Again, the reasoning behind it is likely for convincing investors/users they are in the right and as far as I can tell it is working - I see a lot of tweets of people buying Coinbase's response and raging against the SEC and people like balajis retweeting them.
No, that is not what open banking is about at all. It just means that your financial data is not held in a prison by your banking provider. It means you have control over who you share that data with so that you can get value added services using your data.
Well, this is a crock of shit. These guys want to discredit the regulator so that future money grabbers such as these will find it easier. I hope they get roasted over coals by the SEC.
A lot of comments are suggesting workarounds. This behaviour by Google is atrocious. They are causing massive inconvenience to some people (albeit a very small number) just because they want to show off their nice knowledge panel.
Even one person's life inconvenienced is one too many. People working at Google: where is your conscience? If one of your family member was affected like this by a service provider who you have no control over, how would you feel?
I don't exactly disagree with you, especially since from a quick search the name as mentioned by OP seems to be really common but the Googlebot is apparently fishing for info all over the web in a way that's guaranteed to create conflations. I don't think this is a nice thing to show off for them, it seems really amateurish.
> Even one person's life inconvenienced is one too many. People working at Google: where is your conscience? If one of your family member was affected like this by a service provider who you have no control over, how would you feel?
This is an over-reaction. Someone being inconvienced is something you think should affect people's conscience? And it seems like OP could take control here and do something. They allow people to claim a knowledge panel however OP seems to only ask for things to be changed in a knowledge panel. It seems to me they provide the tools for OP to solve the issue but OP refuses to do so. I also wonder if OP choose to flag a problem or issue a legal removal request.
I doubt very much that you sit there and feel shame and contemplate how you have inconvienced others and even when you've done so in a more purposeful way.
Yes of course. If the actions of a collective group are causing harm to others, I expect members of the collective to feel responsible. This is how we build a caring society.
If my actions have caused pain and suffering to others, whether deliberate or not, it does distress me until I have alleviated that somehow. If I do not have a way to alleviate their pain, the guilt of having inconvenienced them stays with me for a long time. That is how I stop myself from doing such things again in the future.
If Google employees, blinded by their big compensation cannot understand how this can go bad and how nearly impossible it is to navigate the cracks these algorithm are leaving behind then I agree, the google collective they're part of is causing a lot of harm and they should feel responsible.
but what if you don't want to be identified? Because to claim panel you most probably have to provide some evidence it is you.
on the other hand, what if you don't know/don't care about some google panel about you. But other people get harmed by it? If someone really lost their job just because his photo was attached. Who should be blamed and how this person should fix this if there is no tools to remove panel?
So I don't see this as overreaction. If you make something that can do mistakes that can cost someone their job or harm significantly, you should provide some ways it can be fixed fast. And not via months of talking with a wall.
there is a woman getting threats and harassment, (a woman that has absolutely nothing to do with the book/panel mind you) because of the knowledge panel not working as intended, and that is fine in your eyes because the op can post a photo of herself?(when she clearly said she doesn't want it online) are you intentionally being a devil's advocate?
The OP choose to write and publish a book, about controversial material under their own name. That was a series of choice clearly made to manage risk while taking a stand against a cult.
Google choose to associate write an algorithm to associate names and faces with zero verification. Then google choose to not provide any substantial way to appeal the algorithms ruling.
You're trying to equate a reasonable choice to proactively manage risk with an automated system that has decided to not allow people to manage that risk. That seems unreasonable on it's face.
What am I missing about the tools provided to undo Google's knowledge panel decision?
> Google choose to associate write an algorithm to associate names and faces with zero verification. Then google choose to not provide any substantial way to appeal the algorithms ruling.
I disagree. Google allows you to take ownership of a knowledge panel and take control of the knowledge panel.
> You're trying to equate a reasonable choice to proactively manage risk with an automated system that has decided to not allow people to manage that risk. That seems unreasonable on it's face.
No, I am saying OP decided to take a risk. A calculated risk and now OP is letting others feel the negative consequences of OP's calculated risk. Even tho it seems there are multiple options available to OP to stop others feeling the negative consequences of their actions. Actions have consequences. OP took an action. This action has consequences. And now people are telling all Google employees to feel bad because a search engine behaves the way search engines do. The guess what is the info we want to see.
