3 ms·

there is a woman getting threats and harassment, (a woman that has absolutely nothing to do with the book/panel mind you) because of the knowledge panel not wor

there is a woman getting threats and harassment, (a woman that has absolutely nothing to do with the book/panel mind you) because of the knowledge panel not working as intended, and that is fine in your eyes because the op can post a photo of herself?(when she clearly said she doesn't want it online) are you intentionally being a devil's advocate?

that_guy_iain 5y ago
* OP choose to write and publish a book. * It's subject matter makes it very clear there would be angry people. * OP choose to publish this under a name that is linked to lots of other people. Instead of a nonsense name linked to no one. * OP chooses not to claim the knowledge panel for her book. There are lots of things OP chose to do. The harm being done is partially at the hands of OP. OP isn't entirely blameless here and other people are getting threats and harassment because of OP and Google, but mostly because of OP. I get that it's a hard subject but if you're going to go write about a cult either do it completely anonymously or do it publically. This middle ground stuff OP is trying is clearly causing harm to other people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- corpdronejuly 5y ago
  The OP choose to write and publish a book, about controversial material under their own name. That was a series of choice clearly made to manage risk while taking a stand against a cult. Google choose to associate write an algorithm to associate names and faces with zero verification. Then google choose to not provide any substantial way to appeal the algorithms ruling. You're trying to equate a reasonable choice to proactively manage risk with an automated system that has decided to not allow people to manage that risk. That seems unreasonable on it's face. What am I missing about the tools provided to undo Google's knowledge panel decision?
  - that_guy_iain 5y ago
    > Google choose to associate write an algorithm to associate names and faces with zero verification. Then google choose to not provide any substantial way to appeal the algorithms ruling. I disagree. Google allows you to take ownership of a knowledge panel and take control of the knowledge panel. > You're trying to equate a reasonable choice to proactively manage risk with an automated system that has decided to not allow people to manage that risk. That seems unreasonable on it's face. No, I am saying OP decided to take a risk. A calculated risk and now OP is letting others feel the negative consequences of OP's calculated risk. Even tho it seems there are multiple options available to OP to stop others feeling the negative consequences of their actions. Actions have consequences. OP took an action. This action has consequences. And now people are telling all Google employees to feel bad because a search engine behaves the way search engines do. The guess what is the info we want to see. Let's stop worrying about OP and worry about the people who did nothing in this getting bullshit because OP is choosing not to do one of many things that would stop it from happening. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. > What am I missing about the tools provided to undo Google's knowledge panel decision? The claim knowledge panel functionality that has been mentioned in this thread. The legal take downs instead of just reporting misinformation.
    - corpdronejuly 5y ago
      > I am saying OP decided to take a risk. A calculated risk and now OP is letting others feel the negative consequences of OP's calculated risk. You are laying blame for Googles action on OP. Google associated an innocents image with the OP, not OP. Google then demanded that OP take an action to undo Googles action, and demands that OP take new actions to undo thing they did not do. >because a search engine behaves the way search engines do. What utter nonsense. Some engineer somewhere did the work to create a system that autogenerated the knowledge panel. Now people are upset because Google demands that we do free labor for them to undo the mistakes of their system. Googles obsession with being the authoritative source of knowledge and that we fix their mess is so clearly the unjustifiable behavior here that I'm baffled at how you can imagine that their practice here is reasonable.
- mellavora 5y ago
  not even a good job of blaming the victim. OP's use of a name isn't responsible for this. It isn't the name on the book. People reading the book wouldn't have reason to think it was about a pastor in another country. And in the other direction, people looking up that pastor by name would not be immediately let to the book. OP might not have "claimed" the 'knowledge' panel, but they certainly did work very hard to have it taken down or removed. The harm here is pretty much entirely due to google.
  - that_guy_iain 5y ago
    I knew someone would try to say I was victim blaming. OP IS NOT THE VICTIM HERE. OP's namesakes are the victims here. > OP's use of a name isn't responsible for this. It isn't the name on the book. People reading the book wouldn't have reason to think it was about a pastor in another country. And in the other direction, people looking up that pastor by name would not be immediately let to the book. That is indeed the name of the Author that is on the book. I often google Authors of books I've read. And if you're a crazy person who harrasses women who write about cults and rape and other things. You would probably Google the Author's name too and see that Author and then follow the rabbit down the hole. > OP might not have "claimed" the 'knowledge' panel, but they certainly did work very hard to have it taken down or removed. I dunno, there is a link that says claim and they didn't follow through on it. And I would disagree that all the harm is done by Google. In fact out of all the actors except the victims of the harrassment they seem to be the least to blame for any harm.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > > OP might not have "claimed" the 'knowledge' panel, but they certainly did work very hard to have it taken down or removed. > I dunno, there is a link that says claim and they didn't follow through on it. Yeah, the GP said as much. Which is utterly logical: If you don't want something to exist in the first place, then of bloody course you don't want to own it.

