13 ms·

Google's removed all mentions of an Intercept investigation from Search

• heydemo 5y ago
  • molyss 5y ago
    WTF? Care to explain, or just trolling for fun ?
    • dang 5y ago
      "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • dang 5y ago
    Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. We ban accounts that do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• greyface- 5y ago
  The Lumen "DMCA removal request" linked from the Google search results page: A Removal Request Sent To Google - Notice in Process Re: Unknown NOTICE TYPE:Other ACTION TAKEN:Unspecified Explanation of complaint This is NOT a notice. It is a PLACEHOLDER for a notice that is not yet available for viewing. Do not request to view the URLs associated with this placeholder, there are none. Lumen has recently received, from Google, notification of a removal request originally sent to Google. Once that removal request has been processed by Google, it will have its own unique ID number, URL, date and other associated information, and a copy of the request will be present within Lumen's database. Thank you for your patience. https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/15710816 https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/15710816
  • walrus01 5y ago
    for a moment I thought this lumen and URL was in some way related to the giant amalgamated telecom/ISP entity Lumen, the combined centurylink/Level3. not a bad name for a project to shine light on things but could be confusing.
  • judge2020 5y ago
    In general it seems Google honors all DMCA requests immediately, and only rejects them after they're able to review it. Wonder if this could be used maliciously for stuff closer to Google's chest, eg. blacklisting youtube.com/premium or store.google.com/product/pixel_6_pro (of course, this would be illegal, however IIRC there haven't been any cases involving punishment for issuing false DMCAs)
    • olliej 5y ago
      They’re required to. The DMCA safe harbor provisions require claims to be taken as true by default, and then if the victim responds with “this is false” the original claimant has two weeks (iirc) to respond, during which the recipient is meant to keep the content unavailable.
      • thayne 5y ago
        In other words, guilty until proven innocent.
      • wmf 5y ago
        Doesn't the DMCA allow hosting providers a reasonable time (e.g. 24 hours) to respond to takedowns?
        • Quekid5 5y ago
          Possible, but if you're running a fully automated company... what difference would that make? If anything it'd be a liability... a risk of your "cron job" being a bit late or something.
• perihelions 5y ago
  Worth familiarizing yourself with this remarkable reporter (Radley Balko), if you don't already know who he is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radley_Balko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radley_Balko
  • kerneloftruth 5y ago
    "Balko has advocated the abolition of laws criminalizing drunk driving, arguing that the "punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer" That's such a naive and irresponsible, and frankly stupid, position to take. That's the first advocate for drunk drivers/driving I've ever heard of. I'll assume he wrote that for the "shock" value (i.e. click bait). I guess that makes him "remarkable", but not in a positive way. Regarding the Little Rock police chief -- it sounds like race has nothing to do with it. Rather, sexual improprieties and personnel issues are what peoples' complaints are about. The Intercept is hardly a credible journal anymore (hear what its founder, Glenn Greenwald, has to say about it (https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald).
    • bastardoperator 5y ago
      How can anyone with a brain think like this? Drunk driving should come with harsher penalties in my opinion... How to lose all credibility in less than 10 seconds.
      • throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        We live in an age of legal weed, and probably soon to be other substance. How can anyone with an IQ above freezing seek to criminalize any one substance rather than just criminalizing a) bad results b) impairment? I don't care what, if anything, you're on. If you can't drive you can't drive. If you can you can. Penalizing any one substance simply because we can measure it seems farcical at best.
        • 5y ago
• bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  Twitter thread claims its back, search for Radley Balko Little Rock Police chiief put it number 2 in results for me.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• olliej 5y ago
  Whether you like the intercept or not I think we can all agree that bogus DMCA complaints (and the forced downtime even when you report the claim is bogus) needs to be stopped. The core problem that makes incorrect and fraudulent claims possible is the complete absence of any penalty for such claims. Until there is a penalty for a false claim we’ll keep seeing stuff like this. Minor edit: I mean the core problem of the DMCA wrt false claims, not the core problem with the whole of the DMCA, which I would argue is the existence of the DMCA :D
  • jumpbug 5y ago
    Agreed. Our site was almost completely delisted a couple of months ago due to a completely fabricated claim. https://playerassist.com/4000-playerassist-urls-removed-due-to-a-false-dmca-claim/ https://playerassist.com/4000-playerassist-urls-removed-due-... We’re still submitting the urls one by one. 10 days ago they said the complainant had 10 days to file suit or they would relist. Still waiting on relisting. Unfortunately we didn’t generate the negative pr that the intercept was able to generate. And I’ll never know who did this either. Very frustrating
  • leros 5y ago
    I think one of the problems is that content review requires human moderation, which takes some time to occur. So the question is what to do in the meantime? You can either default to leaving the content up or taking the content down. Both are problematic for different reasons.
