|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on.
Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation.
If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms.
The bolded statement is wrong. A human being can follow any algorithm that a computer can. The speedup comes from the speed at which electronic computers can process data.
|
On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 12 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes. And google and reddit. They don’t have editorial board, but software that picks out your news. Software is a systems, so it can’t be held accountable for things and so on.
Of course I don’t think they should be treated like the New York Times. But I also don’t think they should be regulated by twenty year old laws that were written at the time AOL was the largest service provider in the nation.
If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms.
If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software.
Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System.
|
United States44203 Posts
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library.
|
On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
If their legal justification really is "blame all faults on the software," that is the most idiotic legal defense I have ever heard. I am painfully aware of the fact that computers do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System.
What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture?
|
On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library.
This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen.
|
On May 12 2017 02:44 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 02:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Also how dumb do you have to be to contradict yourself on such an important matter? I mean, it's one thing to lie and get caught by someone else. It's quite another to incriminate yourself. Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 02:16 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Have Trumps supporters ever actually read an interview with him? because they make no sense
For the love of god. The guy is so incompetent. How the fuck did he ever get so rich? I mean the railgun-type of airplane catapult is the whole selling point of the Ford class in the first place.
he's skilled at being a scam artist? some scam artists have made a lot of money historically.
and he's good at setting up deals wherein he profits if the thing works, and other people pay the price but he doesn't if the thing fails.
he didn't get so rich, he got reasonably rich given his starting point; not donig dramatically better or worse than you'd expect of someone in a similar starting position. so he only had to do average. or at least that's one way of looking at it.
|
On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:12 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Diffusion of responsibility. I see it a lot in my work with banks. They create “systems” to assure bad things do not happen. When bad things happen, it is because the system failed. No one person is a fault, so its is hard to blame. For google it is: Our system just happened to pull up all mug shots when you typed in “black girl’s hair”, it is a flaw in the system that we couldn’t foresee. They create systems to sprawling and massive, no one can predict the results. So on one is accountable for those results, unless we go back to square one and say “maybe you shouldn’t make a system so large you can’t control it.” So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist? That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture?
It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images.
I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me.
|
Mr. Comey’s associates also denied the claim made by Mr. Trump, in his letter firing Mr. Comey, that the director told him on three occasions that he wasn’t under investigation. They said Mr. Comey never gave Mr. Trump any such guidance, which would violate longstanding policies on criminal investigations. “That is literally farcical,” said one associate.
The fallout inside the Bureau was palpable Wednesday as agents worried the news could undermine public trust in their agency that has been at the center of political storms for several months.
Several agents said Mr. Comey was a reliable defender of the FBI. “This is crazy,” said a top agent. “We will keep working, obviously, but this could do some real damage. It is good to know the director has your back and is not going to fold under pressure.”
www.wsj.com
|
On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen.
The deeper issue here is that if it were a library, and somone was plagiarizing, the original author would be able to go after the publisher of the plagiarized book... to bring it back to the case at hand. I cannot sue reddit as the publisher of the stolen content.
EDIT for grammar
|
On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen.
Is that not how pawn shops work out where you live?
|
On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen.
You constantly fail to address the points that Google is just showing us what exists elsewhere. Imagine the following situation: someone posted those images on physical billboards, in public space. A company has a service that allows you to get instant views of any public location, let's say using a super satellite imaging. Should such company be forced to block those billboards from the stream? Even though you could just walk there and see them with your eyes? Because that's what Google is doing in search - it just shows you a web where you could go anyway and see the content yourself.
In short, as I already said, you advocate for censorship or reality. And that is wrong.
|
On May 12 2017 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. Is that not how pawn shops work out where you live?
No. Pawn shops are regulated where I live and have to take down the information of anyone who sells them anything. They 100% know that they could forfeit any profits gains from stolen goods, which is why they do that.
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-russia-probe-continue-no-white-house-updates-fbi-director-hearing-a7730856.html
The acting head of the FBI has said the agency will continue to investigate alleged links between Russia and Donald Trump's campaign – but will not routinely update the White House.
Andrew McCabe, who assumed leadership of the investigative agency following the firing of James Comey, said the ousting of the former director would not impact the ongoing probe. He also said it had sufficient resources to pursue the investigation.
“The work of the men and women of the FBI. continues despite any changes in circumstances,” he said, responding to Florida senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida.
|
On May 12 2017 04:12 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. The deeper issue here is that if it were a library, and somone was plagiarizing, the original author would be able to go after the publisher of the plagiarized book... to bring it back to the case at hand. I cannot sue reddit as the publisher of the stolen content. EDIT for grammar
And you will never be able to go after the user who posted the stolen content because Reddit has designed their account system to never have that information. They don’t collect it, so they will never have to produce it. And they will never be held liable for the stolen content.