that_guy_iain 5y ago

* OP choose to write and publish a book. * It's subject matter makes it very clear there would be angry people. * OP choose to publish this under a name that is linked to lots of other people. Instead of a nonsense name linked to no one. * OP chooses not to claim the knowledge panel for her book. There are lots of things OP chose to do. The harm being done is partially at the hands of OP. OP isn't entirely blameless here and other people are getting threats and harassment because of OP and Google, but mostly because of OP. I get that it's a hard subject but if you're going to go write about a cult either do it completely anonymously or do it publically. This middle ground stuff OP is trying is clearly causing harm to other people.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
corpdronejuly 5y ago
The OP choose to write and publish a book, about controversial material under their own name. That was a series of choice clearly made to manage risk while taking a stand against a cult. Google choose to associate write an algorithm to associate names and faces with zero verification. Then google choose to not provide any substantial way to appeal the algorithms ruling. You're trying to equate a reasonable choice to proactively manage risk with an automated system that has decided to not allow people to manage that risk. That seems unreasonable on it's face. What am I missing about the tools provided to undo Google's knowledge panel decision?
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  > Google choose to associate write an algorithm to associate names and faces with zero verification. Then google choose to not provide any substantial way to appeal the algorithms ruling. I disagree. Google allows you to take ownership of a knowledge panel and take control of the knowledge panel. > You're trying to equate a reasonable choice to proactively manage risk with an automated system that has decided to not allow people to manage that risk. That seems unreasonable on it's face. No, I am saying OP decided to take a risk. A calculated risk and now OP is letting others feel the negative consequences of OP's calculated risk. Even tho it seems there are multiple options available to OP to stop others feeling the negative consequences of their actions. Actions have consequences. OP took an action. This action has consequences. And now people are telling all Google employees to feel bad because a search engine behaves the way search engines do. The guess what is the info we want to see. Let's stop worrying about OP and worry about the people who did nothing in this getting bullshit because OP is choosing not to do one of many things that would stop it from happening. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. > What am I missing about the tools provided to undo Google's knowledge panel decision? The claim knowledge panel functionality that has been mentioned in this thread. The legal take downs instead of just reporting misinformation.
  - corpdronejuly 5y ago
    > I am saying OP decided to take a risk. A calculated risk and now OP is letting others feel the negative consequences of OP's calculated risk. You are laying blame for Googles action on OP. Google associated an innocents image with the OP, not OP. Google then demanded that OP take an action to undo Googles action, and demands that OP take new actions to undo thing they did not do. >because a search engine behaves the way search engines do. What utter nonsense. Some engineer somewhere did the work to create a system that autogenerated the knowledge panel. Now people are upset because Google demands that we do free labor for them to undo the mistakes of their system. Googles obsession with being the authoritative source of knowledge and that we fix their mess is so clearly the unjustifiable behavior here that I'm baffled at how you can imagine that their practice here is reasonable.
mellavora 5y ago
not even a good job of blaming the victim. OP's use of a name isn't responsible for this. It isn't the name on the book. People reading the book wouldn't have reason to think it was about a pastor in another country. And in the other direction, people looking up that pastor by name would not be immediately let to the book. OP might not have "claimed" the 'knowledge' panel, but they certainly did work very hard to have it taken down or removed. The harm here is pretty much entirely due to google.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  I knew someone would try to say I was victim blaming. OP IS NOT THE VICTIM HERE. OP's namesakes are the victims here. > OP's use of a name isn't responsible for this. It isn't the name on the book. People reading the book wouldn't have reason to think it was about a pastor in another country. And in the other direction, people looking up that pastor by name would not be immediately let to the book. That is indeed the name of the Author that is on the book. I often google Authors of books I've read. And if you're a crazy person who harrasses women who write about cults and rape and other things. You would probably Google the Author's name too and see that Author and then follow the rabbit down the hole. > OP might not have "claimed" the 'knowledge' panel, but they certainly did work very hard to have it taken down or removed. I dunno, there is a link that says claim and they didn't follow through on it. And I would disagree that all the harm is done by Google. In fact out of all the actors except the victims of the harrassment they seem to be the least to blame for any harm.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > > OP might not have "claimed" the 'knowledge' panel, but they certainly did work very hard to have it taken down or removed. > I dunno, there is a link that says claim and they didn't follow through on it. Yeah, the GP said as much. Which is utterly logical: If you don't want something to exist in the first place, then of bloody course you don't want to own it.