    • olliej 5y ago
      No, human review isn’t a solution to the DMCA. The DMCA is absurd in the lengths it goes to encourage/force automatic acceptance of a claim. If you don’t comply with a claim, and it is later found that the claim was correct then you can be held liable. At the same time there is no penalty for false claims. Basically the legal penalty if you auto comply is 0, and the penalty if you don’t is atmospheric. At the same time you have no way to recover legal fees for a lawyer to audit the takedown requests even if they are clearly fraudulent.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• sebow 5y ago
  But "It's a PrIvAtE CoMpAnY they can do whatever they want", despite the fact(s) that: -google had received numerous subsidies and continues to do so,mainly in part because of their lobbying; -google (&others, but mainly google) received contracts and got paid by US gov. (a.k.a american people through taxpayers dollars) to facilitate US Army projects, mainly software-side[but recently with robotics aswell]: intelligent systems for UAVs:remote control, aviation, 'bombing', etc. On top of this they publicly declined to do so and the moment the public knew is through google leakers who were concerned by the "don't do evil" hypocrisy. -numerous other issues, which don't need to be reminded here like a broken clock.
• nyolfen 5y ago
  freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. google is a private company and can show whatever they want.
  • Maarten88 5y ago
    They are a monopoly in search, right? Doesn't that place extra obligations on them, such as to not abuse their power against competitors or the public?
    • anamax 5y ago
      It doesn't seem to.
    • fault1 5y ago
      In what way are they monopoly on search? There are perfectly viable alternatives, some even from other trillion dollar companies (i.e bing).
      • Rastonbury 5y ago
        This is the unintentionally funniest comment I've seen all week (sorry googlers)
      • kataklasm 5y ago
        Google Search has a market share of over 85% [0], if that's not a monopolistic market share I don't know what is. 0: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-...
  • NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
    >freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech is literally freedom from consequences: >Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. Note the "without fear of retaliation" part. Retaliation for words is the litmus test for a lack of freedom of speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
• freeflight 5y ago
  It's interesting how regularly US social media have these "oopsie" moderation [0]/copyright [1] "accidents". Even more interesting when they openly admit to censoring content [2]. I wonder how much of that is actually "accident" and how much of it is just testing out boundaries how far they can go before it gets noticed too widely [3]? [0] https://nypost.com/2021/03/24/twitter-censoring-detention-center-photos-at-border-was-a-mistake/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/24/twitter-censoring-detention-ce... [1] https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/when-filters-fail/ https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/when-filters-fail/ [2] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37318031 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37318031
  • ThrustVectoring 5y ago
    It's like how people will make hurtful comments and suddenly change courses and claim it's "just a joke" if anyone calls them out on it.
  • KarlKemp 5y ago
    Are you saying Google is, on it’s on volition, protecting the interests of some unknown red-state police chief?
    • SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
      Quit being prejudiced toward Native Americans, man.
• NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
  Google (D-CA) has been doing this more and more lately. For example, I just searched for "are conservatives being silenced by big tech" and here are the results in private windows for Google, DDG, Yandex, and Brave search: https://i.imgur.com/MVlshAT.png https://i.imgur.com/MVlshAT.png You can draw your own conclusions from the bias in the results. Several of the top results - from notoriously left wing results - are directly claiming they aren't. I've seen worse, but I forget the exact query I used. It might be good faith in that the people running Google think right wing sites are disreputable/misinformation, but...that's a bias. I ditched them for DDG months ago. I'm a registered pacific green, and not a conservative by any quantifiable measure, but this is still alarming to me. Decades of watching politics have mostly taught me one thing: Neither federally funded party gives a shit about me.
• IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
  From the article, some 20min into the reading: "...The mere existence of a separate union for Black police officers rubs many in Little Rock the wrong way. White officers, some city officials, and many white residents see the Black union as unnecessary, a stubborn refusal to move beyond the city’s ugly racial history. Black officers said that sentiment reveals a misunderstanding of why the union exists: It isn’t to win special rights for Black officers, they said. It’s to demand they be treated equally." This passage should have been earlier in the report. Before, the report emanated a stench of trying too hard to find racism behind every rock. Instead, the reporter later describes a story of a bureaucractic racket - primarily driven by state powers and labor, to promote corruption & nepotism, which has disproportionately impacted black officers.
  • culi 5y ago
    To be quite frank, this is a really unfair mischaracterization. The article describes black police officer's direct interactions with racism. One of them describes often hearing "She’s one of the Blacks that’s OK." Another described hearing the N word by white officers at work since their very first day. They also pointed out things like the fact that the mostly white Fraternity of Police voted 84% no confidence in the Black police chief (they had also been very vocally opposed to him even during the campaign that led to him being chief). While a vote amongst Black police officers found 89% approval of the chief. This isn't just "trying too hard to find racism behind every rock". This is very clear examples, using both data and personal experiences, that illustrate what it's like to be a Black police officer in that department