Ask HN: Google is confusing me with others in a harmful way – what can I do?
Santosh83 2021-08-18 10:41:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
As others suggested, this needs to hit the court and be brought to the notice of regulators too. What if one day this deceptive "knowledge box" gets someone lynched? Am sure this has already happened if the lens is broad enough. Nevertheless they cannot be allowed to associate random photos with unrelated content without repercussions. At the very least they should have a channel where the general public can reach them and they take prompt action based on the merits of the case.
It's laughable how feudal, unaccountable, unreachable and unregulated the tech industry is, while they have a deliberately cultivated oversized impact on society.
mebassett 2021-08-18 12:50:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]
bryanrasmussen 2021-08-18 13:55:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The next person Google does that too gets even more money!
Obviously this thread is evidence in the pastor's favor.
on edit: obviously the OP has been harmed by Google's actions, but I think the pastor can show they have been harmed more. Also being a pastor and stuff, it's a good thing Google is made of money.
AndreaVass 2021-08-18 15:15:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]
mebassett 2021-08-18 15:39:56 +0000 UTC [ - ]
AndreaVass 2021-08-18 16:09:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]
scrps 2021-08-18 16:38:36 +0000 UTC [ - ]
This is the second time in a few months that I have seen this issue crop up:
mebassett 2021-08-18 16:35:46 +0000 UTC [ - ]
it's easy to say "you should sue" but that's a lot more difficult in practice.
bryanrasmussen 2021-08-18 16:42:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Yes you could sue for that but I doubt that is what the pastor should sue for, as you said she was threatened after being mis-identfied as you, they were told of their error, they recognized it and removed her picture, then they put another one in of her again.
I think the pastor should talk to a lawyer from her state as to what she can sue for.
klyrs 2021-08-18 17:19:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I fear that this situation will not last. I just googled the name, and curiously, the knowledge panel has a little link that says "claim this knowledge panel." Do you see that option; have you tried exercising it?
rolandog 2021-08-18 14:56:30 +0000 UTC [ - ]
In my case, I'm sure I've been rejected from job applications because anyone inexpertly Googling will find there are many people that have the same name as I do, but have been arrested for misdemeanors or even a murder.
Just last week, a guy from a BnB told me he was nervous because he thought I was a dangerous man because of the Google results he got.
So, it would seem that you are involuntarily being dragged to try to compete on Google's search results, even if you're a privacy-minded person.
ghaff 2021-08-18 15:22:10 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The only real (imperfect) thing you can if it becomes a problem is to adopt some working name variant that is unique. But that only really helps if you do it up-front.
ADDED: You're probably reasonably safe with a common name. No one expects Joe Smith to be unique. The real problem is when you share a name with only one or two people and they have a big and negative Internet presence.
dathinab 2021-08-18 14:47:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]
TomSwirly 2021-08-18 15:18:00 +0000 UTC [ - ]
"Having access to the courts" is in practice _just not a remedy_ for an individual fighting a $100 billion company.
> it's obviously a tort case
Yes.
> and probably has affected her ability to work as well
That is NOT how the law works, or every writer who got a bad review would sue the reviewer saying it "affected their ability to work".
> so I suppose that means Google should end up paying a lot.
Unless the woman was already making good money as a writer before the picture, and suddenly wasn't, Google will pay _nothing_.
My guess would be that Google would stall the lawsuit for a year or two, then turn off that picture and pay the woman a few grand, but not legal fees.
Then in the next software rev, some picture returns, and she's back where she started.
toast0 2021-08-18 17:25:01 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The suggested plantiff is the misassociated pastor. Google is effectively saying that the pastor wrote the book, which is untrue and Google was notified of this and acknowledged it, and then they started claiming the association again.
This claim is damaging to the pastor in a clear way, and could probably get damages.
I would agree that the author would seem to have a harder case though as damages would be harder to show.
bryanrasmussen 2021-08-18 18:05:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]
>That is NOT how the law works, or every writer who got a bad review would sue the reviewer saying it "affected their ability to work".
I thought it was quite clear that I was suggesting that the pastor should sue, and that it was a tort case for her. I was expecting that being a pastor - which is a semi-public role that it might have affected her work.
At any rate a tort is in no way like a book review and if you have a case where your work has been affected that may very well figure into the damages you will be awarded - if it didn't every medical malpractice suit wouldn't mention how their client was unable to work for months after the surgery.
robbrown451 2021-08-18 16:09:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]
This does not seem to fall under First Amendment protection.
auggierose 2021-08-18 13:17:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]
labster 2021-08-18 13:51:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Beaver117 2021-08-18 14:10:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]
sgregnt 2021-08-18 14:43:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]
brewdad 2021-08-18 16:13:07 +0000 UTC [ - ]
paulryanrogers 2021-08-18 16:05:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Though I'd agree that millionaires can still afford a house in most of the world.
zrobotics 2021-08-18 13:25:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Edit: This is Google, so what is actually needed is a legal team, not just one lawyer.
gpm 2021-08-18 13:39:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the legal standard is "reckless disregard for the truth", which seems like it has been met.
An entire legal team is not needed to litigate a simple case against Google, that's just not how the legal system works...
jrockway 2021-08-18 13:51:26 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The printer screwed up the ad, it was supposed to read "Works on contingency? No, money down!"
hpoe 2021-08-18 13:49:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
It has nothing to do with the merits of the case itself the tactic a company like Google employs is to just file reams of paperwork, discovery, delays, motion for this and that and each of them have to be considered and discussed and pushes thibgs out at least another day or two. They then use this tactic to extend cases into years.
Although a lawyer will work for a certain cut of the reward they need to eat in the meantime and won't because the case isn't being completed, and isn't going to trial, plus it eats up an enormous amount of time and effort for the lawyer involved cutting into other potential cases.
Eventually you have to call it quits and Google wins because the case never went to trial because Googles legal army was able to delay everything by abusing the legal system.
In short as the PHB from Dilbert once said "we're using the law to keep justice away."
That's what's happening right now.
gpm 2021-08-18 14:04:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
You can go look at cases involving Last Name v Alphabet on the recap archive, they are typically represented by a single attorney. Below are a few examples, I manually filtered out pro-se actions with no attorneys, and class actions, but other then that just went through the list of cases looking for cases with titles fitting the format:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8060229/parties/el-mawa...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6237000/parties/gottlie...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8054663/parties/olson-v...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8067002/parties/lee-v-g...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8133814/parties/kaufman...