Let's stop worrying about OP and worry about the people who did nothing in this getting bullshit because OP is choosing not to do one of many things that would stop it from happening. You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem.
> What am I missing about the tools provided to undo Google's knowledge panel decision?
The claim knowledge panel functionality that has been mentioned in this thread. The legal take downs instead of just reporting misinformation.
> I am saying OP decided to take a risk. A calculated risk and now OP is letting others feel the negative consequences of OP's calculated risk.
You are laying blame for Googles action on OP. Google associated an innocents image with the OP, not OP. Google then demanded that OP take an action to undo Googles action, and demands that OP take new actions to undo thing they did not do.
>because a search engine behaves the way search engines do.
What utter nonsense. Some engineer somewhere did the work to create a system that autogenerated the knowledge panel. Now people are upset because Google demands that we do free labor for them to undo the mistakes of their system.
Googles obsession with being the authoritative source of knowledge and that we fix their mess is so clearly the unjustifiable behavior here that I'm baffled at how you can imagine that their practice here is reasonable.
> You are laying blame for Googles action on OP. Google associated an innocents image with the OP, not OP. Google then demanded that OP take an action to undo Googles action, and demands that OP take new actions to undo thing they did not do.
No, I'm laying blame for this issue just being an issue. The problem happening, Google's fault. But if you have multiple ways of solving an issue created by someone else and you do nothing. That is then your fault. The blame for the problem existing now also lies with you.
> What utter nonsense. Some engineer somewhere did the work to create a system that autogenerated the knowledge panel. Now people are upset because Google demands that we do free labor for them to undo the mistakes of their system.
You seem completely clueless of tech works. So for a search engine to do anything someone has to do the work to create it. Now search engines allow you to search the web and return GUESSES on that information. It guesses using algorithms and for the most part work well. But they are still guesses and with guesses you get wrong guesses.
> Googles obsession with being the authoritative source of knowledge and that we fix their mess is so clearly the unjustifiable behavior here that I'm baffled at how you can imagine that their practice here is reasonable.
Umm Google's automated system guessed something. Google has 3 ways to deal with the incorrect data here! THREE! Not just one way! Not even just TWO ways. But three ways! One of those ways you control the data and YOU BECOME THE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE.
Why you think that doing nothing about a problem when given multiple options WHILE OTHER PEOPLE ARE BEING HARRASSED BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU DID is acceptable, I have no idea.
Used to be, you could write a book under your own name, and there was nobody who published someone else's photo claiming that person was the author of your book. Now, if you write a book under your own name, could be somebody will publish someone else's photo claiming that person is the author of your book. And you're trying to make that the fault of the author, in stead of the entity publishing the false association?!? Sheesh, man, can't you even hear how crazy that sounds?
I was going to claim you just have to be paid by Google to post this shit, but, "good faith" and all: No, you're probably doing this all on your own... Because I have faith that Google wouldn't want to be knowingly represented by ravings like yours.
Google allows you to take ownership of a knowledge panel
Oh how generous. Why didn't they ask the target of the knowledge panel for permission before creating it in the first place?
OP is choosing not to do one of many things that would stop it from happening.
Why should it be on the OP to have to do anything? This is a problem entirely created by Google, for Google's benefit, which happens to cause harm to third parties.
OP's use of a name isn't responsible for this. It isn't the name on the book. People reading the book wouldn't have reason to think it was about a pastor in another country. And in the other direction, people looking up that pastor by name would not be immediately let to the book.
OP might not have "claimed" the 'knowledge' panel, but they certainly did work very hard to have it taken down or removed.
The harm here is pretty much entirely due to google.
I knew someone would try to say I was victim blaming. OP IS NOT THE VICTIM HERE. OP's namesakes are the victims here.
> OP's use of a name isn't responsible for this. It isn't the name on the book. People reading the book wouldn't have reason to think it was about a pastor in another country. And in the other direction, people looking up that pastor by name would not be immediately let to the book.
