this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
34 points (90.5% liked)

Asshole Design

1180 readers
1 users here now

Nothing comes before profit -- especially not the consumer.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
nonpushoverconsumer@lemmy.ml
34
Google is now moderating user's bookmarks and removing them. (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by vis4valentine@lemmy.ml to c/assholedesign@lemmy.ml
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Original Toot: https://strangeobject.space/@silvermoon82/110969122337810598

all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kattenluik@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago

I didn't ever indicate I was mad, I simply stated my opinion. We already know it is inaccurate as you shared this in your original comment.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Ret2libsanity@infosec.pub 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It is a private space when they are not shared publicly

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] ddnomad@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Words used to have meaning, you know. Like, for example, the word “private”.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] ddnomad@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ddnomad@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scary illigal content 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?

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?

Because they can? Unless your argument is that a third party site should be forced to allow anything that isn’t illegal, or a slur, I’m not really following your train of thought here.

[–] ddnomad@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My point is that you should not excuse big corporations for clearly overstepping their bounds when it comes to moderation (as in “minority report” style moderation).

For Google, it would probably be even cheaper to only check URLs in collections that were shared with anybody, at a point the owner attempts to share them. Instead, they preemptively hide them from you, because “this set of characters offends us”.

This is something people should be angry about, not find an excuse for.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

This is a publicly shared collection, which has been shared with someone.

Are you not familiar with how the collection system works?

This isn’t your browsers bookmarks being synced between browsers, this is a collection shared among others.

You’re literally describing what is more than likely happening in the photo. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago

Yup. As an analogy, we rent apartments but that doesn’t revoke our right to privacy. We’ve decided people deserve privacy even if they’re only renting and not owning. Same should be true when one is renting space online to store things.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Wtf is a collections?

[–] isaachernandez@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Get. Away. From. Google.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] frankyboi@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

it's their private property !

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google keeps taking L's and firefox keeps taking W's. If they keep going maybe firefox will be most used browser again

[–] June@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hate that I have to keep chrome on my machine because some sites I visit don’t work well, or at all, on Firefox.

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Use brave

[–] fox@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's just chrome with a hat on and does nothing to help reduce the encroachment of Google as the internet's sole provider

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But it is more private than chrome and makes heavy modifications for privacy/freedom's sake it is definitely better than actual chrome if you have to use something chromium based

[–] silent_water@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it's literally made by an adtech company. you're falling for marketing hype

[–] Linnce@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Op you're so easily fooled

[–] jhonson2355@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this just chrome? Or does this affect all chromium browsers? And yes, I already use FF, but I also use Brave for when FF doesn't work.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's about synced bookmarks. Do any browsers besides Chrome sync through Google?

[–] BlueBockser@programming.dev -1 points 1 year ago

It's not about normal synced bookmarks in your browser, see other comment.

[–] jetsetdorito@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

chrome can E2E encrypt your bookmarks, I didn't realize it wasn't used by default

[–] 7heo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

E2E encryption is only (potentially) effective if the threat is a MITM. If your threat model shows any possibility for your threats to be on either end, it is effectively useless.

Now I'm not saying that you should model Chrome as a threat, but I'm certainly saying that you also can't be certain you don't need to. The whole thing is closed source, the publisher is a Machiavellian megacorporation; and if I were Google, and had to spy on users for profit, that's certainly where I'd start. You know, as anonymized metrics, to "help improving Chrome".

Edit: oh and, I haven't checked what they mean by that, but potentially, the E2EE is meant in the context of the transit only, meaning the data at rest is not encrypted, on your computer, or on the Google servers.

[–] jetsetdorito@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

under "keep your info private", this is different than encrypted in transit. I mean I guess they could be lying 🤷‍♂️

https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139

[–] 7heo@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

expired

[–] lemmyingly@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this an old screenshot? The email looks like a screenshot of a screenshot, of a screenshot, etc.

[–] Echo71Niner@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

fake, visit the site, there is nothing there.

[–] rarely@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s not now the internet works. There was something there. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/katcr.co

[–] Echo71Niner@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There is nothing on katcr.co and today is the second time someone posted that url, bot

[–] rarely@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

How’s the internetting going, champ? Did you figure out how the wayback machine works?

[–] rarely@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

Ok, so you are actually new to the internet. I’ll explain, human to human, human.

A domain name like reddit.com or katcr.co is a registration someone gets for a period of time, at least 1 year but sometimes more than a year. One year, a user can purchase katcr.co and put up their personal website, because their name is Kat Crosby, and they are a company - katcr.co fits so they buy it and put up a site for a year or two. Life happens and they abandon the site. The domain becomes available again. Someone purchases katcr.co and makes a cookie business for a few years, abandoning the site. Someone else buys it later when it’s available and makes a bittorrent site out of it, runs it for a few years. the domain gets siezed and they can no longer use that domain. The katcr.co domain becomes available again. no one buys it.

Someone said they used to go to katcr.co years ago, someone else chimes in and says “that site doesn’t exist, you’re a liar”, and then someone with more understanding of the internet sends an archive.org link.

Why archive.org? It’s the only site that does this thing.

What is the thing it does? It will, and has over the years visited websites and saved snapshots of it. Archiving it, if you will. You can then go to web.archive.org and enter the domain name of any site and it will send you to the link you’ve been given a few times. This link is to a page that shows all the times archive.org has captured a snapshot of that link. It allows you to view that page (usually just text, usually missing a lot of content like images and external files) as it was at that time.

In this case, the existence of the link immediately disproves your argument.

In other words, you’re entirely wrong. Both about katcr.co being fake because it’s currently not online, and also about me being a bot.

[–] ebenixo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

Eat a bag of dicks google