10 ms·
Google Erases Thousands of Links, Tricked by Phony Complaints
- casefields 6y agoMirror: http://archive.md/7ShhN http://archive.md/7ShhN
- downerending 6y agoNot sure I believe Google is that gullible.
- Steven_Vellon 6y agoThis is the expected result of increased scrutiny over Google. Whether or not to respond to claims of abuse is a tradeoff between limiting false negatives or limiting false positives. When there is an increase in the cost of false negative, both monetary and in terms of status and reputation, then Google is going to optimize to reduce false negatives at the expense of creating more false positives. This should definitely be part of the conversation when discussing regulating content on Google and other large aggregators and social media platforms. I find that the so-called "techlash" has resulted in more stringent policing of content, but also greater opportunity to abuse reporting functionality. Using copyright claims malicious has been a known practice for years now, at least between content creators (e.g. feuding YouTubers having their fans report rivals). I'm not surprised to see governments using the same tactics.
- naruvimama 6y agoCan the claimants not be penalised for false claims?
- kevingadd 6y agoIn practice it's difficult if not impossible to do anything about it, between providers being unwilling/unable to identify the claimants and the costs involved in taking them to court.
- jandrese 6y agoEspecially hard to get the courts involved if the claimants are in other countries. About the best you could hope for is if a person can be shown to be acting in bad faith they could have all of their takedowns reversed and the material in question flagged so that further takedown notices trigger an audit. In practice this might just mean making a new account for each takedown notice, but it does raise the bar a bit on bad behavior. I'd also assume big media cartels would be exempt because operating in bad faith is their entire business plan and they're willing to sue to maintain the status quo.
- naruvimama 6y agoA lot of automated copyright claims are made by reasonably sized organisations. Should require a deposit for making automated claims. Do not have to take them to court, the burden of proof lies with the copyright holder. And sufficient mechanism for counter claims and forfeiting the deposit. Also can take collective action against all falsely claimed copyright. The real trouble is something flagged as offensive, once a comment of mine on Quora was taken down. I was given a warning of that being offensive and me being potentially banned. I have no idea to this day what was taken down and why people found it offensive. The right to contest sadly does not exist, this makes it so easy political or religious groups to silence individuals.
- mullingitover 6y agoSeems like if Google is doing extrajudicial enforcement, they could easily stipulate in their terms of use that false claims can result in a lifetime ban from Google services. People might think twice about making false claims if they (or their entire organization) will lose all access to their Google accounts forever.
- elliekelly 6y agoIf Google added that to their terms I would hop in the false copyright claim game ASAP. I want nothing to do with Google and I would be very interested in Google deciding they want nothing to do with me, too.
- ikeboy 6y agoGoogle sued someone last year for false claims, settled for 25k. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16074437/youtube-llc-v-brady/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16074437/youtube-llc-v-... I'm involved in a lawsuit against a large company that made false claims of infringement against my business - see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16562550/thimes-solutions-inc-v-tp-link-usa-corporation/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16562550/thimes-solutio... I've been tracking similar cases, and have a database of over a hundred cases of lawsuits over false infringement claims. False copyright claims are often harder to prosecute than trademark or patent cases.
- dependenttypes 6y agoGoogle pretty often refuses to respond to counter-dmcas, there is a lawsuit currently over this. In addition recently lumen database stopped publishing the full list of links in the dmca complaints.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoI was also going to share this. Google and other places like Twitter and Facebook seem to be willing to pull the trigger instantly on a DMCA and unwilling to put it back up with the C-DMCA even though the same law protects them if they do.
- judge2020 6y agoI'd like to think this is because Google, Twitter, etc. know these media companies have a lot of lobbying connections that could get the DMCA landscape changed to drastically hurt them.
- dependenttypes 6y agoI would rather argue that this is because the media companies are their partners.
- ChuckMcM 6y agoI would lean this way as well. People who are filing counter notices are probably not big buyers of advertising on the platform.