TomSwirly 2021-08-18 15:34:07 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Your links would be more convincing if some of these were successful, completely cases.
The question is not, can you sue Google/Alphabet without a team of lawyers, but can you _successfully_ sue them.
TomSwirly 2021-08-18 15:25:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]
30% of nothing is nothing.
Can you explain why the writer would get _any money at all_?
What financial losses have they suffered? Are they being defamed? Has it affected their reputation?
---
Civil courts can't fix things like this! It will never be worth Google's time to correct these mistakes unless they are forced to by the government.
Searching the Internet finds thousands of cases against Google, 95%+ of which are settled in Google's favor. In fact, I only found one successful case like this, in 2012, but it was in Australia which has stronger rules on defamation, and Google had also implied that the plaintiff was a major figure in organized crime, not "simply" got the photo wrong.
https://slate.com/technology/2012/11/milorad-trkulja-austral...
auggierose 2021-08-18 16:51:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Bjartr 2021-08-18 14:46:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]
michaelgrafl 2021-08-18 13:36:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]
elliekelly 2021-08-18 14:53:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]
PaulHoule 2021-08-18 12:14:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]
theandrewbailey 2021-08-18 12:36:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]
the_lonely_road 2021-08-18 12:59:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]
There may have been some tomfoolery going on with that twitter guy as well and/or in the intervening time Google has improved the algorithms to handle people trying to get silly results. This is what I got trying to repeat his first query:
What year did Tom Hanks land on the moon
1995 William Broyles Jr. Apollo 13 is a 1995 American space docudrama film directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Ed Harris and Gary Sinise.
For his second query, it makes perfect sense to me why google returned what it did (still returning the answer he got, but notice he conventently cutoff the paragraph of text that includes the saturn 5 rocket and the statue of liberty, possibly the only document on the web to have both in the same sentence, explaining why you got that return.
which rocket launched the statue of liberty into the ocean? The Saturn V rocket The Saturn V rocket was 111 meters (363 feet) tall, about the height of a 36-story-tall building, and 18 meters (60 feet) taller than the Statue of Liberty. Fully fueled for liftoff, the Saturn V weighed 2.8 million kilograms (6.2 million pounds), the weight of about 400 elephants.Feb 21, 2018 Apollo 13 (film) - Wikipedia
gauravjain13 2021-08-18 13:20:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Sure, if you’re a someone trying to reverse-engineer the algorithm, then they’re probably pretty “relevant”. But that’s not how most people use Google. I’ll bet most of HN doesn’t use Google this way.
Maybe it’s a UI issue. It’d be nice if Google attached a little disclaimer that said: “These results are “relevant” to the way our algorithm produces these results, but there’s a chance they’re laughably incorrect, so please take with a bucket of salt.” Or better still, just show the search results, instead of being clever and pretending to understand what I’m looking for. Y’know, like back in the day, when it was such a delight switching from AltaVista/Yahoo! to Google. Good times.
p49k 2021-08-18 13:11:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
ghaff 2021-08-18 15:38:01 +0000 UTC [ - ]
CRConrad 2021-08-18 23:02:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Randall Munro illustrated several of his tweets with drawings from his not-entirely-unknown Web comic, so having to resort to a phrase like "this twitter person" feels rather weird.
rileymat2 2021-08-18 13:31:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]
PaulHoule 2021-08-18 17:55:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Back then it was clear you could get the right answer 50% of the time with some heuristics and people thought the glass was half empty.
Today you can get the right answer 50% of the time with some heuristic and people think the glass is half full.
ChoGGi 2021-08-18 13:10:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]
No tomfoolery here, no sir!
Completely unrelated URL: https://xkcd.com/386/
TomSwirly 2021-08-18 15:35:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]
It's a polite word for lying, most of the time.
wg0 2021-08-18 12:46:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]
So true from Twitter, Facebook to Google.
NoPicklez 2021-08-18 22:37:55 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Yet Google can knowingly build an algorithm which fuzzy matches people's images to content on the internet. Imagine if this was a rapist and the wrong image was posted against it.
TomSwirly 2021-08-18 15:11:32 +0000 UTC [ - ]
How would that do anything?
What sort of damages could you get for having a wrong photo up?
Google would simply run a delaying action with its lawyers for a few years, and then "concede", pay her a pittance, and then in the next rev of the search engine, the problem would simply re-appear, and she'd have to do it all over again for the rest of her life.
I worked at Google for five years. Here's how they think (as a corporation):
* Everything has to be completely automated with no human corrections. * So some percentage of errors, even horrible errors, are expected. * And it's completely unreasonable for anyone to expect otherwise. * So one of their mistakes fucks up your life and you try to do something about it, you're the asshole.
harlanji 2021-08-18 11:31:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
We collectively can by acting as technology shepherds for those around us, and providing better options. Not our job? I hear you. Technology is to be thought of as a tool, first of all--and a double-edged sword. I spent my high school years and beyond playing with it like a video game, but it's getting/gotten real.
In my experience they probably know who all of the potential shepherds are and have moats around them. There could even be instruments that isolate them via slightly "negative" biases that each seem legitimate when looked at through independent compartmentalized lenses, and amount to a "false light" being presented in search results through Algorithmic Fairness or similar. Their behavior could be manipulated as well, to look down upon those who they could help or encourage selfishness.
> they cannot be allowed to associate random photos with unrelated content without repercussions.
Whole heatedly agree. I'm experiencing various attacks from various parties; having spent 3 years homeless with half of that during the pandemic, I have indeed been physically isolated and thus had disproportionate affect from algorithms--"how am I presented to others?" is literally life or death, as there is no option for a physical presentation. My way off the streets before pandemic was to get retail jobs and save, but that is no longer possible without showers and with the "Simon Says" rules of pandemic in play. The algorithms literally own me.
> It's laughable how feudal, unaccountable, unreachable and unregulated the tech industry is
Studying law around some of these issues in recent years, "false light" might be the angle to attack with for these cases. A person experiencing literal identity theft, meaning ruin being laid to their "root identity" (physical body and legal fiction name), has had a false light painted about them to their associates by malicious parties; seems similar, albeit it could be stupidity or malice from big tech depending how the algorithm "views" a person.
