Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

blog.pragmaticengineer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#101

Post by pavlov »

bluGill wrote: post #84
andersonpico wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I don't see any evidence Isn't this screenshot on the article evidence https://storage.ghost.io/c/39/f8/39f85cc7-8637-40fc-a57c-f45... ? Or could it still be the "I can't believe it's not DMCA" you've mentioned?

I don't know how to tell the difference. Google has incentive to hide this

It reads multiple times “DMCA” on that page but you’re saying it could be some unspecified other type of complaint.

If that’s really the case, isn’t Google a fraudulent party here by sending people DMCA notices that aren’t? The DMCA perjury penalty would seem to apply here as well (lying about receiving a third party notice).

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#102

Post by triceratops »

plagiarist wrote: post #74

Steal $20 from a gas station and it is jail time. Instead, steal wages from employees and double-charge customers to make it a civil case.

Pretty much this. Cashier takes $20 out of the register at a gas station and it goes on their criminal record. Gas station owner shorts the cashier $20 on their pay and there's basically no recourse.

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#104

Post by themaninthedark »

andersonpico wrote: post #82
bluGill wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was this really DMCA? The article implies it is, but I don't see any evidence (maybe I missed it). There is discussion of what the DMCA says, and Google took the article down. However it is generally understood that DMCA rarely is used to take things down. Instead Google has a "I can't believe it isn't DMCA" process that looks similar, but in reality it isn't actually DMCA. If this is really DMCA then the author shou…

> but I don't see any evidence Isn't this screenshot on the article evidence https://storage.ghost.io/c/39/f8/39f85cc7-8637-40fc-a57c-f45... ? Or could it still be the "I can't believe it's not DMCA" you've mentioned?

That may be DMCA notice but I think that BluGill get to the heart of the matter in saying the Google doesn't follow the DMCA process. They have their own process that is a warped mirror of the DMCA process and they use the DMCA process as a fig leaf to hide their policies are different.

Google was notorious for not acting on counter-claims: "For anyone out there who have been DMCA'd from Google and a properly filled out counter DMCA to them was rejected with the following: "Thanks for reaching out to us. At this time, Google has decided not to take action." Please contact me immediately " https://x.com/gelbooru/status/1168036119893688320

Here is a January 2026 view for the pro-easy take down side showing that Google is now requiring identities to issue DMCA claims: >"Fast‑forward to January 2026, and the same system now questions the very identity of the complainant, demanding proof that was never required before. " https://ubos.tech/news/googles-dmca-process-leaves-creators-...

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#105

Post by froh »

pseudolus wrote: post #79
davidgl wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's on BBC iPlayer - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001n327/crashed-800m-...

Unfortunately BBC iPlayer is blocked in a number of regions. However, the doc appears to be available on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXJmD2XIZfQ .

"the uploader has not made this video available in your country" (socerlist republic of Germany und commernest Europe?)

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#106

Post by bluGill »

pavlov wrote: post #101
bluGill wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to tell the difference. Google has incentive to hide this

It reads multiple times “DMCA” on that page but you’re saying it could be some unspecified other type of complaint. If that’s really the case, isn’t Google a fraudulent party here by sending people DMCA notices that aren’t? The DMCA perjury penalty would seem to apply here as well (lying about receiving a third party notice).

Maybe. I said elsewhere "see a lawyer, be prepared to pay them millions to recover thousands".

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#107

Post by janpeuker »

This is an extremely common technique against investigative reporting, in particular because certain social media / blogging platforms allow backdating posts [1]. So people just copy your post, claim DMCA, and then take it down quickly after.

1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39355869

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#109

Post by SahAssar »

bluGill wrote: post #73
RobotToaster wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DMCA notices are supposed to be filed under penalty of perjury, but I'm not aware of anyone ever being prosecuted for that.

I doubt this was a DMCA notice at all. Google has a not DMCA process that is easier to submit to.

The screenshot clearly says "NOTICE TYPE: DMCA".

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#110

Post by mindMonitor »

atombender wrote: post #60
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what counts as a "real identity"? Fictional address, sure: that would, as I understand, be some kind of fraud, and can reasonably be prohibited if there's a mechanism to do so… but then you run into the problem that not everyone has an address.

The onus is on the DMCA processor to verify the legitimacy of the claim. I don't have a real solution, but Congress created the problem and should solve it. There's of course a whole legal system that has been dealing with this since for ever. If I were to implement it myself, I'd use a third party service like those that can verify passports and driver's licenses and so on.

+1 on the implementation. Passport chip validation really is the way to go …if…we must go that way.

We’re bending over backwards to accommodate a need to validate identities in a system (the internet) which in many ways started as an open/anonymous idea. I’m sceptical about most of all this. Google as a platform clearly have a responsibility for content, but are not allocating enough time/money to truely fix the problem. It’s like they have this MASSIVE problem at the very core of their product, and the only solution is spending tons of resources to truely moderate/investigate and proactively avoid incidents. But they should. SoMe/Big Tech are all cheating and their margins should be lower (and more sensible, compared to other industries..) if they had to follow common sense rules that forever applied to market places, news papers, public space - I mean, if you own a wall facing a crowded street, and someone paints a nazi symbol on your wall, then you have a problem.

Post reply on HN