I can't say what happened in this case, but there's a report from the NY AG[1] about companies running an astroturfing anti net-neutrality campaign, so nothing surprises me at this point.
[1] https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/reports/oag-fakecommen...
We have a legal system that's subject to public scrutiny and supposed to handle cases of "law-breaking." In its current incarnation there's no way for it to handle every single claim, but I wonder if investment there wouldn't be better incentivized than having a bunch of tech companies trying to reduce expenses by always choosing the "easiest" option whenever they receive a takedown request.
* YouTube seemingly does not weight the claim based on previous claims, i.e. if you've made hundreds of claims that have later petered out into nothing, you can still make claims that still have the same weight and assumption of good faith applied to them. So if one of your interns flips through a video and sees a frame of your show or game or whatever, claim it.
* As I've complained about here previously: videos make the vast majority of their revenue in the first few days of publication, so if you manage to snipe a newly posted video, either by way of keeping an eye open for yourself or via automated tools, you can claim it, have the video's monetization redirected to you, and again, even if the claim is later found to be bogus or unsubstantiated, you keep the money.
* Lastly, there is NO mechanism whatsoever for the creator to seek any form of justice on the platform. In theory a creator could sue an IP holder for filing a bogus claim, but there's little court precedent for that, and to even attempt it would require them to retain their own attorney. Any attorney worth their money would tell them not to try it because it will be an uphill battle with an organization who's legal account dwarfs their own.
This is basically a system that is directly incentivizing bad actors. It's no surprise at all that it's being abused by companies looking to manage their image/PR by quelling criticism, by organizationally inept companies who's left hands can't keep track of what the right hand is doing, and by companies that see it as a cynical way to juice their revenue in an ethically dubious but also basically risk free way. And we now have a new strata of yet more middle men organizations: companies that manage the IP of other companies and make claims on their behalf, sometimes even using shoddy AI recognition to manage it.
I'm talking about e.g. the DMCA requirements than an OSP be responsible for complying with takedown notices. This is not the company deciding to take action on certain content, but the company being forced to take action in response to certain submissions. The law pushes the burden of enforcement onto a private company.
As someone else posted in the comments, there are services that will go around and make (bogus) claims on your behalf. It seems plausible that's what happened to the author's original article, rather than that bing and google themselves were trying to influence the net neutrality conversations.
so I'm guessing the guys who own the data from the webcrawls are the critical path, guess you need big resources for that. great chart thing here --> https://www.searchenginemap.com/
The pdf is the #1 result on a well known non-US search engine.
Stopped updating my millions hits/month blogspot after google insisted blogger's content must be hosted on their servers.
The other one is dreadful. Jack Ma will confirm.
I’m in a context of an super-regulated EU market, where such things still somewhat happen (well even worst, with people having their homes and theirs relatives searched, because he called dumb a politician), bad with the added problems, namely: there can just not exist such a giant in the EU.
> I’m in a context of an super-regulated EU market, where such things still somewhat happen (well even worst, with people having their homes and theirs relatives searched, because he called dumb a politician), bad with the added problems, namely: there can just not exist such a giant in the EU.
I think state police forces acting beyond their power is an unrelated problem.
Such giants shouldn't exist and be for profit in my view. The issue is that the EU does not block the non-EU giants so Europeans also suffer from the less strict regulation.
What does it even mean to conduct a sampling of "findability" within a system whose results depend on when you search, who you are, where you search from, and the subject on which you're searching? We're way beyond Schrodinger's cat level of uncertainty with these non-deterministic systems and their hidden actors explicitly manipulating the results (as "guardrails", "moderation", whatever).
Search (and AI) is a principal agent problem and there are insoluble trust issues around information technology today that make a "scientific" approach rather naive.
Why that made up pronoun?
