing of explicit images), shouldn't I have control over it? If I am wholly responsible for the existence of some unique…
...but that's not always the case. If your information has been copied against your will in a way that removes that key (which is incredibly hard to prevent, see the "analog hole" problem in video DRM), you have to have some sort of central authority or master key to be able to remove it, and then you're again falling right back into trusting that central authority with the power to remove whatever they deem fit. What if the central authority decides you don't own the information and not to remove it? What if they claim ownership of something they want removed that isn't theirs?
It just doesn't work. Information removal is a superpower I do not trust any large organization to wield responsibly.
I'd like to take this opportunity to share some relevant exercepts from In The Plex[^1] about Eric Schmidt, then-CEO of Google. > One day Denise Griffin got a call from Eric Schmidt’s assistant. “There’s this information about Eric in the indexes,” she told Griffin. “And we want it out.” In Griffin’s recollection, it dealt with donor information from a political campaign, exactly the type of public information that G…
Is this the same Eric Schmidt as in "If You Have Something You Don’t Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn’t Be Doing It"? [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_38...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, no information should ever be banned from any public/commons - the end. You want to ban certain information from a particular place you control? Go nuts. The wider public? No. The power to ban information is too great to be entrusted to any authority at all. Depending on how thorough the "ban" (web text filter at the ISP level? mandatory AR implants at birth filtering banned content? worse?), it's anywhere from a…
Thanks for sharing. Do you think there is ever a scenario where information should be censored from the public at large? (Child porn, or you or your family getting ‘doxxed’, for example) I appreciate the take that the future harm isn’t worth the benefit today, since we’d enable future arbiters to control what is available. There’s nuance in determining what is a public sphere vs. a privately controlled platform. The…
But I would not trust any corporation (sometimes it's profitable to remove something so they retain control of some market) or government (sometimes it secures their power to keep people unaware of some facts about their actions) to do the same. Would you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's just for incidental damage and probably legally mandated by your state. If your house burns down to due to DIY wiring, the insurance company won't pay out a dime (if the inspectors discover it). Electricians have liability insurance provided by an organization specializing in policies for practicing tradesmen. If an insurance company fails to disqualify a homeowner's policy and pays out, it will then go af…
What exactly is diy electrical work? Many states let you file a homestead permit to do your own non-trivial electrical work.
https://www.bpi.co.uk/news-analysis/bpi-sends-500-millionth-...
https://transparencyreport.google.com/copyright/reporters/18...;
It raises the question of how they can find that many hits to be removed, they must be spamming the hell out of the index, and Google must be allowing it/providing an API.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh interesting. But lets be real asjing "why did you start using google anyway" is a preposterous question. You used to be able to find all kinds of weird ass fucked up shit on google but now its all internet based news media. I miss the raw shit.
To be fair, I asked the question because you made a sweeping assertion about others being "anti-truth/anti-science", which implies you'd be more cognizant and knowledgeable about the algorithms and mindset behind Google back "in the good ol days".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hadn't tried that particular search. Heres on I have tried and just double checked it : "I don't care about transgender rights" The example further down about the moon landing is a much better example though. Its a lot worse right when some political event happens. Like if trump said sonething really controversial and you search for more context around it, on google top results would all be articles about how shitt…
> I hadn't tried that particular search So, the one example you provided you hadn't taken the 10 seconds to validate? You're not providing value here. Please make an effort to make meaningful and additive comments instead of spewing misinformation or made up anecdotes.
My point stands shitty example or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google always errs on the side of left wing political platform Reminds me that yesterday I tried googling around the topic of how covid affects fertility (eg. "covid fertility") and nearly every result that comes back is about vaccines not affecting fertility. Okay, thanks Google, but how about the actual disease? Results were a fair bit more relevant by adding "disease" to the query, but still got one or two about…
Perhaps much of it is not ideological on Google's part but actually simply the machine learning about what people want to see. It's entirely possible that such a disproportionate number of persons is more likely to access links about vaccines and such politics than what you searched for that the machine, not the man, has elected to favor those without having any real political motive.
I wish google was more concerned with accuracy of matches rather than populatrity
Yeah also if you compare results from google vs duckduckgo for controversial search terms like "I don't care about gender identity" Google will return only content that tells you why that opinion is wrong e.g. "why you should care about gender identity" Whereas duckduckgo will return stuff that actually matches your search. Google always errs on the side of left wing political platform. Its actually really egregious…
Whereas duckduckgo will return stuff that actually matches your search. One upon a time Google was a really cool search engine. Entire books were written about how to use it wisely. E.g. Google Hacks 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/google-hacks/0596004478... Now, it's impossible to properly qualify searches. Quotes don't mean shit. Appending "&tbs=li:1" to get verbatim result…
I remember when you could finesse google for really odd or specific shit and its damn near impossible now.