A new personal view is that South Korea did it right by requiring ID to get online. I was appalled when my university friends told me in 2010ish (plus a SK friend's laptop was still confiscated at the airport upon return to the US). There is no way to fully recover a relationship damaged by a false light or impersonator, and effectively no way to get accountability unless we can get a service built around NSA's alleged data in Provo that can catch the baddies and create an impact report or similar. Still, many topics have a "toothpaste can't go back into the tube" nature about them, so one can only really move on from the damage without hope of reconnecting. IDs tied to everything could put the brakes on a lot of bad activity.
Concretely shepherds could start by distributing YubiKeys and RasPis, bringing back key signing parties, and starting RSS feeds. I didn't realize how rich I was as a techie until I had to go back to living on retail money. I'd have invested a lot more into my Day 1's if I realized how hard they have it--I went straight from my parents' house to a townhouse without renting by age 21, could've done more to rise the water for everyone.
garbagetime 2021-08-18 11:47:36 +0000 UTC [ - ]
lotsofpulp 2021-08-18 12:25:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]
More and more people switching to DuckDuckGo as a default and using Google only when necessary would get the ball rolling. Gmail is pretty replaceable with any other email, although I can see many people not changing from it out of laziness.
Google drive apps are pretty nice, but I doubt most people use them much at all, and Microsoft/apple offer alternatives. Google maps can eventually be replaced if people started using the alternatives more.
It will take time, but seems doable if more and more people keep changing habits.
indigochill 2021-08-18 12:36:08 +0000 UTC [ - ]
What about Vimeo? Or for a more federated approach, PeerTube?
From the last conversation I had around PeerTube, the main objection I got was that content creators would probably lose a bunch of traffic which they switched, which is true, but that's effectively the same argument as the hassle involved with switching off Gmail.
bluGill 2021-08-18 12:56:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I don't know how to solve this problem.
addingnumbers 2021-08-18 14:27:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
When the network effect shifts, it does it gradually with long siphoning effects, not all at once.
lotsofpulp 2021-08-18 12:46:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
People use gmail for free, and there are no network effects.
Content creators use YouTube due to its ability to sell ads, but I am not familiar with the alternatives to know if they are capable of handling the amount of people and ads YouTube serves. It seems like a more difficult problem than alternatives to email/maps/drive/search.
Kihashi 2021-08-18 13:35:46 +0000 UTC [ - ]
huh? There's a massive difference between those two things. YouTube provides discoverability for your content. Gmail does not. Besides the loss of existing viewers in a platform switch, creators would also lose a huge audience of potential viewers of their content both from recommendations and from search results. Sure, there are content creators who build up followings, but lots of people will get a handful of videos that become popular results for certain searches. Those come entirely from searches and "related" listings.
Further, changing emails doesn't require people emailing you to use a completely different client to do so.
bavell 2021-08-18 13:18:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
jmnicolas 2021-08-18 12:45:45 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I wish it wasn't true.
jmnicolas 2021-08-18 12:44:43 +0000 UTC [ - ]
This fits me exactly, I ungoogled myself completely except for YT. There is no viable alternative, and I'd rather not watch TV again so I stick reluctantly with YT for now.
GoblinSlayer 2021-08-18 13:06:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]
veidr 2021-08-18 12:09:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]
“We, and I personally, believe
very strongly that more information
is better, even if it’s wrong,”
said Eric Schmidt, executive
chairman of Google[1]
I am reminded of this quote over and over when I encounter those things that are (TIL) absurdly called "knowledge panels". They often confidently present completely wrong information about even trivial things (like the weight of a specific camera or lens).It is distressing (but not really surprising) to hear they are having disastrous consequences about more complex and obviously ambiguous queries, queries that no so-called "AI" should ever be answering, without a prominent disclaimer that the information was generated by a fuzzy-logic computer program without the ability to actually comprehend the topic at hand, and that therefore the information may be completely and utterly incorrect. (Such a disclaimer would obviously destory this "feature", though.)
I've always charitably assumed that Schmidt was trying to make some point that is less insane than the quote first sounds, like "correct information will eventually triumph over incorrect information if you just give people all the 'information' you can". But Google increasingly offers me information in ways that seem like he and they just, like, literally meant that quote as it reads.
(Also, even if that was the point he was trying to make, it's been thoroughly disproven over the past several years.)
[1]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/17/google-eric-schmidt-cyb...
foxfluff 2021-08-18 14:02:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]
(I guess that in his position it's pretty easy to point out this is news concerning another person.. good luck if you're a random nobody)
underdeserver 2021-08-18 13:02:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Anyone who uses Google Search often knows that the results you get are generally right... 95% of the time or so. Even if they tried their damndest, they wouldn't be able to get anywhere near 100% correct. In fact, CGP Grey made the point in several of his YouTube videos and podcasts that even peer-reviewed, accepted papers and history books are sometimes wrong or based on flimsy evidence.
What Google search results tell me are what beliefs there are in the world. Many times you'll get multiple results (e.g. multiple pictures of different people under Image Search).
Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical - I want to buy this lady's book. Does it really matter what she looks like? - and when it is, I know that sometimes Google is wrong and depending on how much it matters, I double-check with other sources.
yesenadam 2021-08-18 13:38:45 +0000 UTC [ - ]
You heard it here first, folks.
edit: (added because it's now hard to read above)
> I work for Google.
underdeserver 2021-08-18 14:05:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]
So I'll rephrase: In the context of accomplishing a certain task, the accuracy of some information is crucial and the accuracy of other information is not. For instance, if I'm looking to buy a book about Andrea's experience, I care that she's a woman, that she lives in a western country similar to my own. It doesn't particularly matter to me, in this context, what she looks like, so if I see the wrong photo - it's no big deal.
Obviously, the truth matters. And Google can't know what context you care about. But the only way to never be wrong is to never show anything at all. In other words, if you try to be useful and aggregate and show any information at all, you're going to be wrong here and there.
Yes, Google should continue working and improving and getting to as high an accuracy as possible, but it's never going to be 100%.
mden 2021-08-18 14:41:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]
1. I find the original quote, at least as presented without additional context, pretty difficult to see as anything but nonsensical. You following it up with "Honestly, I think he's right" and "Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical" is leaning into the same nonsensical position even if you try to cover it with additional context of, well actually there's still useful information.
