pilgrimfff

It’s too bad there’s no way to use hybrid approaches or use some kind of learning, but for machines! No heuristics to rank and prioritize content.

We better tell every big tech company that what they’ve been doing forever is impossible to do if they don’t also de platform those deplorables.

Gee, I wonder how Wikimedia could make this practice ethical?

Maybe actually tell people it's going to those causes instead of Wikipedia?

Naaaaaaaaah

I agree. We need more American (TM) companies with no competition. In every industry, there should be a Comcast sitting on top collecting rents.

I'm 100% with you. We have to keep the money flowing away from taxpayers and towards corporate interests.

> this has been done properly numerous times in the past

I'm genuinely curious if you have any examples of this. I'm not aware of any modern product at scale that doesn't suffer from these same issues.

Good. I'm so tired of all these folks saying that we haven't always been at war with Eurasia.

> it is possible to operate a Google account completely without a phone number

This is only true for a limited time. I've tried to use a couple Google accounts this way and inevitably I log in from a new IP and Google's 2FA system kicks in - forcing me to either furnish a phone number or lose access to the account.

It's similar to how Twitter forces phone numbers out of people - just not as immediate.

Buy a handful of alternative domains that redirect to your primary (you could stand up a minimal url shortener on each domain).

Even if you get unblocked this time, it could easily happen again. Until there’s systematic reform to this nonsense, you just have to work around it with redundancy.

If they’re going to treat you like a scammer, work around it like the scammers do.

I was expecting the number of search results here to be much higher - like who cares if Google only serves the first million results out of a billion?

Very interesting to see that Google will only serve a few hundred links when they claim to have hundreds of thousands of relevant results indexed.

I'm very curious where Google is getting that count and why the reality is so different. Systematic overcounting? Suppressing hundreds of thousands of results?

Absolutely. But not your right to ensure that nobody can hear.

In this case, "the market" is essentially just Google - who incidentally created the market for SEO spam.

I don't necessarily blame Google for the tight integration with Wikipedia. It's much easier to deal with one site than many.

I think it's disingenuous to blame "the market" for what's essentially the decision of a monopoly.

I got an engineering manager who was a hardcore micromanager. He insisted on adding a lot of process, but refused to conform to any processes himself. He caused numerous false SEVs because he was picking around in ancient logs, assuming every error message was actually a production outage.

He was like having -2 engineers on the team. I'd been in the job half a decade. I quit 2 months after he joined.

> People keep asking about examples of work that exemplifies "potential harms [that] outweigh the benefit of publication." How about large scale human vivisection?

People are asking for example of something this particular set of rules would prevent.

An example that's already illegal in the most extreme sense of the word doesn't convince anyone.

This is a straw man. The only people who won't see it as such are those who already agree with you.

Apple's self repair program exists for one reason - to mitigate regulatory scrutiny. They have no incentive to make it effective.