Original Toot: https://strangeobject.space/@silvermoon82/110969122337810598
Get. Away. From. Google.
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
21 points (95.7% liked)
Asshole Design
1180 readers
1 users here now
Nothing comes before profit -- especially not the consumer.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
It's really that simple for much of their products. I really don't understand why people still insist on using chrome, in particular. Google is a horrible company that would literally sell you into slavery if it was legal and they thought it'd boost their ad business somehow.
It’s surprising to hear that Google is now moderating user bookmarks and removing them. This brings up concerns about data control and user autonomy. As Google tightens its policies, it's crucial for businesses to ensure they maintain visibility through other channels, especially by optimizing their local presence. One of the most effective ways to do this is by enhancing your Google My Business profile. If you’re looking for tips on how to make your business more discoverable, this guide on how to optimize Google My Business is a great resource. Staying on top of SEO trends can help safeguard your online visibility in a changing landscape.
Op you're so easily fooled
People are saying this is fake, maybe that image in particular is, but I just got that email and that's annoying me so here's a pic
Nah. If you want to be outraged at Google, at least be correct.
This has to do with Google "collections", not synced bookmarks. Afaik, collections are a thing you only access on mobile through the google app, this doesn't even have anything to do with Chrome.
If you run chrome on mobile, for example, you don't have access to the collections. It's only through the google app.
Almost certain they monitor collections because they can be shared with public.
They shouldn't be monitored either way in my opinion as it's just a bunch of links, but especially not while still private.
Ultimately I don't think it quite matters if it technically is bookmarks or "collections", they seem clearly used in the same manner in this case.
They aren't. They are made from links that appear in Google search results. Google is notifying the person that the link you've saved is being removed. Therefore it will be removed from your collection as well.
Keep licking that Google boot.
I don't care if you're mad about it like I said. I just care about accuracy. The person in the screenshot and this thread's title are both inaccurate.
Eh… the ultimate question, what if it’s a collection of CSAM links?
Some moderation is fine, especially when it can be shared pretty easily. This isn’t private bookmarks, it’s “private” bookmark collections.
Edit: For those downvoting, this is the same concept as a private Reddit/facebook community. Just because it’s “invite only” doesn’t mean it’s free from following the rules of the whole site.
CSAM is never an excuse to violate everyone’s privacy.
I hate seeing people implying that it is. It’s no better then Patriot Act B.s that took away privacy in the name of catching terrorists.
When those links are hosted on Google servers, publicly available to anyone handed the link to them?… how is that a private space?
This isn’t reaching into your phone and checking the information you store on it, this is checking links you added and shared with others using their service. They absolutely have the right to check them.
It is a private space when they are not shared publicly
Except that’s not how it works.
If I go into a public park, put up a tent, then start breaking the parks rules, I’m not “in the clear” just because I’m in a tent and didn’t invite anyone else in.
Words used to have meaning, you know. Like, for example, the word “private”.
Private has various meanings in various contexts. If I take you to the private booth at a club, does it mean I’m allowed to slap around the waiter? No, of course not because rules still apply in private places hosted by a third party.
If you want privacy in the context you explicitly mean, you shouldn’t be using anyone else’s hardware to begin with. If you expect any third party company to be fine with posting anything on them, you’re gonna have a bad time.
For example, how many lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?
I’d not expect the private booth to have the club’s employee sitting there and waiting for me to do something that is against the rules preemptively.
We mostly argue about semantics, but in this instance you are trying to excuse some very questionable behaviour by companies by saying something along the lines of “well you better go and live in a forest then”. And I don’t think that’s a good take.
For example, how many Lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?
Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.
Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.
/sigh
How many file hosting services let you share pirated data, publicly?
Before you start in on “it’s not the same” it absolutely is. It’s private data, which is being shared through a link publicly. Just like bookmark collections.
And once that file has been identified as piracy, it is very often fingerprinted and blacklisted from not only that instance, but all instances past, present and future.
That’s essentially what is going on here.
I guess we test and see whether I get banned.
Also, it’s not the same. A link to a website is not “pirated content”. A link to a website in a “collection” not shared with anybody is not publicly available pirated content.
Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?