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

A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 609 posts

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#431

Post by scarface74 »

RestlessMind wrote: post #411
scarface74 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is locked out the ecosystem of people who actually have money to spend. How else do you explain how they are willing to pay a competitor $14 billion+ a year? It doesn’t matter that Android is running on a bunch of $100 phones where they are getting a low ARPU. The Oracle trial showed how little profit came from Android. Who do you think business would rather target iPhone users or Android users?

Not a fan of Google, but > How else do you explain how they are willing to pay a competitor $14 billion+ a year? Obvious that they have more than >14B+ value extracted out of their competitor's ecosystem per year? I am not sure if you are aware of this or not but when Apple screwed FB with all the anti-tracking changes, there was one notable exception - the browser. Guess who benefited the most? All the ad dollars, w…

What I am saying that it is at most a Pyrrhic victory that Google only managed to statistical capture the 30% poorest demographic and still has to pay its competitor to keep from being locked out of being able to reach the highest income demographic.

On top of that, Google doesn’t even compete in the worlds largest cellphone market - China. Sure most phones run “Android”. But without any Google services.

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#432

Post by zaroth »

soraminazuki wrote: post #15

> A Google spokeswoman said the company stands by its decisions, even though law enforcement cleared the two men. Wow. Just wow. This is worse than the usual Google's automated screw-ups. In this case, Google was notified of the issue by the NYT. Yet they actively chose to continue to screw over their victims just because they can. > In a statement, Google said, “Child sexual abuse material is abhorrent and we’re com…

I’m more and more convinced that they just never bothered to write the ban-hammer feature in a way that it is actually reversible.

Probably the button simply doesn’t exist to undo the termination 30/60/90 days later. Good luck getting them to admit it.

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#433

Post by deepdriver »

giantg2 wrote: post #150
prox wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah also think the word/concept fascism doesn’t fit here. While it is obviously oppressive or unjust, it is a company, so what would be a better fit?

If the government allows them to become a virtual monopoly/ doupoly, then it's possible one could see the abuses as indirectly government sanctioned. At least in so far that the company has integrated automatically with the law enforcement flow and that integration has flaws that will lead to the same sort of undesirable ham-fisted authoritarian enforcement. It also allows the government bypass search restrictions by…

>So perhaps fascism doesn't fit perfectly, but it's pretty damn close in my opinion (especially if you use definition 3 by Wordnik "Oppressive, dictatorial control")

Few to none of the loudest users of “fascist” describe Cuba, Venezuela, or China with the term according this definition. Can only conclude the definition is given in bad faith, and used by people with a silent exception for “states and organizations I find ideologically appealing.”

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#434

Post by quickthrower2 »

megous wrote: post #368
quickthrower2 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where the small guys kick ass vs the Googles/Microsoft. Try Dropbox, Backblaze etc. Much better experience. Apple is OK UX wise but locked in which sucks.

I wouldn't call Dropbox small guys, lol. They can build one large nuclear powerplant on their revenue every 2 years.

That is right, but I cant resist bringing out the trope that airpods product line alone - just one produce line! - is one of the world’s biggest businesses and dwarfs most unicorns like Dropbox.

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#435

Post by dang »

bhedgeoser wrote: post #355
bhedgeoser wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it a lot and we ban that sort of account because we're trying for a different sort of forum here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#436

Post by klabb3 »

7steps2much wrote: post #44
lizardactivist wrote: post #14

But they keep insisting that their services and cloud storage is private and secure? Odd.

> private and secure the meaning of both words being defined by their provacy policy and ToS

Private to Google's tracking algorithms. Secure from competitors.

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#437

Post by [deleted] »

felix318 wrote: post #273
4gotunameagain wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an atheist, and I intensely disagree with the sexualisation of everything in our society dressed as a new sexual revolution, and see it as a direct effect of capitalism. What say you

The other day I read something about how society must “prevent the oversexualization of children” and that got me thinking, who will protect the oversexualization of society itself? The answer was obvious to me.

[deleted]

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#438

Post by akira2501 »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #348
elif wrote: post #276

From my travels, my impression has been that America in particular treats child nudity as completely, unexceptionally obscene, beyond even adult nudity. Compared to a beach in Europe, where nearly half of children under 2 run naked, there seems to be no grey area or minimum acceptability in the US. It makes me wonder if our hypersexualized treatment of child nudity /actively contributes/ to the sexualization of child…

In the us, there is an unspoken belief that preventing criminals from ""winning"" is more important than protecting citizens. This is why police fired into a stolen minivan that had a unrelated child and a shoplifting/carjacking suspect in it, killing both. Protecting the child took a back seat to punishing the prep. Therefore CP laws very quickly stopped being about protecting the children and more about punishing t…

> A child was once forced to masturbate in front of a camera by COURT ORDER. Police held them down. All because the child was a victim of child pornography and the court wanted a "comparison image" in a similar arousal state to prove it was a image of that child.

That summary is misleading and, I feel, wrong. It's not accurate to state that he was "a victim of child pornography," the complaint in this case was against him by the parent of another minor that he was "sexting" with.

That doesn't excuse the police behavior here, but you're attempting to paint a picture where the victims in these cases are outright ignored in a misguided search for justice. You're twisting this case[1] to fit your narrative, I think.

Further, he sued the government and won. The courts made it perfectly clear, the lower courts and police were absolutely in violation of this teens rights when it granted and executed this search warrant. So egregiously that "qualified immunity" doesn't even apply to the officers estate.

I wasn't going to address this, but..

> Therefore CP laws very quickly stopped being about protecting the children and more about punishing the pedophiles.

Pedophiles create a market through demand. Often it is also pedophiles that are on the supply side of this market, but not always. Merely participating in the demand side implicates you in these crimes against children as you are suborning their abuse. One could say that our system merely recognizes this fact.

[1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/forcing-kid-to-m...

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#439

Post by ars »

psyc wrote: post #358
elif wrote: post #276

From my travels, my impression has been that America in particular treats child nudity as completely, unexceptionally obscene, beyond even adult nudity. Compared to a beach in Europe, where nearly half of children under 2 run naked, there seems to be no grey area or minimum acceptability in the US. It makes me wonder if our hypersexualized treatment of child nudity /actively contributes/ to the sexualization of child…

A different article recently prompted me to wonder (I'm American): We know exactly at what age someone becomes 'legal' wrt images - do we know on which day of their life a person first becomes 'illegal'?

There is no such day. It's about the context of the images. Nude images of all ages are completely legal in the US.

You have the logic backwards, it's sexual images that have an age, not nude images.

Re: A dad took photos of his toddler for a doctor – Google flagged him as a criminal

#440

Post by zekrioca »

bart_spoon wrote: post #210
mulmen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puritans. We “banned” alcohol for 13 years. America’s greatest battle is with our dark religious past. We claim to be secular but really it’s an aspiration.

You say that as if there is no other reason to ban alcohol than religious belief, and not like alcohol being one of the most negative societal influences in the areas of human health, crime, public safety, and poverty. Just because humans are so cripplingly addicted to alcohol that banning was untenable doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.

Everytime you need to use any type of force (e.g., a ban) to impose your idea, you should really think if this is really a good idea.
Post reply on HN