81–90 of 278 posts
Resolved. https://mobile.twitter.com/carwinb/status/907778135957131265
This person asks that she "demands answers."
Since when are beggars choosers? Google is free. Did we really expect a different behavior from them?
Well, she is easier to defend than Nazis. So, here I go... Freedom of expression, not just free speech the legal concept, should be a societal goal. Google has every right, legally, to delete this stuff. However, in an ideal world, they'd do no such thing and would let people judge based on the merits of the message. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to work towards that ideal world. Maybe the solution…
While correct currently, that isn't going to continue much longer. These abusive tech giants are about to start getting regulated left and right. You can practically hear the political machine awakening. Google's ability to freely control what is or isn't allowed on their platforms, will be replaced by government determined rules. That process has already started, it's a constant discussion in DC now on both sides of the political aisle. The Democrats and Republicans are both increasingly interested in regulating Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. Within the next few years they'll also pass laws governing tighter advertising rules for the platforms (or all sites in general); which is what the Russia-Facebook headline propaganda is all about delivering.
There's no scenario where these companies make it another five years without government regulators beginning the process of restraining their behavior.
Ten years ago I would have been upset about the government proceeding toward regulation of companies like Google. Now I can't help but think no other company deserves it more, given the increasing abuse of monopoly power that Google is guilty of. Their hubris has become extreme. They better double down on their buying of politicians in DC, I mean, lobbying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seriously see no material difference in having your video on the YouTube vs on randomvideowebsite.com? It's not merely a question of finding a host to upload your file.
Not to mention the trouble when nobody will allow you to host your legal content because they disagree with the message. Hell, even registrars are refusing to point to an IP address. I know... We all hate Nazis. I get it. I don't like them and, being not white, they definitely don't like me. But, they are the current good example of what happens when the controllers decide you can no longer share your legal content.…
Just as then you don't have to advocate free speech because you are a communist, now you don't have to advocate it because you are a Nazi. You advocate it to protect against authoritarianism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything, so long as your e-mail address is on a domain name you own and you back up your inbox via IMAP. If both of those are in place, you're not really dependent on your mail provider at all, because you can switch just by changing a DNS record. If you lose the use of an e-mail address on someone else's domain, then you've got a serious problem.
This works until a registrar revokes your domain name.
If/Until the culture changes the best practical advice is to make sure that those few entities are distanced from your message that they won't be pressured to take it down.
What are some good alternative email accounts to use? I should really start decreasing my dependence on Google.
Anything, so long as your e-mail address is on a domain name you own and you back up your inbox via IMAP. If both of those are in place, you're not really dependent on your mail provider at all, because you can switch just by changing a DNS record. If you lose the use of an e-mail address on someone else's domain, then you've got a serious problem.
Resolved. https://mobile.twitter.com/carwinb/status/907778135957131265
https://twitter.com/DeadPrecariat/status/907778635817521152 This person asks that she "demands answers." Since when are beggars choosers? Google is free. Did we really expect a different behavior from them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great point, because I think it shows that people who are trying to redefine the contours of the standard free speech conversation (which had historically been about freedom from government imposed limits) are attempting to solve the wrong problem. The problem is dependence on huge monolithic tech platforms, such that we feel that the societal value of free expression is threatened by the standard forms mod…
There's also a very blurry line between a common carrier and a publisher. Social media platforms don't want to be liable for content published on their site, but they also want the right to delete content at their own discretion. Somehow, the courts have granted them this wish. The USPS has a similar monopoly to YouTube, but they're obliged to transport any printed material that is legal. There's no hidden algorithm…
My adwords account has been locked for 15 years despite my repeated appeals (they seem to let me appeal about once every five years).
I have no idea why it's locked and no one will tell me nor fix it.
So I have a separate adwords account which annoyingly I cannot tie to my primary gmail account because apparently at some point after it was locked they got tied together.
That will be very very interesting...
Google seems to be doing a very fine job of showing that it is has reached monopoly status for way too many verticals. They're getting way comfortable in their success, and this is exemplified in the certain level of hubris they exemplify in their practices. Google Jigsaw is one such example. I really do hope the DOJ gets serious about the anti-trust implications and takes them to task at some point. I think we're in…