- judge2020 6y agoI think the Lumen full link thing is (at least in part) due to the fact that people were going to the lumen db to find the de-listed links to pirated movies (since the DMCA complaint submitter has already verified that those websites do, in fact, contain the copyrighted movie).
- 6y ago
- derekp7 6y agoThat sounds very much like what has been claimed about Amazon handling the French court order to fine them a high dollar amount for each non-essential (as determined by the court) item they deliver. If the cost of something slipping through the cracks is that high, then it is cheaper to not do business where there are potential cracks to slip through.
- MereInterest 6y ago> Amazon handling the French court order to fine them a high dollar amount for each non-essential (as determined by the court) item they deliver Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Amazon has shown that they cannot be trusted to determine whether workers or items delivered are essential, and do not take the safety of their workers into account. The cost of behaving in an untrustworthy manner is having everybody else treat Amazon as untrustworthy.
- jimmaswell 6y agoI'm so glad I don't live in France. What a ridiculous place. People need "non-essential" Amazon deliveries and drivers need jobs now more than ever.
- josefx 6y agoFun fact: The court order doesn't use the word essential even once, it was introduced by Amazon lawyers and PR. The court order was solely about repeated safety violations and Amazons refusal to reduce operations to a safe level. The court order also gave an explicit whitelist of Amazons own categories for the reduction, not a generic "essential" or "food" classification that Amazon would have to interpret itself. > People need "non-essential" Amazon deliveries and drivers need jobs now more than ever. Which is why Amazon quite clearly made the right choice by shutting down the warehouses completely, right?
- albertsun 6y agoIt's only a tradeoff if you assume that the process must be automated and operate with a minimum of actual human scrutiny or consideration. Any qualified human review would immediately be able to distinguish and vastly improve both the false negative and false positive rates. But because these tech companies devalue that kind of work they aren't willing to invest in it.
- tsycho 6y agoUmm, you do realize that this is basically a DDOS attack, and automated tools are a necessity. What needs to happen is a law/legal process where you can counter sue against false DMCA/copyright complaints, with large penalties for indiscriminate and abusive filings. That would put the onus on copyright holders to put in some validation effort before filing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- polishTar 6y agoA couple of things to consider: 1. There's a real social cost associated with constantly subjecting human reviewers to traumatizing content. It can lead to devastating mental health problems. (some relevant articles: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo..., https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/12/16/youtube-moderators-suffer-ptsd-flashbacks-hours-spent-watching/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/12/16/youtube-mo...) 2. Humans make mistakes as well, especially as volume of content increases and policies get more nuanced. 3. There's way more violating content then you could ever imagine. As just one example, YouTube reported having to remove >1.8 BILLION comments for spam or other policy violations in 2019 (https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-policy https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-policy). 4. The large tech companies spend billions on human moderation as it is. YouTube alone for example has >10,000 full time human reviewers. (https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/12/expanding-our-work-against-abuse-of-our.html https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/12/expanding-our-work-ag...)
- joshspankit 6y agoSeems to me the onus should fall on the false reporters: - If the claim is valid, the provider who hosted the content eats the costs as a cost of doing business - If the claim is invalid due to negligence, intent, or abuse of the system, the claimant should face a fine equal to or greater than the true cost of determining that the claim is false. The courts essentially work this way, the internet should too.
- ehsankia 6y agoI don't get it, yes false positive removals are an issue worth discussing, but does it really warrant a whole WSJ front page article? Could WSJ make it any more obvious that they have a vendetta against tech companies and are just grasping at whatever hit piece they can get their hands on?
- w-j-w 6y agoTech companies need to be held accountable for their actions by someone. That's always been journalism's job. As long as they don't print lies, I don't see the issue.
