Well, that's interesting. I only read the EULA/TOS/whatever if the product/service is important enough that I wouldn't like it to be terminated out of the blue. This wouldn't match the criteria to be read though.
Cameron is possibly the worst thing that has happened to the UK in a while. If he's so worried about the children he shouldn't be forcing Orwellian laws on the citizenry. Kids in the UK are looking into a bleak future.
The first stage could be intermediated by the service provider. The ISP receives the demand, forwards to the target without providing details. The targeted party responds, the ISP returns the response to the requester stripping any details. If the requester still thinks they are harmed they could start a legal procedure that would be analyzed by the judge before the other party is contacted to determine whether it should proceed or not. The process would still protect the defendant identity until the decision is delivered.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
They could make Techdirt equal to a wikipedia entry or only beacon reader or OOTB's personal hate blog. It's a choice made by Google.
Are you that dumb? They surely can remove links but they should NOT do it. If something is criminal or illegal the goddamn SOURCE must be targeted. It must be hard to understand because you are not the only adept at shooting the messenger instead of addressing the problem itself.
Their ranking algo is the thing of legend, they consider hundreds if not thousands of things, programmed by humans to select based on criteria they consider important, to not show sites they consider bad, banned, or some how don't meet their standards.
Sure there are ways to filter the results but the filters only work up to a point. Filters CANNOT interpret and determine if something is harmful. Even you wouldn't be able to do so without context. And then there are plain FACTS that should NOT be removed at all. And while you CAN filter something out it does not mean you SHOULD. It brings serious censorship risks. Again, why not go after the goddamn source if there's anything wrong?
They have control, they have options. They could certainly choose to exclude the sites which have this material.
And risk censoring what should remain listed? And delist pure factual material? In all your wisdom don't you think that this uas carefully weighted before the official refusal to remove the content?
This decision is madness no matter how you look at it. Had she sued the author of the content and scored a victory then I'm quite sure Google would try to flush their cache faster to help with the natural disappearance but no, she went after Google itself.
The courts are wrong, very wrong. Let's start suing the mail system for threatening letters sent through, shall we?
But the good news is, the data is finally starting to arrive.
Here's hoping this spreads. There are places sorely needing transparency. What I can tell is that putting Govt documents under seal for no apparent reason is becoming poisonous even here, 9000 km away.
I had the pleasure of participating with a few bucks and while I haven't read all stories the ones I read were pretty good for such a small size. And they let me wishing to know the rest of the story (even though they don't really exist right now). I'm hoping people pick up and start developing whole stories out of the texts!
As for Ross, he was pretty communicative most of the times and the issues he stumbled upon were understandable. And the work got done in the end so all is good.
So, nice job!
As a suggestion, a few of the stories and develop them to a full book or something in the middle of the way. The results will surely be worth reading.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
Everything automated. Your point???
Oh look, they PUBLISH a snippet. Hmmm.
No, they don't. They copy a portion from the articles that an algorithm finds relevant against the whole article. Impartially. If an article is written praising Hitler and promoting hate speech it will do EXACTLY the same. And the original article would be legal and fair game in the US for instance. But even if it wasn't then the ORIGINAL should be targeted. Not Google.
The problem here is I think mostly that tech people (myself included) can understand the painful implications of finding Google liable.
No, you can't. Otherwise you wouldn't be vomiting your bullshit to the world.
If I took the same text and re-published it onto my own website, I would be liable. Why should Google be any different?
No you wouldn't. If the original is removed then you'd probably receive a notice to remove yours too. Unless, of course, it is a journalistic piece. Then you could still keep it online with all the copied portions.
Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game
Incorrect. Your Samsung monitor does not choose what is displayed on it. It is a dumb appliance.
Much like Google. It is an algorithm. An algorithm can't evaluate what's harmful or not. I'd invite you to carefully evaluate millions of texts in several languages hourly to evaluate those that are harmful and remove them. Please do try, it will spare us of your current lifetime and a few reincarnations.
Google on the other hand is a website which uses a sophisticated algorithm of it's own creation to select text from third parties to display on it's web pages.
Precisely. It reproduces text posted in another place that another human published. Thanks for confirming Australia courts are completely insane.
That Google uses an algo rather than say humans to select the text that appears shouldn't give them a pass. They created the code that chooses what appears on their site.
Yes it should. Even if the results were built by humans selecting relevant parts of the articles, pages, news. They would still not be the publishers and unless there is an express order to suppress the ORIGINAL material then there is no reason for anyone to remove them. And even so, if it's part of some opinion or news piece it should still be protected.
Put another way, do you think a newspaper would get away with publishing the same text snippet because their "automated news editor" found it online and decided it was news worthy and decided to publish it?
Yes. That's how things work in reality, you don't shoot a mere conduit/messenger, you go for the source.
It's one of those areas where technology shouldn't be an excuse for publishing material that causes harm.
And yet why isn't the original being targeted? It doesn't matter if Google removes it, it will pop up elsewhere and will be automatically listed again. If there's so much harm why isn't the original targeted? If the original is taken down the links will eventually flush as well.
It will work this way till such security vulnerabilities start costing tons of money. Money speaks louder than anything, including human rights and ethics. So the path to solve this issue (and others) is to help make the problems cause as much economic damage as possible. See environmental issues. When extreme events started threatening the money flow companies started to worry a bit more about them.
Today the most effective way to change something is to cause a disruption to the money flow. Preferably one that cannot be stopped and does not depend on human interference to keep growing if the problem is not tackled.
The bill is positioned as a cybersecurity bill, but good luck finding a single computer security expert who actually thinks the bill is either useful or necessary. I've been trying and so far I can't find any.
Search into the ranks of the NSA or any law enforcement agency. It's another bit of Orwell materializing into reality.