Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
internetthought.blogspot.com
Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
#2There are many "reputation management" companies that do this sort of thing, via various sorts of tricks, which are most often bogus copyright or legal claims.
I can't say what happened in this case, but there's a report from the NY AG[1] about companies running an astroturfing anti net-neutrality campaign, so nothing surprises me at this point.
[1] https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/reports/oag-fakecommen...
Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
#3This is what happens when the interests of those who own the means of
communication are not aligned with those who use their tools to
communicate.
Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
#4This is all you need to know to have a reasoned position on net neutrality.
Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
#5The author did not compare against the findability of other articles which aren't about net neutrality. So his conclusion that it's about the content of his article isn't supported by his analysis.
Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
#6The author did not compare against the findability of other articles which aren't about net neutrality. So his conclusion that it's about the content of his article isn't supported by his analysis.
Not everything in life is a scientific experiment that fits into an
undergraduate "research methods" model of the world.
What does it even mean to conduct a sampling of "findability" within a system whose results depend on when you search, who you are, where you search from, and the subject on which you're searching? We're way beyond Schrodinger's cat level of uncertainty with these non-deterministic systems and their hidden actors explicitly manipulating the results (as "guardrails", "moderation", whatever).
Search (and AI) is a principal agent problem and there are insoluble trust issues around information technology today that make a "scientific" approach rather naive.
Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
#7The author did not compare against the findability of other articles which aren't about net neutrality. So his conclusion that it's about the content of his article isn't supported by his analysis.
Yes, xe did. Xe explicitly compares it to the findability of one of xyr articles that mentions Squid Game.
Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
#8This is no surprise. It's what we get with a free market and capitalism driving it:
Monopolization. And then we can only access what those mono/oligopolies deem profit increasing or at least not hurting.
Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
#9I 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 subject to public scrutiny and supposed to handle cases of "law-breaking." In its current incarnation there's no way for it to handle every single claim, but I wonder if investment there wouldn't be better incentivized than having a bunch of tech companies trying to reduce expenses by always choosing the "easiest" option whenever they receive a takedown request.
Re: Vanished from Google/Bing/LinkedIn: a rebuttal of an anti-net neutrality paper
#10The author did not compare against the findability of other articles which aren't about net neutrality. So his conclusion that it's about the content of his article isn't supported by his analysis.
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?