2. This post is specifically about a woman (or in fact several) who have been harmed from this notion of truth not being critical. And you're doubling down on this with a not so relevant view centered around how it's benefiting you and not about the collateral damage. No one is saying perfect information is possible, but in the very least Google needs to be responsible for negatively affecting people's lives and it needs to provide an easy and reliable way to address situations like this.
djoldman 2021-08-18 15:01:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
This is a cherry-picked task. If we switch the task from "I'm looking to buy a book about Andrea's experience" to "I'm looking to know more about Andrea, including what she looks like" then the Google response is worse than an irrelevant one: it is a definitely wrong answer.
And our new task isn't something unlikely or fanciful: there are surely people who have read her book who want to know more about her and who might google her.
Google will surely remove this as they should.
CRConrad 2021-08-18 23:16:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]
This totally disregards that many people search for stuff without any specific "task" in mind at all, and even more so that in controversial contexts like this, probably quite a lot of people with the explicit intent not to contribute to the author's happiness or cash box.
> Yes, Google should continue working and improving and getting to as high an accuracy as possible, but it's never going to be 100%.
What Google desperately needs to work and improve on, far more than mere accuracy, is some goddarn freaking humility: When you know you're not 100% sure to be presenting accurate results, stop pompously calling them "knowledge".
Try, for a change, not to be evil.
6gvONxR4sf7o 2021-08-18 14:34:55 +0000 UTC [ - ]
> the only way to never be wrong is to never show anything at all.
How much error does this excuse? Any amount? How's this even helpful if you don't draw that line?
And it absolutely doesn't justify a lack of recourse when it does go wrong.
fighterpilot 2021-08-18 16:14:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]
nwsm 2021-08-18 17:29:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
And yet here we are in a thread about a woman whose life is being very negatively impacted by the misinformation.
breakfastduck 2021-08-18 14:11:38 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Its no wonder we've got ourselves in this mess when we allow people with those kind of opinions to run a search and marketing company.
underdeserver 2021-08-18 14:23:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The truth matters. It matters ten times more when you're Google, where many, many people go to get answers for questions, and it's a deep abuse of trust when Google shows lies.
I phrased my opinion badly, and I was wrong to do so. Mea culpa.
Also, I'm a lowly engineer. I don't manage anyone, and I don't "run" anything, except, you know, unit tests on my machine and stuff.
CrazyStat 2021-08-18 14:08:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]
> Most of the time the truth itself is not super critical - I want to harass the author of this book. Does it really matter what she looks like?
Yes. Yes, it does matter. Falsely identifying the author after she has repeatedly tried to get it corrected, which has resulted in unrelated people being "attacked" (their words) is an unmitigated ill.
alisonkisk 2021-08-18 17:09:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]
CrazyStat 2021-08-18 17:24:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]
colinmhayes 2021-08-18 13:55:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
underdeserver 2021-08-18 14:09:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]
hnthrowaway2 2021-08-18 10:10:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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?
belter 2021-08-18 10:31:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]
https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/tracking-the-googl...
zozbot234 2021-08-18 10:16:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]
anon321321323 2021-08-18 14:45:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
But the robots can't help. The humans acting as robots can't help either.
Need a human involved. But they're too busy doing... other things.
CRConrad 2021-08-18 23:19:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]
that_guy_iain 2021-08-18 10:40:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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.
Zvez 2021-08-18 10:46:08 +0000 UTC [ - ]
that_guy_iain 2021-08-18 11:00:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Small correction the person who was pictured who lost their job lost it for sending threats to OP. They deserve the blame.
And since your entire point is based on someone losing their job over the knowledge panel then it seems like your point is moot?
HeJAnQuer 2021-08-18 11:27:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]
that_guy_iain 2021-08-18 12:39:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]
* It's subject matter makes it very clear there would be angry people.
* OP choose to publish this under a name that is linked to lots of other people. Instead of a nonsense name linked to no one.
* OP chooses not to claim the knowledge panel for her book.
There are lots of things OP chose to do. The harm being done is partially at the hands of OP. OP isn't entirely blameless here and other people are getting threats and harassment because of OP and Google, but mostly because of OP.
I get that it's a hard subject but if you're going to go write about a cult either do it completely anonymously or do it publically. This middle ground stuff OP is trying is clearly causing harm to other people.
corpdronejuly 2021-08-18 13:08:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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?
that_guy_iain 2021-08-18 13:38:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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.
corpdronejuly 2021-08-18 15:35:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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.
that_guy_iain 2021-08-18 16:57:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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.
CRConrad 2021-08-18 23:38:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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.
tremon 2021-08-18 17:08:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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.
mellavora 2021-08-18 13:49:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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.
that_guy_iain 2021-08-18 17:04:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]
> 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.
CRConrad 2021-08-18 23:43:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]
> 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.
inetknght 2021-08-18 14:05:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]
You and Google are not (and should not be) judge, jury, or executioner. Your comment here suggests you want to be.
anchpop 2021-08-18 14:47:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]
inetknght 2021-08-18 16:53:36 +0000 UTC [ - ]
hnthrowaway2 2021-08-18 10:51:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]
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.
Do you not care?
tartoran 2021-08-18 14:16:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]
CRConrad 2021-08-18 23:26:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
"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?
kinard 2021-08-18 08:04:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
Then post it online and claim it as your own. That way nobody gets hurt and you can move on.
Should you have to do this? No of course not, but sometimes it's easier to win a small battle.
Good luck.
belter 2021-08-18 10:54:55 +0000 UTC [ - ]
https://static01.nyt.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/google_brin...
and call it Andrea.
Clampower 2021-08-18 09:00:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]
dn3500 2021-08-18 14:22:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]
But I bet if you asked permission and explained what it's for you would get an approval.
Robadob 2021-08-18 10:18:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]
JoblessWonder 2021-08-18 17:25:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]
> 3.2 Derivative Works. You may specify that additional or different terms apply to the use, reproduction, and distribution of your derivative works of the Work (“Your Terms”) only if (a) Your Terms provide that the use limitation in Section 3.3 applies to your derivative works, and (b) you identify the specific derivative works that are subject to Your Terms. Notwithstanding Your Terms, this License (including the redistribution requirements in Section 3.1) will continue to apply to the Work itself.
