141–150 of 212 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
actual link: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...
Nah, that's a link to a javascript application you can run that will eventually download and display the text if everything is just right. I linked to the actual text.
I think this could be a bad idea for some prople, and here’s why. I was just searching an old teacher of mine to see how she was doing. I knew she was super old-school (doesn’t even have a smartphone, let alone social media profiles) but I thought, I’ll just see what comes up - it’s a little lower friction than calling her. She still doesn’t have any online presence except for one thing. The top search result for her…
Take me, for an example. Google Greg Maxwell. You'll get a smear piece written by the associates of the fraudster that claims to invented bitcoin title "Crypto Crime Cartel: Greg Maxwell" several pages ahead of my own webpage (https://nt4tn.net/) which shows up only on the sixth page where essentially no one will see it. (hey, at least the smear piece not #1 anymore-- It was for a long time.)
(You could add 'bitcoin' to the search to get rid of most of the people who aren't me-- the "crime cartel" article is result #2 then, and my page is at the bottom of page 4-- again where few people are ever likely to see it-- after several other smear pages.)
So I think the threat of negative material is mostly orthogonal. You're probably better off invisible, you're screwed either way if someone well funded wants to trash your name.
> Nobody really expects to be able to find anything of value in a Google search now This is a categorically false premise. The kind of statement that only makes sense when you're in a deep bubble and entirely removed from the average person's use of the internet. Deliberately removing yourself from Google is fine for the author who is more concerned about taking an ideological stance than they are about being discove…
Not entirely false, I would say. I see more and more non-techies getting tired with their search results, instinctly expecting to see a variety of poorly-formatted, extremely poorly-written, ad-ridden sites.
I believe more and more people will wake as Google pushes the boundaries of good sense. This will lead to a decrease in qualified traffic, but that won't demotivate Google -- anyone who already ran ads targeting a niche public knows that Google will burn your monthly budget, and they won't hesitate to override your parameters to make that happen.
I think this could be a bad idea for some prople, and here’s why. I was just searching an old teacher of mine to see how she was doing. I knew she was super old-school (doesn’t even have a smartphone, let alone social media profiles) but I thought, I’ll just see what comes up - it’s a little lower friction than calling her. She still doesn’t have any online presence except for one thing. The top search result for her…
It's not like it helps, if she did have a presence online the malicious stuff will still totally wipe it out. Take me, for an example. Google Greg Maxwell. You'll get a smear piece written by the associates of the fraudster that claims to invented bitcoin title "Crypto Crime Cartel: Greg Maxwell" several pages ahead of my own webpage ( https://nt4tn.net/ ) which shows up only on the sixth page where essentially no on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tried this test three ways - from my wifi, on my phone's LTE connection, and via a VPN that my family uses, all in private windows to prevent Google using my local cache. All found my LinkedIn in the top 2 slots. It seems pretty stable to me? How could I make this cleaner?
That sounds pretty thorough for the purpose. I think the parent's point was just that if you naively Google yourself without doing anything special, your own results will tend to percolate to the top more so than if a random person were to Google you.
RSS feeds are dead, long live RSS feeds.
> Nobody really expects to be able to find anything of value in a Google search now This is a categorically false premise. The kind of statement that only makes sense when you're in a deep bubble and entirely removed from the average person's use of the internet. Deliberately removing yourself from Google is fine for the author who is more concerned about taking an ideological stance than they are about being discove…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
70 yo mother was visiting last month I watched her look something up on her ipad and she typed in "duckduckgo.com" If you want your mother to bake you cookies, tell her she only needs to type "duck.com," not "duckduckgo.com." At least until today. Now I get: Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information).
ddg.gg still works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like it helps, if she did have a presence online the malicious stuff will still totally wipe it out. Take me, for an example. Google Greg Maxwell. You'll get a smear piece written by the associates of the fraudster that claims to invented bitcoin title "Crypto Crime Cartel: Greg Maxwell" several pages ahead of my own webpage ( https://nt4tn.net/ ) which shows up only on the sixth page where essentially no on…
You’re totally right - nothing can really stop a well enough funded smear campaign. In this example, I don’t think Project Veritas was going after her specifically. But it’s literally the only search result for her somewhat-unique name (and certainly the top result when combined with her profession), so it’s the only thing that future employers would see. If there’s even only a single other information source, there’…
I don't think the cost/benefit is likely to pan out. Of course, on the same basis, blocking yourself out of google results is also mostly irrelevant for the purpose of standing up against DRMing the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds pretty thorough for the purpose. I think the parent's point was just that if you naively Google yourself without doing anything special, your own results will tend to percolate to the top more so than if a random person were to Google you.
Based on the rants I've gotten from barbers, taxi drivers and the like when I've told them what I'm working om, there does indeed seem like there is a widespread dissatisfaction with capital G.
Now - how should Google satisfy all of those people?
I'll confess that I don't have the answer here. But if you're trying to look up "barber ${my_city}" or "taxi ${my_city}", and there are more than one page of results, everyone but the top 10 (top 20? how many results per page are there on google these days?) is going to be unhappy.
Unless there are 20 (or 40?) or fewer barbers in your city, more than half the barbers are going to be unhappy with google. It sucks, but when x people are clamoring for y resources, x - y people will be unhappy. And if y is significantly smaller than x, a significant amount of people are going to be unhappy.