- bsder 6y ago> When there is an increase in the cost of false negative, both monetary and in terms of status and reputation, then Google is going to optimize to reduce false negatives at the expense of creating more false positives. The problem is that Google optimizes for cost and doesn't give an iota of damn about accuracy. Fine their ass when they are legally wrong and suddenly Google will become really good at figuring things out. And, if there is enough cost, they'll even allocate some people to the problem.
- matheusmoreira 6y agoFalse positives in law enforcement means innocent people are being punished. This isn't something that should ever happen.
- emmelaich 6y agoFalse positives should never happen and they are inevitable at the same time.
- cycop 6y agoZero financial incentive to stop phony complaints , lots of incentive to ensure you comply with government regulations.
- naruvimama 6y agoNot to mention the army of gatekeepers and moderators employed by the likes of Twitter often in countries not know for democracy or free speech to take down individuals. At least some of it can be attributed to oil money greasing their palms.
- fermienrico 6y agoIt is funny how no one ever speaks of Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google - I never hear anything from him. About the only time I've seen Sundar say anything is a few mins of pre-rehearsed teleprompted speech at Google I/O, mostly about AI buzzwords. Sundar - if you're reading this, get on talk shows. Talk about your company and it's future in candid, off-the-cuff manner. Put the corporate lingo behind and speak in honest, truthful and unambiguous ways. You should be on Joe Rogan, you should be doing more interviews and generally have a lively presence. Look at how Stripe founders defend their company: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22937303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22937303 What kind of leadership is this? In my opinion, Google's image and its opinion has gone down hill since Sundar's appointment as CEO, but that's just a general emotion I have - not sure if it is financially or more widely true.
- nurettin 6y agoFrom being the product manager of both android and google chrome to having to appear in your trashy youtube recommends section because you want to watch him defend company policy.
- tmpz22 6y agoA large part of Google's zeitgeist is the idea that they're these spunky mysterious geniuses with bicycle meetings and volleyball courts. A really smart engineer going on Joe Rogan would be an unmitigated disaster as Rogan would constantly cut off his rhetoric knowing his audience would be completely uninterested in any substantial technical speak. It's people like Musk who understand PR and market manipulation who benefit from talkshow rounds. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see the real Google on full display, piercing the veil of youtube DRM, Dragonfly, and Android app store permissions. But Google will intelligently avoid that at all costs.
- wnevets 6y agoSomeone once called Rogan's podcast intellectual tourism and I haven't been able to prove them wrong.
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- WarOnPrivacy 6y agoThis is the result of every "Remove Bad Internet Stuff" law.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y agoDownvotes? Groovy. Prove me wrong. Any "Remove Bad Internet Stuff" law will do. edit: sigh. HN lessons are painful lessons.
- abduhl 6y agoThey’re internet points man. Relax.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y agoBut I can trade them in for self-esteem
- aSplash0fDerp 6y agoI think much of this foreshadows how the infrastructure of networks will evolve over the next decade to cope with difficulties of this nature. There was a project I worked on several years that required becoming familiar with SEO in the earlier days and tactics like this have exploded and become more automated since 2010. On a global network, enforcement hurdles (real or perceived) are turning the information superhighway into a digital concentration camp. I personally can enjoy an I.S.H. without having to access a global network and forecast segmentation of networks branching off and web properties poping up on the new canvas to cater to domestic or local norms, rather than accessing a network where lowest common denominator dictatorship engagement/enforcement cancels out any benefit of ease of data retrieval. We can easily siphon anything from a global network, so IMO, you may still access a network to assist with day-to-day tasks, but Internet 1.0`s days are numbered as being part of many folks daily routine/lifestyle.
- tedunangst 6y agoSeems like google could use some of that ml magic to determine if a blog post was published four months before the events it describes and maybe flag that for further review.
- withinboredom 6y agoThere was a really interesting article posted a year-ish ago about a company/person (I barely remember the details). Someone went and created a random WordPress site, posted the article, and back-dated the post to make it look like the article was stolen from them. Last I heard, litigation was still on-going. I should probably have beers with that person :soon:...