> 3.3 Use Limitation. The Work and any derivative works thereof only may be used or intended for use non-commercially. The Work or derivative works thereof may be used or intended for use by Nvidia or its affiliates commercially or non-commercially. As used herein, “non-commercially” means for research or evaluation purposes only.
input_sh 2021-08-18 10:16:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]
As for copyright, who knows. No legal precedent that I know of.
dom96 2021-08-18 13:15:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]
achairapart 2021-08-18 09:16:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Why not a work of graphic/art? A unicorn perhaps?
itronitron 2021-08-18 09:59:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]
_0ffh 2021-08-18 12:50:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]
yvoschaap 2021-08-18 10:17:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]
achairapart 2021-08-18 11:31:45 +0000 UTC [ - ]
As far as I know, this worked at least for people like Banksy, Vincent van Gogh, the Zodiac killer and a few others.
sumosudo 2021-08-18 10:31:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]
shaggyfrog 2021-08-18 13:20:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Until you generate a photo that actually does look like someone, and that person becomes targeted as a result.
anchpop 2021-08-18 14:52:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]
shaggyfrog 2021-08-18 15:01:06 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Unlikely, yes, but not impossible.
> I mean at that point you’re advocating for the author to not have any identity
I am not advocating that at all. Please don't put words in my mouth.
iandanforth 2021-08-18 12:49:38 +0000 UTC [ - ]
As with many things that touch on legal matters submitting paperwork in this manner can be tremendously helpful. Having a police report, or having submitted a complaint to IC3 and contacting a companies legal department (mentioning that the report has been submitted) can provoke a stronger and faster response than you might get elsewhere.
In addition because Google took action to remove the panel previously there is a stronger argument to be made that they know what they are doing is wrong. So not only do you have multiple parties who have been either impersonated, misrepresented, or harmed you have an actor that arguably has admitted fault and demonstrated the ability to remedy the situation.
ag8 2021-08-18 12:14:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]
db48x 2021-08-18 03:07:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]
mrweasel 2021-08-18 11:52:04 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Help the pastor sue Google, she’s less likely to be tempted by a large amount of money and settle out of court.
Dumblydorr 2021-08-18 13:09:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
corpdronejuly 2021-08-18 13:24:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]
duprat 2021-08-18 08:53:43 +0000 UTC [ - ]
wizzwizz4 2021-08-18 09:08:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
zozbot234 2021-08-18 09:11:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]
OJFord 2021-08-18 11:46:06 +0000 UTC [ - ]
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=Andrea+Vassell
So OP would need to create multiple entries, for the wrong people too? And since Google currently displays this panel without it coming from a Wikidata entry, how does it then know that this new Wikidata entry ties up to what it wants to show; that the image it is showing is related to one of the other new Wikidata entries?
ghaff 2021-08-18 16:51:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]
OJFord 2021-08-18 17:09:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The reason it's interesting / useful for things like 'knowledge panel' is perhaps clearer if you look at a more complete entry, such as for 'apple': https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q89 and something on using the SPARQL API, such as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_tutorial or https://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2020/01/29/newbie-guide-qu....
As I say, I haven't actually got around to using it at all myself, but that's why I hold it in higher regard than 'not great'. :)
wizzwizz4 2021-08-18 09:19:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]
zozbot234 2021-08-18 09:34:56 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Dumblydorr 2021-08-18 13:07:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Lockal 2021-08-18 14:13:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Assuming that:
1) "Andrea Vassell" is a pseudonym (so that Google won't confirm claim for panel) or author just does not want send any extra information to Google
2) There are multiple "Andrea Vassell" writers, fitting Wikidata eligibility criteria
The solution would be:
1) Find origins of wrong images
2) Create a Wikidata item for each author and link each item to pages, which contain relevant images with https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P973
3) It is a good idea to create a page, describing original "Andrea Vassell" starting with a definition in a form of "Andrea Vassell is an NNNan writer, publisher of non-fiction books ...etc...". This page may contain the images of books (so that final card may look like https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/122rd6_8&hl=en)
Step-by-step example:
1) I was notified that Google Knowledge Graph mixes Russian historian Andrey Simonov and American economist Andrey Simonov (wrong page snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20201202182248/https://www.googl...)
2) I created https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q41802044, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q103187106, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q103378461 and improved https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4419737 (as all of them are passing notability requirements)
3) After few weeks Google removed photo of economist from historian (https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/1hb_dk0rq&hl=en), because this photo was attached to economist card https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/11fyy5b4yb&hl=en
Disclosure: I'm a Wikidata editor with 10M+ edits (mostly tool-assisted, of course). Have no relation with Google, other than hundreds of unsuccessful attempts to communicate with a brick wall of Google's contact form.
corpdronejuly 2021-08-18 15:39:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I get why we might to help the various Ms Vassell's who are caught up in this though, but why are we pretending that Google is being reasonable here?
Lockal 2021-08-18 16:41:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]
sdevonoes 2021-08-18 11:12:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]
shadowgovt 2021-08-18 11:56:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
... But I doubt there are grounds for a lawsuit. Google is not impersonating the OP... They are stating an untrue fact in a public fact directory. I don't know of any precedent for suing the phone book for misreporting somebody's phone number. The back stop against such errors has traditionally been in the marketplace itself... A source of "facts" that is consistently wrong grows a bad reputation and is no longer trusted or used by the common person. At the broadest stretch of the imagination, they might be guilty of libel, but the victim would have to prove damages (if the damages are sufficiently egregious, libel can be proven without intent, but that usually involves statements "vicious of malice," and I think you'd be hard-pressed to fit "we think this is a photo of the individual in question" into that category without blazing a hell of a lot of new precedent).
I suspect a lawsuit in the space would be a lot of money thrown at no beneficial outcome.
mebassett 2021-08-18 12:48:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
But the legal system is not fixed. Culture changes and the context in which we interpret laws change. There might not be precedent for getting a number wrong in a phone book, but we barely use phone books anymore, and market mechanisms don't work. I agree with you that it might be difficult to prove standing (the persons whose photos were used were likely to have standing, I think, but IANAL), but it _is_ important that we bring these cases to court and try to gain a new legal precedent.
ghaff 2021-08-18 14:48:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I'm not sure how you fix that.
sullivandanny 2021-08-18 18:22:10 +0000 UTC [ - ]
We allow for knowledge panels to be claimed. I checked, and yours isn't. This explains more how to do that: https://support.google.com/knowledgepanel/answer/7534902
When a panel is claimed, then when we get feedback about change requests or possible issues, we know they are coming from a verified source and can work better to resolve the issues. This explains more about that process: https://support.google.com/knowledgepanel/answer/7534842
Normally people just don't like the image we show, so we have a mechanism for them to upload a preferred image. That's very easy to use. But in your case, I understand your reasons for not wanting to have an image used at all. I believe if you had filed feedback explaining that, the image would have been removed.
