I understand the desire for takedown requests on truly infringing content. But there will always be people who exploit those tools for bad faith takedowns, and because this kind of moderation is a loss leader for companies like Google and Bing it seems like they will forever be disincentivized from doing a good job. (We constantly hear similar stories about Youtube copyright strikes.)
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.
I think a nice rebuttal to this would be a search engine for pages reported removed from google lol
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/
This is what happens when the interests of those who own the means of communication are not aligned with those who use their tools to communicate.
Big thanks to Google, Bing, and Linkedin then, for trying to bury net neutrality by creating the best possible argument for supporting it.
This is all you need to know to have a reasoned position on net neutrality.
net neutrality briglauer oecd retraction request
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.
This is no surprise. It's what we get with a free market and capitalism driving it: Monopolization. And then we can only access what those mono/oligopolies deem profit increasing or at least not hurting.
The author did not compare against the findability of other articles which aren't about net neutrality. So his conclusion that it's about the content of his article isn't supported by his analysis.
There are many "reputation management" companies that do this sort of thing, via various sorts of tricks, which are most often bogus copyright or legal claims.
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...