- tyingq 6y agoReads like a how-to guide for anyone wanting to start their own "web reputation management" company. I'm guessing interest in this will die down, and Google won't change their automated system.
- chx 6y agoHow come Google can't detect who was there first? Last I checked they had a massive index, timestamped even, of webpages. Dumbfounding.
- smsm42 6y agoThey could if they wanted to. They don't want to. There's no incentive for them to do it right - overreacting protects them from large lawsuits from people who can afford lawyers, and they don't care about anything else. If some innocent blogger gets their blog removed from the index - who cares, certainly not Google.
- mindfulhack 6y agoIt's extremely important for the whole world to start to understand - as shown by stories like this - that Google does not hold "the world's information" anymore. Other search engines are increasingly needed. (Do I need to go back to Dogpile?) Yesterday I even noticed Google censoring an enquiry of mine which I happen to know is a scientifically honest, but politically incorrect thing to apparently ask in Google's particular culture. (It's quite a tame line of enquiry, and not racist at all. In fact, it's information which can save lives, and yet Google was blocking my access to that information.) I had to use Yandex to even find what I was looking for. Only Google, no more. I cannot believe this - but I just tried my query in Dogpile, and it was superior to both Google and Yandex.
- kabacha 6y agoIt's weirdly déjà vu to see this sort of sentiment to appear in every thread about google and it's absolutely true — google's search quality has been on a noticeable decline for years now. It's especially funny to see headlines like "google achieves quantum superiority" and "google can't understand the word 'without'" next to each other. It almost seems like the search engine is being purposefully sabotaged by google itself.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoWhat the average user of Google wants is not what the average user of HN wants, and it shows. The average Google user wants a semi-conversational query engine. What the average HN user wants is probably more like a fuzzy regex matcher. Google has gotten much better over the years for most of their userbase. If you put in "did the cubs win" you get a custom panel that tells you the results of their latest few non-postponed games as sub-panels, with team logos and everything. If you click though a sub-panel, it gives you some more info and links to news articles. This is obviously a vastly improved experience over previous years for what is clearly the intent behind this search. Another example that's a favorite of mine. If you search for "gay indiana mayor" the first result is the Wikipedia page for Pete Buttigieg. The next few results are recent high-impact news articles about Pete Buttigieg. Why? Because that's clearly what our hypothetical searcher was looking for. They didn't want webpages that contain the words "gay", "indiana" and "mayor". They wanted Pete Buttigieg, and his name is hard to remember how to spell.
- mirimir 6y agoOK, maybe Google is easily fooled, or maybe it cuts rights holders lots of slack, or whatever. But why would anyone need to search for pirated stuff using Google? For media I just use TPB, and libgen for books. And I presume that streaming services do their own searching.
- drivebycomment 6y agoFWIW, the last Google's transparency report said 4.6B URLs removed. I wonder how many were like like this. I suppose we would never know, since no human can audit 4.6B URLs.
- Oricle 6y agoJewgle
- Guest0918231 6y agoI get emails all the time from Google about DMCA notices and pages from my site being removed from search. They'll just give me a list of 100s of pages that have been removed. The requests make absolutely no sense. For example, it'll be a URL for a comment permalink, which redirects to a comment that says, "Great!". The vast majority of the requests are because someone mentions the name of a TV show or movie. Some company that represents them just issues a DMCA removal for any page that uses their name, claiming it infringes on their copyright. So, I've had thousands of pages removed from Google during the past year. I don't have time to make counterclaims for each of them. Most of them are old pages that receive little to no traffic. Still, it's a shame for anyone trying to search for them.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- smsm42 6y ago> Still, it's a shame for anyone trying to search for them. They just have to not use Google. Fortunately, there are other search engines around - such as DuckDuckGo.