I'll check on this further, but right now, I see that no image is being shown at all. So I suspect that we've gotten the feedback here somehow and taken action to block any image from showing at all. But again, I'll check on this.
somethingor 2021-08-18 19:11:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I believe you’re wrong about that
CRConrad 2021-08-19 00:03:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]
So, you're claiming they didn't say they didn't want a picture? Have you read their correspondence with Google on the matter, or how do you know this?
zepearl 2021-08-18 21:32:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Personally, I think that there are 2 separate issues: displaying/generating such a panel (including a pic) + the correctness of the informations displayed/generated.
Maybe knowledge panels should just not be generated for sensitive topics (e.g. identify "sensitive material" through keywords?) as in that context the potential for mistakes and/or subjective opinions can be quite high. Or maybe panels containing potential sensitive material should be checked manually before being published and references to the sources of the text/pics should be shown clearly (e.g. like Wikipedia does).
In general, it's absolutely too easy to require the affected people to react & try to get things fixed - people might even be completely unaware of "bad" things being shown about them on Google, they might just feel the after-effect of that. The mistake(s) in this case originated apparently at Google, the user had apparently no involvement with the generation of wrong informations, Google must fix it.
Cheers :)
zibzab 2021-08-19 07:05:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Knowledge panels shouldn't be generated for people period.
Wondering how many job applications have been thrown out due to the Knowledge panel pictures, without the person involved ever realising..
el-salvador 2021-08-18 22:04:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Every search query related to prices/curtency are shown with the wrong local currency.
For example, this query, using a Salvadoran IP address:
https://www.google.com/search?q=precio+bitcoin
Will show bitcoin price in SVC (Salvadoran Colon), the former currency that was phased out in 2001. The current currency in El Salvador is USD, so prices should be show in US Dollars.
sp332 2021-08-18 01:48:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Even if you tweet at Danny Sullivan @dannysullivan they probably can't/won't help you. But that's the most direct method I can think of. https://mobile.twitter.com/PatentScholar/status/142519790286...
bhartzer 2021-08-18 16:35:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]
sp332 2021-08-18 16:42:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]
bhartzer 2021-08-19 14:31:08 +0000 UTC [ - ]
rc77 2021-08-18 07:02:04 +0000 UTC [ - ]
mellavora 2021-08-18 14:02:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]
google published false information which -it has been informed is wrong and harmful -it knows is wrong and harmful (evidence: they corrected it)
Google does this at scale. You seem to be implying that this means all people now have a burden to 'claim' their google panel so they can correct google mistakes. And that you have to claim the panel google's way.
bhartzer 2021-08-18 16:31:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The claiming is an option given to entities as a courtesy. If they claim the Knowledge Panel (KP), they are trusted a bit more to make changes to the data that appears there.
rc77 2021-08-18 21:41:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
If you want to fix the photo issue, I would guess claiming the panel would be the easiest way. If you want to fix it once and for all, you should probably advocate for a law that would fix that. Asking nonsensical questions online probably not gonna change anything.
CRConrad 2021-08-19 00:12:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
True, true. As ever, though, the devil is in the details; and as so often, the details are matters of definition: What exactly is a "nonsensical question"?
To many of us, it's a question like: "Did you claim your panel?"
iooi 2021-08-18 14:16:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]
You're asking how a component on Google's website belongs to Google? What?
mrweasel 2021-08-18 11:00:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]
op00to 2021-08-18 11:12:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]
mrweasel 2021-08-18 11:41:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]
In this case I guess the publisher could help, but not everyone have that option.
Also aren’t Google violating copy-right by pulling random images?
luckylion 2021-08-18 11:21:07 +0000 UTC [ - ]
ghaff 2021-08-18 13:17:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Name collisions of somewhat uncommon but not unique names were a thing long before there was a Web, much less a Google. A friend of mine in NYC shared a name with a local individual who got into a very public spat with the owner of a local sports team. My friend literally got death threats left on his answering machine.
I'm not sure what the answer is. People should probably think more carefully about putting their True Name out there attached to writing and social media presences if they don't otherwise want to have a public presence. But that's pretty useless advice retrospectively and, of course, doesn't help the people confused with someone who does want a public presence.
It's easy to lay this on Google. But if you share a name with a few other people, especially if one of them is notorious in some way, you're going to get conflated with them in searches by any search provider if e.g. a recruiter plugs your name in--so just hope you're not likely to be confused with them.
oefrha 2021-08-18 16:20:30 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The knowledge panel problem is easy to fix (by the right person). The assholes-gonna-asshole problem is hard to fix.
ghaff 2021-08-18 17:04:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]
meeech 2021-08-18 15:40:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]
ghaff 2021-08-18 15:54:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]
But if you have an unusual name but share $FIRSTNAME $LASTNAME with a couple other people and one of them has been convicted of notable $CRIME, that person will turn up in searches for your name. I mean, that's what search engines do. It's up to the searcher to figure out--if they care enough to--that you are a different person.
But if your name is Jeffrey Epstein and all someone finds when they search on your name is that Jeffrey Epstein, I'm not sure what Google, Microsoft, or DuckDuckGo is supposed to do about that.
I'm not sure what accountability you're looking for in a straight web search. (Again leaving knowledge panels out of it.) You plugged in a name and a search engine returned the most popular/authoritative results for that name.
fogihujy 2021-08-18 12:25:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]
They're displaying my full name, along with an invalid phone number at my address on Google Maps. That means my name has been on multiple maps used by others using Google Maps as a map source.
I've tried contacting them through their "remove my data form" but they don't reply. I would like to try something else before reporting them to the authorities and risking getting my Google account shut down.
sofixa 2021-08-18 12:43:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Dumblydorr 2021-08-18 13:05:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]
sofixa 2021-08-18 13:22:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]
DecoPerson 2021-08-18 14:02:38 +0000 UTC [ - ]
fogihujy 2021-08-19 06:10:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]
asddubs 2021-08-18 02:56:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]
sofixa 2021-08-18 13:01:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]
CRConrad 2021-08-19 00:18:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]
DoreenMichele 2021-08-18 01:52:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]
One way to mitigate inaccurate stuff being online about you is to try to get more accurate info ranked as the top search. This HN post may help but you might also need to do an SEO blog post or something.
