Google, pure evil

[Brian Atherton]

There are other search engines.

If you object to Google’s questionable practices, you don’t have to use Google. I don’t.

Do some research and empower yourself.

I use DuckDuckGo:

https://duckduckgo.com

 

[andersju]

I've been using Fastmail for something like seven years. They're absolutely superb. Can't recommend them too highly.

Hear, hear. Been on Fastmail since 2008. Fantastic feature set (many things that Gmail lacks), and most of all it's nice to be a paying customer and know that there's actual human support to be had. Hell, some of the developers (who are now also the owners after the staff bought the company back from Opera) even participate on emaildiscussions.com.

 

[sevo]

Press photographers should in any case run their own mail server, or use the mail server run by their agency or editor.

It is a human right and prerequisite of any free press that the correspondence of journalists may not be searched, confiscated or otherwise manipulated. Placing your mail on the servers of your ISP or, even worse, a massively promiscuous consumer oriented service like Google pretty much waives that.

 

[andersju]

Press photographers should in any case run their own mail server, or use the mail server run by their agency or editor.

It is a human right and prerequisite of any free press that the correspondence of journalists may not be searched, confiscated or otherwise manipulated. Placing your mail on the servers of your ISP or, even worse, a massively promiscuous consumer oriented service like Google pretty much waives that.

The only way of guaranteeing confidentiality and integrity is using something like PGP encryption, since even if you run your own server, any email you send or receive is passed around the Internet in plaintext. Funnily enough, even though I don't trust Google and don't use their services, I believe it is probably more secure to send email from one Gmail account to another Gmail account since the email then never leaves their datacenters and, additionally, are supposedly encrypted when moving around internally (compared to sending plaintext over the open Internet).

 

[NY_Dan]

I'm with Ranchu on this one. Anyone who owns a business, such as an event photographer, must pay Google to have their name listed within the first few pages of search results. It's not a neutral search engine -- to me in my humble opinion it's like blackmail. I also don't like the limited number of results per page. As for YouTube -- the ads are too much. As for mail servers -- my website hosting company, which has great flash sites for photographers, even at $17 per month, doesn't offer any mail servers -- instead all users get/have their own gmail, which seems to be pretty ubiquitous. Corporations are people, and pretty soon will probably have religious freedom too, maybe the big G will come out as, oh I don't know, SATAN!!!!! 🙂

 

[Griffin]

About the youtube thing... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140619/17465027631/that-story-youve-read-about-youtube-blocking-indie-artists-yeah-thats-not-accurate.shtml

N i c e !!

 

[Ranchu]

Nice!!!!!!!

Nice!!!!!!!

That article looks like the usual tech industry shilling to me. Here's else, and the actual contract. Of course, your pictures aren't mentioned here.

"Under the terms of the published version of the contract, indies must promise not only to never sue Google - under a “Covenant Not To Sue” - but give immunity to punters who continue to upload the label's own material to YouTube's massively popular video service.

Why does this matter? Getting your stuff taken down from YouTube is hugely costly and in practice, almost impossible, thanks to "safe harbour" provisions designed to protect ISPs and other service providers in the mid-1990s, when the public internet was in its infancy. It requires an individual URL-by-URL take-down notice to be filed for each infringement. Google can continue to monetise the label's music via YouTube, even without the label's permission.

[...[

In theory Google has a content ID system that could block the unlicensed uploads - but nobody can compel it to use the system. It can stand around and whistle innocently while YouTube is populated with the same music over and over again.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...mafiastyle_contract_for_indie_music_revealed/


The contract.


http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/per...ing_wp_cron=1404170684.3288369178771972656250

Also.

"4. Now Google starts a subscription music service (supposedly called Pass on YouTube Music…no sorry, YouTube Music Pass). They offer indies a hillbilly deal and make a threat–if indies don’t take the terms, Google will shut off the sainted “monetization”–automatically. YouTube generates only paltry earnings on a per stream basis–which only mean anything if you are the kind of company that gets a huge advance for massive aggregation of “content” and probably some nonrecoupable “technology fees” and other goodies.

But note: the real threat here is that YouTube will leave the videos up and force the indies to send a URL by URL DMCA notice. YouTube can cut off the money automatically–one URL by URL basis. But somehow they can’t manage to take down the unauthorized videos automatically.


This shows up their DMCA abuse for what it really is: notice and shakedown."


https://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/tag/notice-and-shakedown/

https://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/

 

[Ranchu]

They're likely going to offer to put your pics earlier in the slideshow for a fee, or maybe you won't be able to afford that. There'll be tons of crap photos from getty/microsoft before anyone ever sees yours. Page 443 = NICE!!!!!