- ezoe 6y agoGoogle don't negotiate. I had an Blogger(run by Google) article removed by Google in 2019. https://cpplover.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post_9853.html https://cpplover.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post_9853.html This article quoted an interesting local Japanese news in 2012. It reported an arrest of a suspect(with real name), the suspected crime was copyright infringement for he quoted the local city's official web sites. This is strange as the Japanese copyright clearly stated that the publication from the government body cannot be copyrighted. It seems to me, that the suspect has some kind of mental issues or strong personal dislike toward the local city he is living. His web site blame every move by the local city, like he don't like the recent announcement from the city as it can be interpreted to mean malicious intent or blame the news of the minor crime by the local city's civil servants. So I suspect that local city claimed the bogus copyright violation and let local police arrest him to silence him. What unusual about this removal is, that the reason they stated was defamation, not the usual copyright violation claim that US infamously force Web service provider to censor the information without the court order. As this is not the usual DMCA takedown notice, they don't give a person who claimed the defamation, so I cannot easily sue back the person who claimed that. The definition of the defamation varies between jurisdictions, In some jurisdictions, the mere fact does not constitute as the defamation, In my jurisdiction, Japan, simply stating the fact can be a defamation. But not all statements be a defamation off course. The right to be forgotten does not exist in Japan. So simply quoting the news source with real name of suspect widely reported is not a defamation. As I consulted with my lawyer, they advised me it doesn't worth it to take action. This is the first case they've heard. As I stated in the beginning, Google don't negotiate. It's so hard to negotiate with the real living human from the Google as all the response from the Google is BOT. But at least, the Google comply with the law and the court order. If it's DMCA takedown notice, it should be trivial to reveal the claimer, as the law requires to reveal the claimer. There was interesting techniques to let google censor the information wide spreading in the wild. That you sue without explicitly specify the defendant in a minor country, win because there is no defendant to argue, using that court order to let Google censor the information as Google at least comply with the court order. In my jurisdiction, Japan, there is a procedure to sue without specifying the defendant, but it's rarely used. The court usually won't allow such procedure. And in my case, I revealed my real name and address in my blog so it's unlikely Japanese court allow such lawsuit to happen. I don't know about the foreign countries but I cannot practically know the lawsuit of all the countries in the world. With the unusual defamation claim, and google don't reveal the information, because of the rule "Google don't negotiate". If I were to sue the claimer, First I have to sue the Google to reveal the information of claimers. It costs so much money and time. This is my personal blog with no ad revenue. It doesn't worth it. Still, it's interesting who is the claimer. The local city and police won't do this. No matter how corrupt they are, they can't do this. That leave the suspect, but the article was written in favour to the suspect and if he has the sane literacy and mental state, he won't interpret it as the defamation toward him. But his web site was full of strange interpretation and hateful interpretation on the local city's publication, I'm not so sure about this. Still, it's strange he successfully let the Google remove the article of him with unusual defamation claim. There is another possibility that the third person, a complete stranger claimed it just to screw me. But it's a tiny achievement considering the fact that I have hundreds of article in Blogger, mirroring it to GitHub Pages, and I can simply repost the same article to anywhere if I want to(with the consequence on me if this really, legally constitute the defamation). The moral is, Google don't negotiate.
- forgingahead 6y agoThere is a deeper question here of: "Should information about people be trivially easy to find via Google (or any search engine)?" It's one thing to have the world's information available to learn and improve. It's another to have any mention of your name going back decades easily retrievable, whether that information may be true, false, slanderous, complimentary, or what-have-you. And what causes the threshold to be crossed? A friend who names you as part of a pub-crawl/bachelor party in Las Vegas in a public social media post is different from someone who is charged in court and found guilty of a crime. But what about someone who is accused of a crime, but then acquitted later? Or someone who is named in a civil suit that is later dropped? I don't think we can have a blanket policy of these things but it certainly makes sense for some measure of a "right-to-be-forgotten" mechanism to be in place.
- porksoda 6y agowsj clickbait. tell us news.