I'm sorry you are going through this.
totetsu 2021-08-18 02:52:00 +0000 UTC [ - ]
fallinghawks 2021-08-18 03:58:56 +0000 UTC [ - ]
zozbot234 2021-08-18 07:13:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
account42 2021-08-18 11:02:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Sounds exactly how they handle false positives in the Google Safe Browsing list.
I get that they want to avoid costs by automating everything, but if the automation has already failed for something it should not be allowed to modify that again without human review.
EricE 2021-08-19 15:24:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
sjg007 2021-08-18 10:36:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
chamakits 2021-08-18 03:06:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
This is likely not exactly the same, but you can hopefully be able to either request this yourself, or guide the pastor to fill in this request for possibly removing some of this data. I know this isn't exactly what you likely need, but hopefully it helps some.
AussieWog93 2021-08-18 13:11:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Your post has probably been seen by a few dozen senior engineers at Google and I'm sure someone is already working to fix the issue.
MaysonL 2021-08-18 14:40:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
chudi 2021-08-18 16:44:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Here is the link maybe it's interesting to you. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Cristina-Fernandez-Score...
acheron 2021-08-18 04:48:26 +0000 UTC [ - ]
duxup 2021-08-18 14:51:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I assume this is what happened: Google associated a local sports team with a stadium (old) that they used to play at, and then somehow associated the new stadium with the old stadium. The names of the stadiums were different, addresses different, they were miles away from each other, addresses on the team website were all at the new stadium... but the knowledge panel treated them as one and the same and the location ... the location of the old stadium, and the panel even swapped names here and there.
I used their feedback widget a number of times to notify them. Then for a day it would be fixed .... and somehow whatever script or 'ai' would takeover again and connect the wrong dots again and the address and names would be a jumble / wrong. I kept checking it as it was pretty amusing.
I assume someone at google had to eventually intervene, maybe many times to get things right, perhaps identify a wonky data set or something.
I assumed it only got fixed because it was a major location / sports team.
It is probably amazing tech behind the scenes but the associations / mistakes are just way too high to be left to the status quo of "no customer service, too bad for you if it is wrong". The human consequences in some cases is just too high.
bhartzer 2021-08-18 16:15:10 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The first thing that needs to be done is that YOU need to claim the KP. It appears that it's not claimed right now, and you can have control over what appears there (and suggest edits/changes/updates). If you haven't claimed the KP, then you can just leave feedback that seems to just go into a "black hole" and it's never addressed.
I know there are ways legally to deal with this, but the best way to deal with it is to claim the Knowledge Panel.
Then, there are ways to increase the knowledge that is in the Knowledge Graph so that the information there is not confusing--they're reaching for a photo, for example, and there are ways to overcome that. For example, you can use other photos (even they're not photos of yourself) to get them to populate on the KG and of someone else.
The issue here is the Knowledge Graph doesn't have enough information about you, so it's just taking the next most "prominent" data that it has. You can help define the information in the Knowledge Graph by feeding it information. You don't need to be "fighting" the KG, you should be doing quite the opposite: give it the right information so it's correct.
The Knowledge Graph is not all controlled by Google--other search engines use it, such as Bing. The issue appears to be with Google's Knowledge Panel, but the issue is actually with the Knowledge Graph itself, and not Google.
The Knowledge Graph is made up of sources (see the list here: https://kalicube.pro/trusted-sources) and by working on your own KG entry and feeding it more information, you'll be strengthening your own KG entry for your name, and all these issues with confusion and the wrong information being displayed will go away.
There's really no need to do anything legally around this, it's just a case that the KG doesn't have enough information about to make the right decisions on what to display. I don't see the FTC, BBB or IC3 helping in any way. Fastest way to correct this is to feed the KG the right information.
AndreaVass 2021-08-18 17:45:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]
For example, The New York Times cannot publish the wrong photo of a person inside of an article, then demand that someone turn over their driver’s license, a selfie, and other personal identifying information in order to have the false information deleted.
Btw, there was no guarantee they would have deleted it if I had claimed it- they said they would use their discretion. If you are going to publish something, the burden is on you to verify the information. If it cannot be verified, it cannot be published. That is not my opinion but basic journalistic ethics and the law. The problem is Google is claiming their Knowledge Panel is simply a random search result and they are not responsible for it.
I didn’t want to turn over my personal information to a corporation that had already been careless in this situation.
Furthermore, it was clear that me and the pastor were two different people as both of us have been written about in the press and have different LinkedIn accounts. Also, once they saw their knowledge graph had produced several different results, they should have deleted the the panel altogether since it was clearly not working. To leave false information up because I didn’t “claim” the knowledge panel is unethical and against the law. Forget about the fact that they are currently being sued by 36 states and the Department of Justice for unfair business practices. I wouldn’t advise anyone to give them a driver’s license and a selfie etc.
bhartzer 2021-08-19 14:33:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]
If google were a publisher or news or media organization it would be different.
CRConrad 2021-08-19 00:27:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]
> I know there are ways legally to deal with this, but the best way to deal with it is to claim the Knowledge Panel.
Can't you even hear how ass-backwards this sounds?
The existence and wrongness of this shitty "panel" thing shouldn't be the OP's problem. She didn't build it, didn't order it, didn't ask for it, didn't want it. It is wholly, solely, only and alonely Google's problem, Google's fault, and Google's responsibility to clean up their mess.
Stop putting the onus on the OP; stop painting the "solution" in the terms -- on the terms -- of the perpetrator.
useragent86 2021-08-18 17:24:46 +0000 UTC [ - ]
> There's really no need to do anything legally around this, it's just a case that the KG doesn't have enough information about to make the right decisions on what to display. I don't see the FTC, BBB or IC3 helping in any way. Fastest way to correct this is to feed the KG the right information.
