Slashdot Mirror


Is Google Silently Removing Posts?

mrbill writes to tell us that several music bloggers believe that Google may be silently removing posts. Those especially prone to conspiracy theories think this may be a part of some greater nefarious action in cooperation with the RIAA. The LA Weekly story cites several sites and email/chat room discussion that points to the only common ground being Google's Blogger platform for sites that have had content mysteriously disappear. This still resides firmly in the wildly speculative realm of unfounded rumor but raises the question, should Google be required to notify a content creator when their IP has been deleted/removed?

15 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. They shouldn't be required... by cmprsdchse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but it would certainly go a long way towards the perception of their actions as, "good form".

    1. Re:They shouldn't be required... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Repeat after me: If you use a free service, you are entitled to exactly what you paid for.

      Repeat after that: If I don't back up my work, one day I may lose it all.

      It's not like either of these things is news, and if it really is a freebie blogging service that Google provides where this is allegedly happening, then of course Google are perfectly within their rights to do anything up to and including shutting down the whole service without notice if they want to.

      It also amazes me that people still trust so much stuff they'd want to keep to free on-line e-mail services, Google's or otherwise. These things do go wrong or get closed down, and you have absolutely no comeback if that happens.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:They shouldn't be required... by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google is not a government entity. Freedom of speech doesn't apply.

  2. Depends on the terms of the agreement ... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This still resides firmly in the wildly speculative realm of unfounded rumor but raises the question, should Google be required to notify a content creator when their IP has been deleted/removed?

    Is there any requirement in the agreement between Google and the creator to so do? I highly doubt it. In the absence of such a requirement I don't see any reason to think that they have any such obligation. I searched their web-site and I see no indication that have made any representations to the contrary.

    Now, if the current agreement between Blogger and the content creators is satisfactory, they can take their content elsewhere. Perhaps a competing blog service can offer more agreeable terms and attract more content creators, or perhaps content creators prefer Blogger's service, even with onerous TOS, over the competitor's service for whatever reason (after all, IP policies are the not the end-all here).

    In short, I don't see any reason for people to become histrionic when a service provider doesn't deliver goods that they never promised.

  3. Re:According to Their Terms I Think They Should by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, when they say this about content

    We respect our users' ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share.

    (Emphasis mine) One would hope that entailed at least a notice about why your posting was deleted.

    I don't see how failure to provide notice about why your content was deleted can, in any way, be construed to disparage users' ownership of that content. I can think of many different cases in which a service provider could respect that a user owns some creative content and concurrently removes it from their service consistent with their terms.

    The question of who owns some content and whether it is appropriate to be posted on some service are entirely different.

  4. Re:This can only mean one thing: by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you really want to use a tinfoil hat in perpetual beta?

  5. Free Ride by retech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the end, this is like a hitchhiker bitching when their ride only takes them part way. If it's free, you don't have much to complain about. If you'd like complete freedom, host your own blog, but do it on your own server... with your own lines... etc etc...

    1. Re:Free Ride by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's like if you're hitchhiking from St. Louis to Denver, and someone picks you up and tells you they'll take you all the way to Denver, then kicks you out of the car somewhere in Kansas. What, you haven't seen a building or another car for an hour? Tough shit, pal, get out and walk.

      Free or not, it doesn't matter. If you say you're offering a service to someone, you need to offer it. If you're not willing to live up to the offer, don't make it.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Free Ride by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in your mind, there's no obligation unless money changes hands? If you say you'll do someone a favor, do you feel free not to do it unless they pay you?

      How much do they have to pay you to create a sense of obligation in your mind? A penny? A dollar? A thousand dollars? What's your price for keeping your word?

      If you tell someone upfront that you'll only do something for a certain amount of money, then fine; you're under no obligation to do anything unless they meet your price. But once you commit, saying "oh, well, they didn't pay me enough" even if the price is zero marks you as a liar. Honest people do what they say they're going to do, and liars don't, regardless of money.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Free Ride by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In the end, this is like a hitchhiker bitching

      Like all car analogies here, it's quite inappropriate and misleading.

      Google is getting FREE CONTENT from bloggers, and SELLING ADS on the pages. It's not a charity.

  6. Please stop. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every week now it seems there is a new target of our collective paranoia. So let's set the record straight for this and all future stories like this. First, the internet is global. The wires, routers, satellites, cables, and equipment are collectively owned by hundreds of companies, scattered throughout every country in the world. Each of those countries feels they have a right to censor or control, to varying degrees, what their citizens say and do. In each of those countries, there are states, counties, municipalities, cities, corporations, organizations, groups, and individuals, all of whom believe they are also entitled to the same thing. Their ideologies are varied, as are their methods, their targets, and their success.

    People have been trying to shut other people up and control them since time began. And people have fought back. Whether Google is censoring or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether anyone fights back. All any of us can do is support anyone who does, and continue to provide the tools to ensure that anyone who wants to listen, can. So if you are one of those being censored by google, step forward, give us your message, and we will do our best to put it everywhere there is an audience for it. Otherwise, can it about the conspiracy theories. They have their laws, and we have ours.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Please stop. by try_anything · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whether Google is censoring or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether anyone fights back.

      I'm confused. Fighting back, supporting those who fight back, and bypassing censorship require knowing when censorship happens and who is responsible for it. By that reasoning, it's hard to see how it's irrelevant whether Google is censoring or not.

      "Please stop." Please stop sharing information and doing collective investigation about censorship? Just fight back randomly against... everybody? Even those who don't censor? Work hard to find alternative means of distribution for... all speech? Even the stuff that hasn't been censored?

      It seems more constructive to focus efforts on actual censors and instances of actual censorship. Hence, discussions like this are important and relevant. The facts have to be established before anyone knows what action to take. Whether this particular discussion should have made the front page of Slashdot before the facts were better established is another question (and IMHO the answer is "no.")

    2. Re:Please stop. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I must say that I find it odd. Someone posts a link to a pirated MP3 and that link gets taken down. People define that as censorship?
      Then they wrap it in the flag of free speech and fighting for freedom...

      I would think that posting a recording of someone else as their speech is at best plagiarism. Hey I can see saying that piracy is at worst a civil issue and not criminal. Or that suing your customers is a bad plan. However taking down posts to copyrighted MP3s just doesn't infringe on people's liberties.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. Re:This can only mean one thing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You've obviously never worn a tinfoil hat before!

  8. Re:I heard about this a while back.... by dcollins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's actually a pretty informative example. Google is complying with the legalities of a DMCA takedown notice, and clearly informing the blog owner. The blog owner is responding by saying that they can't narrow down what part of the blog post in question is objectionable, and therefore picking up and moving their blog to another site.

    In this particular case I don't that Google could have done anything one whit better.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes