There 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...
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 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.
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.
oh ok. I misinterpreted that. Yeah DMCA needs to change and complaints about right holders should go through courts.
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.
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.
Big thanks to Google, Bing, and Linkedin then, for trying to bury net neutrality by creating the best possible argument for supporting it.
- [deleted]
[dead]
This 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.
This is all you need to know to have a reasoned position on net neutrality.
This 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.
How would a regulation be like, that in this case, without significant detriment to investment, makes things better? Because I cannot imagine one (not saying there is not, just that myself cannot find it)
I’m in a context of an super-regulated EU market, where such things still somewhat happen (well even worst, with people having their homes and theirs relatives searched, because he called dumb a politician), bad with the added problems, namely: there can just not exist such a giant in the EU.
I also can't think of a regulation that is without significant detriment to investment and makes things better here. But that is my point: "without significant detriment to investment" is what is most important in capitalism... Despite society crumbling
> I’m in a context of an super-regulated EU market, where such things still somewhat happen (well even worst, with people having their homes and theirs relatives searched, because he called dumb a politician), bad with the added problems, namely: there can just not exist such a giant in the EU.
I think state police forces acting beyond their power is an unrelated problem.
Such giants shouldn't exist and be for profit in my view. The issue is that the EU does not block the non-EU giants so Europeans also suffer from the less strict regulation.
net neutrality briglauer oecd retraction request
The pdf is the #1 result on a well known non-US search engine.
Stopped updating my millions hits/month blogspot after google insisted blogger's content must be hosted on their servers.
It's #1 on DDG, which afaik is american?
yandex? baidu?
The Y one.
The other one is dreadful. Jack Ma will confirm.
- [deleted]
[dead]
The 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.
The article is not about net-neutrality either, it's about pieces of information silently disappearing from the public internet, without even the authors being notified. The contents of the specific article are not the focus here.
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.
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?
> Why that made up pronoun?
Pedantically, all words are made up. I'd assume GP is using it because they see utility in a unambiguously-singular gender-nonspecific pronoun, opposed to the more widespread but somewhat ambiguous singular "they".
Yeah I also realized my wording probably wasn't right. I meant to say words not known by most of the English speakers which can also not be found in the big dictionaries (to be fair Oxford had it, but Merriam webster didn't).
Especially when there is an established gender neutral pronoun: they
... and in the context where gender non-indicative well established word 'they' would suffice.
I can see why commenter wouldn't call author 'him'. Why would anyone bother to track authors gender if it's irrelevant for the topic?
Should I be worried that people think I'm a bigot if I write "they" about someone I don't know, now?
No.
- [deleted]