That is indeed the name of the Author that is on the book.
I often google Authors of books I've read. And if you're a crazy person who harrasses women who write about cults and rape and other things. You would probably Google the Author's name too and see that Author and then follow the rabbit down the hole.
> OP might not have "claimed" the 'knowledge' panel, but they certainly did work very hard to have it taken down or removed.
I dunno, there is a link that says claim and they didn't follow through on it.
And I would disagree that all the harm is done by Google. In fact out of all the actors except the victims of the harrassment they seem to be the least to blame for any harm.
> > OP might not have "claimed" the 'knowledge' panel, but they certainly did work very hard to have it taken down or removed.
> I dunno, there is a link that says claim and they didn't follow through on it.
Yeah, the GP said as much. Which is utterly logical: If you don't want something to exist in the first place, then of bloody course you don't want to own it.
That’s ridiculous. You don’t need to believe yourself “judge jury and executioner” to say that someone who sends (death?) threats to innocent rape victims is responsible for the consequences. If you feel otherwise, fine, but if you can’t blame them for lack of being judge jury and executioner then you certainly can’t blame Google either
> Someone being inconvienced is something you think should affect people's conscience?
"Inconvienced"? "Inconvienced"?!?
People have been threatened, physically attacked, and sometimes even killed for books they've written. OP seems to be claiming to have written a fairly controversial book, which so far has generated at least threats. And now Google is associating that book with other people, because their fucking algorithm has more of a hard-on to get a picture, any picture, onto their "knowledge" card than to get shit right.
People could DIE here... And you come blithering about "inconvienced". Are you for fucking real?
As a vegetarian, I always have a moral dilemma when choosing dietary supplements. Perhaps I don't have to face these dilemmas if I can include lab grown meat in my diet therefore obviating the need for supplements. But having been a lifelong vegetarian, it still feels odd. Objectively looking at it, lab grown meat seems to be a good idea. I'm not entirely sure of the "morality" or ethics of it. Will take some getting used to, but if this gives rise to innovations in the synthesizing of supplements such as collagen then I'm all for it.
It is a bit like "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". I have felt the urge to respond with something witty and scathing to a story online, only to realise after a moment's reflection that my response would be irrelevant in several scenarios. The disappointment that follows for wasting a witty response...that takes some resisting.
My struggle is finding something that brings out the wit like a good tweet so I can put it to a more productive purpose. I've written novels worth of tweets because there's just enough good stuff to reply to that it's hard to leave without an alternative.
This has probably something to do with big tech companies putting out highly polished products for "free" while making money in no-so-obvious ways. People have been conditioned to expect high quality work for free.
Instead of expecting corporate users to pay (which can be difficult, corporate finance depts are good at spending large sums of money, but suck at small expenses), or acknowledge use (company policies might mean employees are not allowed to), perhaps the major hosting providers such as Github and Gitlab can directly remunerate open source repo maintainers depending on the popularity of the hosted repo? Surely they make a lot of money by more and more devs adopting their service?
Edit: I am the owner of an open source repo on Github which was quite popular a while ago, but fell into disrepair because I could no longer find the time to maintain it. So I understand the pain of this person.
I like the idea, but I don't think it should be on github's shoulders to directly fund opensource. They do more than enough.
What I'd like to see is a fund which companies who use opensource are expected to contribute to. For every 100 employees at your company building on top of opensource software, I'd like to see at least 1 employee's salary funneled into the opensource ecosystem. That fund could have a default division based on community needs, or each company could specify how their donations are allocated. And if they donate by having their employees publish generally useful packages, thats fine too.
I don't think it should be compulsory, but I want this stuff to be very visible. If someone files an issue against one of my projects, I want to know if the organization they're part of contributes to the community, and how, and to what projects. If you want me to donate my time to fix an issue you're running into, but you don't contribute back in any way, I'd like to know that before I decide if I'm going to spend my weekend helping out.
Right now there's no incentive for companies to contribute to opensource because contributions are generally invisible. And bugs they run into usually get fixed anyway. If we tie a company's contributions to their reputation, and make reputation affect public standing, we might have a shot at changing social norms.
