Google Removes ‘Pirate’ URLs from Users’ Privately Saved Links::undefined

8 points

kinda makes sense. it’s like if a youtube video or soundcloud track gets DCMA’d then they’re going to remove the link.

if it was you actual browser bookmark i would understand the outrage.

im still on FF tho

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Isn’t removing the bookmarks from people’s browser what they’re mad about? Now that Google is selling content through YouTube TV, I’ll bet they crack down hard on piracy. The old reddit /r/NFLstreams moved to a site a lot of people know. Now that Google owns Sunday ticket, I will not be surprised if it gets DDoS’d to shit this year and becomes borderline unusable. We’ll find out next week I guess.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

It’s not from the browser. As stated in the article:

Initially, it was suggested that this removal impacted Google’s synched Chrome bookmarks but further research reveals that’s not the case. Instead, the removals apply to Google’s saved feature.

It’s a feature specific to the google app that lets you share collections of bookmarks:

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/13128452?hl=en

They don’t want people sharing links to pirate sites.

It’s still bad, but saying they are going through bookmarks in chrome and deleting them is misinformation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Would have been nice to have amended the headline to reflect the actual story.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Just yesterday I saw a post that they did in fact remove bookmark and notified user about it with detail

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

A users bookmarks on the browser, and a collection saved on google, are different things. One is private, the other can be shared.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

yeah but it’s nice to know what has actually been removed so you can get the song/video elsewhere

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I skimmed through the article and didn’t see it mentioned, but in another post I read that this was only done for a shared collection, as in it was at least semi public if not public

permalink
report
parent
reply
64 points

This feels like a corporation complying with their obligations under the DMCA.

To maintain their safe harbor status, companies have to remove allegedly infringing content in response to a properly filed takedown notice. This does include links stored in google’s search results. This is what a company like google has to do when storing user data on servers in any country that signed the WIPO Copyright Treaty.

They don’t seem to be doing this in a malicious way. They have done their duty and removed the offending links from their service. But they quite kindly chose to notify the user by email, including the exact URL that was removed. The user can store that link elsewhere.

It would have been far easier to remove the link silently.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

They shouldnt be reading and playing with things privately stored. Are they going to go through all my documents to replace any swear words? It’s completely inexcusable. Private doesn’t mean private until some big company asks about it wtf.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Please contact your congressperson. Having dealt with shit like this, a company’s other option is fines approaching infinity and jail time for those who don’t comply. We elected the people who did this.

We should be angry at corporations for monopolistic behavior, using profits from one business to prop up another and drown competitors (Bard), cross-business-unit offerings that smaller companies can’t compete with (Prime shipping, video, music), not this. This is a company complying with a terrible law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

It’s not on bookmarks. Is on collections(a different thing) that are public, shareable and technically hosted by Google. This whole thing has been overblown by not fact checking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It deleted them from public and private collections.

If google was taking out mentions of Tiananmen Square at China’s request, would you be okay with it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If that’s the case (what OP mentioned), I think it’s still the responsibility of who made those effing laws. You cannot ask a corporation to break the law to protect your privacy. But you can definitely ask your representative to protect it

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s not an order from the president, they could easily say no and fight it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

What do you mean by privately stored if you’re saving it in some google application?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

I don’t think something becomes public just because it’s saved in a Google app. I consider the contents of my gdrive private and my own. There’s ethics to consider that go wildly beyond “if it ends up on Google’s hardrive, it automatically belongs to them”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This is google we’re talking about, there never was any privacy to begin with, and what you believed was there was always just an illusion. This was always their interpretation of the ideal and power of the internet with its “free sharing of ideas and knowledge” - they literally went with including personal data in that much like facebook and both have yet to be stopped or held accountable to start treating it as such.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

See, this is why I like reading comments. Cooler heads prevail. Thank you for the context.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

I’m gonna give Mullvad a shot, sick of Google’s shit.

https://mullvad.net/en/browser

permalink
report
reply
-2 points

Mullvad browser is just a copy of Firefox that’s designed to work with their VPN.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Not entirely true. The mullvad browser adds a lot of anti-tracking stuff, which was originally implemented in the TOR Browser. So you’re definitely safer using the mullvad browser instead of plain Firefox

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

hardened Firefox my beloved.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

What’s wrong with Firefox?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Firefox is usable with some tweaks and not that evil, even though sponsored by Google. But many people feel that they can’t believe Firefox like 10 years ago.

Some users feel it’s so wrong that they have forked the project: LibreWolf, which seems a good option too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

you gotta make some tweaks to LibreWolf as well to make sure it doesn’t break some websites

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Assholes.

permalink
report
reply
119 points

D I T C H

C H R O M E

permalink
report
reply
40 points

And stop using chromium browsers too!

No point in ditching chrome just to use chrome with a different coat of paint.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

isn’t it alright if you use ungoogled-chromium? It sends 0 requests outward so it’s completely safe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

Yep! A few months ago I moved from Brave to Firefox since Brave can’t be trusted

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 16K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 591K

    Comments