Live data from Hacker News

Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper

internetthought.blogspot.com

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper

#31

I understand the desire for takedown requests on truly infringing content. But there will always be people who exploit those tools for bad faith takedowns, and because this kind of moderation is a loss leader for companies like Google and Bing it seems like they will forever be disincentivized from doing a good job. (We constantly hear similar stories about Youtube copyright strikes.) We have a legal system that's su…

It seems pretty straightforward to me that if you want to reduce false or flimsy take down requests that there need to be actual costs when those requests are found to be fair use, parody, what have you. In the current environment there is basically zero reason for a rights holder to not claim content on YouTube (cited both because it's what I'm most familiar with, and because it's rampant issue on the platform) and literally claiming copyright on any video by a rights holder is a completely risk free action:

* YouTube seemingly does not weight the claim based on previous claims, i.e. if you've made hundreds of claims that have later petered out into nothing, you can still make claims that still have the same weight and assumption of good faith applied to them. So if one of your interns flips through a video and sees a frame of your show or game or whatever, claim it.

* As I've complained about here previously: videos make the vast majority of their revenue in the first few days of publication, so if you manage to snipe a newly posted video, either by way of keeping an eye open for yourself or via automated tools, you can claim it, have the video's monetization redirected to you, and again, even if the claim is later found to be bogus or unsubstantiated, you keep the money.

* Lastly, there is NO mechanism whatsoever for the creator to seek any form of justice on the platform. In theory a creator could sue an IP holder for filing a bogus claim, but there's little court precedent for that, and to even attempt it would require them to retain their own attorney. Any attorney worth their money would tell them not to try it because it will be an uphill battle with an organization who's legal account dwarfs their own.

This is basically a system that is directly incentivizing bad actors. It's no surprise at all that it's being abused by companies looking to manage their image/PR by quelling criticism, by organizationally inept companies who's left hands can't keep track of what the right hand is doing, and by companies that see it as a cynical way to juice their revenue in an ethically dubious but also basically risk free way. And we now have a new strata of yet more middle men organizations: companies that manage the IP of other companies and make claims on their behalf, sometimes even using shoddy AI recognition to manage it.

Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper

#32

I understand the desire for takedown requests on truly infringing content. But there will always be people who exploit those tools for bad faith takedowns, and because this kind of moderation is a loss leader for companies like Google and Bing it seems like they will forever be disincentivized from doing a good job. (We constantly hear similar stories about Youtube copyright strikes.) We have a legal system that's su…

What does the legal system have to do with companies deciding whats happening on their platforms? Do you want to force all companies to treat all content the same if it's not illegal?

Of course companies have the rights to remove and restrict content on their platforms! I'm not saying that's a problem.

I'm talking about e.g. the DMCA requirements than an OSP be responsible for complying with takedown notices. This is not the company deciding to take action on certain content, but the company being forced to take action in response to certain submissions. The law pushes the burden of enforcement onto a private company.

As someone else posted in the comments, there are services that will go around and make (bogus) claims on your behalf. It seems plausible that's what happened to the author's original article, rather than that bing and google themselves were trying to influence the net neutrality conversations.

Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the legal system have to do with companies deciding whats happening on their platforms? Do you want to force all companies to treat all content the same if it's not illegal?

Of course companies have the rights to remove and restrict content on their platforms! I'm not saying that's a problem. I'm talking about e.g. the DMCA requirements than an OSP be responsible for complying with takedown notices. This is not the company deciding to take action on certain content, but the company being forced to take action in response to certain submissions. The law pushes the burden of enforcement on…

oh ok. I misinterpreted that. Yeah DMCA needs to change and complaints about right holders should go through courts.

Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper

#34

I think a nice rebuttal to this would be a search engine for pages reported removed from google lol so I'm guessing the guys who own the data from the webcrawls are the critical path, guess you need big resources for that. great chart thing here --> https://www.searchenginemap.com/

Like this? https://lumendatabase.org/

Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper

#35
post #34

I think a nice rebuttal to this would be a search engine for pages reported removed from google lol so I'm guessing the guys who own the data from the webcrawls are the critical path, guess you need big resources for that. great chart thing here --> https://www.searchenginemap.com/

Like this? https://lumendatabase.org/

I gave it a spin, I'm sure the guys meant well but no. Search results seemed poor or irrelevent, included porn links, too much captcha, had to use email for results.

Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper

#36
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, xe did. Xe explicitly compares it to the findability of one of xyr articles that mentions Squid Game.

The author calls himself male https://www.blogger.com/profile/17977561124307072281 Why that made up pronoun?

The pronouns people use for me can be independent of what I call myself
Post reply on HN