So you, as an author, are left without recourse or remedy because of the laws in place and the system designed by Reddit.
On May 12 2017 04:13 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. You constantly fail to address the points that Google is just showing us what exists elsewhere. Imagine the following situation: someone posted those images on physical billboards, in public space. A company has a service that allows you to get instant views of any public location, let's say using a super satellite imaging. Should such company be forced to block those billboards from the stream? Even though you could just walk there and see them with your eyes? Because that's what Google is doing in search - it just shows you a web where you could go anyway and see the content yourself. In short, as I already said, you advocate for censorship or reality. And that is wrong.
That isn't what I am talking about at all.
|
On May 12 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:12 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. The deeper issue here is that if it were a library, and somone was plagiarizing, the original author would be able to go after the publisher of the plagiarized book... to bring it back to the case at hand. I cannot sue reddit as the publisher of the stolen content. EDIT for grammar And you will never be able to go after the user who posted the stolen content because Reddit has designed their account system to never have that information. They don’t collect it, so they will never have to produce it. And they will never be held liable for the stolen content. So you, as an author, are left without recourse or remedy because of the laws in place and the system designed by Reddit.
Right, and this introduction of liability on behalf of the hosts of the content is what has some people worried that it will lead to ultimate self censorship of the content by hosting websites. This would have an overall positive effect on the quality of the content that would be found on the internet, but it would also lead to heavier moderation and a possible reduction in free speech if taken too far by the legislative bodies.
|
On May 12 2017 04:22 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 04:12 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. The deeper issue here is that if it were a library, and somone was plagiarizing, the original author would be able to go after the publisher of the plagiarized book... to bring it back to the case at hand. I cannot sue reddit as the publisher of the stolen content. EDIT for grammar And you will never be able to go after the user who posted the stolen content because Reddit has designed their account system to never have that information. They don’t collect it, so they will never have to produce it. And they will never be held liable for the stolen content. So you, as an author, are left without recourse or remedy because of the laws in place and the system designed by Reddit. Right, and this introduction of liability on behalf of the hosts of the content is what has some people worried that it will lead to ultimate self censorship of the content by hosting websites. This would have an overall positive effect on the quality of the content that would be found on the internet, but it would also lead to heavier moderation and a possible reduction in free speech if taken to far by the legislative bodies.
Which is all true and I think there is a healthy middle of the road for sites and not all sites would need to be governed by the same rules and regulations. I don’t think youtube or reddit and facebook should be treated the same and they currently are. And I don’t think any regulation should be written without their input. Mostly I just want the government to accept the internet changed and to update the laws that govern it.
|
On May 12 2017 04:13 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. You constantly fail to address the points that Google is just showing us what exists elsewhere. Imagine the following situation: someone posted those images on physical billboards, in public space. A company has a service that allows you to get instant views of any public location, let's say using a super satellite imaging. Should such company be forced to block those billboards from the stream? Even though you could just walk there and see them with your eyes? Because that's what Google is doing in search - it just shows you a web where you could go anyway and see the content yourself. In short, as I already said, you advocate for censorship or reality. And that is wrong.
Its not about google, P6 used it as a loose example and it led people to the wrong conclusions. the issue isn't google so much as origanizations who purposely use the freedom from liability to host content that would otherwise be illegal.
|
On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:14 Logo wrote:
[quote]
So what's Google's safeguard here? Hire people to search every combination of words and manually verify the results aren't racist?
That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that. What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me.
So if I use this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-preview/ohmamcbkcmfalompaelgoepcnbnpiioe?hl=en
does that mean any site that includes a link to a picture is using a picture?
On the other aspect of it, if Google's use of the image is fair use (which is most likely is: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ ). If Google is 'using' the image in a fair use way then does the source of that image matter for their use?
Like I think you're setting yourself up for a paradox. If google is the one 'using' the image then their use is probably fair use; if they're just passing along the image (instead of 'using' it) then how can you blame them for just passing it through?
It seems like the legal spot here would be that associating someone's image to these sites is the problem, in which case it seems like defamation would apply and that is something Google has already been found responsible for (maybe not in the US, idk): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/24/brisbane-man-sues-google-for-750000-over-defamatory-search-results .
But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
|
Well, I didn't expect him to be this ignorant of technology, but how hard is it to know what they key selling points of a new carrier class are. FFS you build a new class of them like every 50 years. Electromagnetic launch system, more automation, more electrical power. Steam isn't inherently bad either, it's just not as flexible.
Trump has a problem where he likes to talk about any subject, and have an opinion on it regardless of how much knows. Which in this case, being boastfully wrong might as well be negative knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
