5 ms·
Google Removes ‘Pirate’ URLs from Users’ Privately Saved Links
- olliej 3y agoum, why can google read any of this to do the censoring?
- vageli 3y agoThe revolution will not be recorded.
- klyrs 3y agoThe faster we compress AGI to run locally, the faster we get cameras that are incapable of recording the revolution...
- gary_0 3y agoI just had a cyberpunk vision of illegal optical film manufacturing labs that exist so people can take pictures that can't be AI-censored by camera-chip firmware, web browser code, hard drive controllers, or USB chipsets. Whoever controls the present controls the past...
- m3kw9 3y agoDid they update the TOS?
- ShadowBanThis01 3y agoNo, just the POS.
- rolph 3y agonot that im a chrome user, but i cant be the only one that copies important things to a location out of browser? =================================== also, take a look at what google sent [?] https://torrentfreak.com/images/saved-google.jpg https://torrentfreak.com/images/saved-google.jpg the url was removed from favorites, but google provided the url again. it would be trivial to copypasta to an external file.
- JadeNB 3y ago> the url was removed from favorites, but google provided the url again. > it would be trivial to copypasta to an external file. You can argue about whether or not this was a reasonable action, but, if it was an unreasonable action, then I think that this is not really a reasonable expectation for mitigation. Presumably, at least some people have lots of links affected.
- rolph 3y agoim thinking its ineffective if the goal is to eliminate user access, but probably effective if goggle is interested in not being an avenue for sharing 'pirate' urls
- ajacksified 3y agoLet's go ahead and ban pen and paper, typewriters, email, and unregulated verbal speech too, to make sure they aren't avenues for sharing pirate urls.
- SoftTalker 3y agoFor many years my browser home page has been a local file named "home.html" I edit that file to include commonly used links and links I want to remember. A new bookmark is simply copying the URL and then in a shell: echo '<paste>' >>~/home.html. I go in periodically and organize. None if this depends on any functionality in the browser, and it is usable in any browser from Chrome to Firefox to Lynx.
- gnabgib 3y agoLargely a dupe of [Google moderates Google Collections items](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37301600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37301600) 101pts, 1day ago, 38 comments
- dang 3y agoThanks! Macroexpanded: Can Chrome Sync or Firefox Sync be trusted with sensitive data? (2018) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37309189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37309189 - Aug 2023 (28 comments) Google moderates Google Collections items - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37301600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37301600 - Aug 2023 (38 comments) Are there others?
- RajT88 3y agoSwitch to Brave! Or some other Chrome fork.
- mdwalters 3y agoOr ungoogled-chromium.
- myaccountonhn 3y agoOr Firefox
- superkuh 3y agoI guess the big problem here is that Google calls these "Google Collections" "favorite pages" and to anyone that's used the internet while Internet Explorer existed that has a pretty clear meaning: local bookmarks. This is badly named feature causing expectations that upset people when they aren't fulfilled because it's cloud crap.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago> Initially, it was suggested that this removal impacted Google’s synched Chrome bookmarks but further research reveals that’s not the case. Instead, the removals apply to Google’s saved feature Pretty sure no one would confuse that for local bookmarks? This is a "your Google account" thing, not a browser thing.
- SoftTalker 3y ago> This is a "your Google account" thing, not a browser thing. Pretty sure 90% of the general public could not explain the difference.
- passwordoops 3y agoPretty sure it's >95%. But having said that, an HN bot to automatically send out a poll to random users on Twitter or something whenever someone types "general public would be nifty. Obviously not scientific, but at least as a straw poll it could indicate something
- causality0 3y agoI don't see a meaningful difference. If I had an HTML file of my bookmarks folder on my Google Drive, should Google be able to edit pirate links out of it?
- TheRealPomax 3y agoGiven that you'd be explicitly uploading content to Google's servers... yes? They get to moderate user generated content to high heaven and back, whether you share that content or not. In fact, given the last 2 decades of Google, how is this something that you (the person reading HN and knowing what Google does) would not expect? And have explained to your friends and family to expect as part of just standard day to day internet education?
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoAnimal Farm shit.
- mock-possum 3y agoHow’s that? As far as I can remember, nothing comparable happens in Animal Farm. Or do you mean ‘1984?’ If it were an Animal Farm situation, google would start out by saying users are allowed to save any links, and then later change their policy to only allow users to save some links. The main takeaway from Animal Farm is generally understood to be “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” - it’s equivocation around the term ‘equal.’ It doesn’t address censorship, or liability, which is the realm that Google’s policy deals with.
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoThe silently changing commandments was what I was referring to.
- fragmede 3y agoThe pigs go around chanting the new slogan after they've changed it. That doesn't seem like a silent change.
- RIMR 3y agoI'm pretty sure they're enforcing an existing rule, it's just that people weren't aware that urls booked from the Google Search app would get stored somewhere else that was sharable, and ended up getting flagged. It doesn't seem like something sinister from Google, but rather poor planning when developing how links get saved. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with your Chrome Browser bookmarks or anything, but a different system that most people are either not using, or are unknowingly using. This really could be fixed by only enforcing this policy on infringing collections content that is shared. As an example, you can still upload movies and TV shows to Google Drive without consequence, it's only when you share those files that Google might intervene.
- carlotte 3y ago[dead]
- tap-snap-or-nap 3y agoEncrypt your emails with CyberChef
- Traubenfuchs 3y agoWhat about google docs or google drive links? Can‘t those also be made public to an unlimites number od users?
- lofaszvanitt 3y agoOh Google... if you don't use your analytics account, they just delete the data. if you don't log in into your account for X period of time they will remove it. if you god forbid forgot to check your mail account for an alert about this, well, then, so sorry, your data was deleted. I'm fantasizing when this will reach Youtube users who will notice that their videos disappeared?
- jimbob45 3y agoIs there a word for companies that heavily rely on their customers that also actively hate their customers?
- bozhark 3y agoGoogle
- slowmovintarget 3y agoAttention brokers, a.k.a. Internet advertising companies. If the product is free, you are the product.
- skinner927 3y agoThe modern web
- TheNewsIsHere 3y agoGoogle specifically calls out accounts with YouTube videos as exempt from their new two year inactivity policy. I mean I get what you’re saying, but as they say, “content is king”.
- figglestar 3y agoDoes that mean you can upload any old junk to prevent the account being deleted?
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
- LinAGKar 3y agoIs "saved" like Google's version of Pocket?