4 ms·

Google doesn't pay content providers from whom they take copyrighted IP (my own photographs for one example), those of us who make the results of others peoples

Google doesn't pay content providers from whom they take copyrighted IP (my own photographs for one example), those of us who make the results of others peoples' searches possible. Let's see, Google purloins content, putatively in exchange for information provided to you at no cost as search results. But that doesn't account for where they get that information to populate their search returns in the first place. They're taking information from, or about, one person and giving it away for free without permission to zillions of others and, then, collecting billions of dollars from advertisers for the this "service." The net result is to compromises everyone's privacy. I would much rather pay a micro fee every time I used Google to search; or be compensated for the data I provide, if it satisfies the results of someone else's search.

patmcc 13y ago
If you put a bunch of content on a public webserver, I don't think you have any expectation of privacy about that data. Besides which, Google abides by any robots.txt it finds, so if you're really that concerned about the data you provide google for free, maybe stop providing them that data? To remove all images on your site from Google Images: User-agent: Googlebot-Image Disallow: / Or have you decided the traffic you get from people searching is worth it?
- TZimberoff 13y ago
  "If you put a bunch of content on a public web server, I don't think you have any expectation of privacy." That's my point: why shouldn't I expect it to be private? The only reason that cockamamy "no-privacy" philosophy prevails is because Google says so, and people swallow that crap. Google's got a very big soapbox to stand on and proselytize. I don't provide any data to Google for free; they TAKE it without my permission. To say that I should have to opt out is a morally reprehensible argument. And it's extremely difficult to accomplish. That's intentional. If I want them to have what's mine, I should be able to opt in. Google's position is anathema to creators. CREATORS. We are people who actually make things. It costs money to do so. I get no traffic from Google. Don't need it. Again, I'd be happy to pay for any benefits I might derive from Google.

patmcc 13y ago

If you put a bunch of content on a public webserver, I don't think you have any expectation of privacy about that data. Besides which, Google abides by any robots.txt it finds, so if you're really that concerned about the data you provide google for free, maybe stop providing them that data? To remove all images on your site from Google Images: User-agent: Googlebot-Image Disallow: / Or have you decided the traffic you get from people searching is worth it?

TZimberoff 13y ago
"If you put a bunch of content on a public web server, I don't think you have any expectation of privacy." That's my point: why shouldn't I expect it to be private? The only reason that cockamamy "no-privacy" philosophy prevails is because Google says so, and people swallow that crap. Google's got a very big soapbox to stand on and proselytize. I don't provide any data to Google for free; they TAKE it without my permission. To say that I should have to opt out is a morally reprehensible argument. And it's extremely difficult to accomplish. That's intentional. If I want them to have what's mine, I should be able to opt in. Google's position is anathema to creators. CREATORS. We are people who actually make things. It costs money to do so. I get no traffic from Google. Don't need it. Again, I'd be happy to pay for any benefits I might derive from Google.