You may be right, but that procedure sounds an awful lot like, "If we make enough sacrifices to the sky god, maybe it will send rain, and the crops will grow again." Is this the future of having access to accurate knowledge? Throw text at a black-box AI and hope it changes its output?
actually_a_dog 2021-08-18 11:28:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Zvez 2021-08-18 10:38:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
agilob 2021-08-18 12:15:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]
cencio5 2021-08-18 03:01:44 +0000 UTC [ - ]
spuz 2021-08-18 10:13:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Retric 2021-08-18 11:13:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Get the first person who was attacked to be party to the lawsuit. It’s clearly lible as it’s harming their reputation leading to an attack and they are aware it was incorrect the second time they make that connection.
cpach 2021-08-18 07:10:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]
igammarays 2021-08-18 08:11:04 +0000 UTC [ - ]
vincnetas 2021-08-18 09:10:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
c22 2021-08-18 13:12:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]
hnfong 2021-08-18 18:06:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]
It's pretty much intended that way, by design. Power to the people, who in turn gives money and clicks to megacorps that concentrate the power and obliged to answer to nobody except their P/L spreadsheet.
exporectomy 2021-08-18 10:23:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]
AndreaVass 2021-08-18 15:20:36 +0000 UTC [ - ]
EricE 2021-08-19 15:40:11 +0000 UTC [ - ]
hnthrowaway2 2021-08-19 08:45:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]
dathinab 2021-08-18 14:45:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Let somebody create a pseudo realistic drawing of a imaginary person which is "not you" and try to make Google use that. The not the drawing looks like it could be a photo with a filter the better.
I have no idea if this will work, and it's not right that such a think might be needed but the idea is " if Google wants a picture give it a picture (of a person which doesn't exist)".
rrauenza 2021-08-18 15:01:01 +0000 UTC [ - ]
codegeek 2021-08-18 13:56:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]
tartoran 2021-08-18 14:41:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]
hnfong 2021-08-18 18:01:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]
If it does, it's arguably a smart thing to do as long as the positives is greater than the negatives from the backlash due to wrong content...
guru4consulting 2021-08-18 14:50:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]
agent327 2021-08-18 19:16:55 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Doing ridiculous things is often the only way to deal with ridiculous problems. This seems to fit all your constraints (i.e. your face isn't visible online, and Google stops bothering innocent bystanders). That it isn't really you - who is to know? What is the harm?
DangerousPie 2021-08-18 11:20:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
tsukikage 2021-08-18 11:33:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]
lloydatkinson 2021-08-18 12:41:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]
heavyset_go 2021-08-18 19:23:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I know this isn't a solution, but it might be worthwhile to reach out to your representatives and your state's Attorney General office.
neptunedesert 2021-08-18 14:49:04 +0000 UTC [ - ]
https://www.meritalk.com/articles/sen-wyden-to-reintroduce-a...
samirillian 2021-08-18 15:51:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]
From the google knowledge graph wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Knowledge_Graph
> There is no official documentation of how the Google Knowledge Graph is implemented...It has been criticized for providing answers without source attribution or citation.
The Google Knowledge Graph is built on an internally defined semantics or ontology, which specifies different kinds of things represented online, like human beings. It's built on Leibniz-inspired companies like the ironically-named Freebase, which they acquired in 2010. They are cagey about the implementation, because they doubtless have some "secret-sauce" ontology. Feels weird when Google Engineers are in charge of defining essences.
butler14 2021-08-18 12:44:45 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Searching from the UK and I'm still seeing a picture of the reverend.
I've clicked the 'feedback' button and send a note to Google to flag the issue and suggest anyone else who wants to help does too.
It's not clear from your post whether this has already been tried, but I would expect the best thing to do is take ownership by clicking "Claim this knowledge panel" and working forward from there.
sireat 2021-08-18 13:51:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Can one claim and opt out of knowledge panel at all?
My knowledge panel is bare except for my birth date which is correct but not something I want to go around sharing publicly.
Can I remove my birth date from the knowledge panel?
Should I claim the panel and try to add generic information or just ignore it? I would much prefer the 2nd option.
intel_brain 2021-08-18 12:26:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]
timClicks 2021-08-18 10:26:26 +0000 UTC [ - ]
madaxe_again 2021-08-18 08:20:26 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I’ve had people think it’s me, several times, and likely more times than I know.
I’ve contacted google a few times, but like with most things google, it’s just a black hole.
swiley 2021-08-18 16:45:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Hopefully.
erhk 2021-08-18 06:39:28 +0000 UTC [ - ]
mdoms 2021-08-18 03:44:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]
tim333 2021-08-18 11:42:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]
drdec 2021-08-18 14:41:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]
MeinBlutIstBlau 2021-08-18 03:00:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]
rvnx 2021-08-18 12:09:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]
geoduck14 2021-08-18 12:25:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]
tomcooks 2021-08-18 14:16:35 +0000 UTC [ - ]
lgats 2021-08-18 16:15:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
glitchc 2021-08-18 14:53:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]
On the other, I would ask: Isn't this better? Having someone else's photo and location attached to your work means you would never be identified in public, not receive death threats, nor be at risk of swatting. And you get to keep collecting royalties on your duly attributed work in the meantime. It sounds like a blessing in disguise.
Please note, I'm not trying to belittle your experience or your work. What you went through was incredibly traumatic and deserves to be written about. I just fail to see the harm in this. If you really want to be recognized for your work, the fix is simple. Just supply Google with your photo and they will rectify it on the page.
CRConrad 2021-08-19 00:36:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]
But the people in the photos now run those risks in stead. That may be somewhat "better", depending on your morality, but most people would probably say: Not by very much.
shadowgovt 2021-08-18 11:52:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]
The practical one is to choose an image (abstract icon, conceptual photo, artistic silhouette that could be considered representative of you but is not you) and put it on your personal website as your photo, along with any other social media presences you have. Knowledge Base isn't wired, at a very fundamental level of its design, to understand the notion that somebody would have no photos of themselves online and be known by people at the same time. The system is "thirsty" to fill that gap in data, and will continue to do so, forever, no matter how many times Google intervenes to manually break the link. If you feed it something intentionally to fill that gap, it will be satisfied (the system can understand a concept like the artist Sia not revealing her face in public as part of her aesthetic... It doesn't understand somebody who has no photo whatsoever).
The alternative is to tell your story to media outlets and be very loud about this problem. You are not the only one in the world who wants to be online without providing a photo, and it's not "okay" that Google doesn't understand your use case and is building products that don't understand your use case. A public discourse about this issue is the only way that Google will be incentivized to change the fundamental design of Knowledge Base and similar products. The bad news is that will be an uphill climb and take a long time (and, to be perfectly level, isn't guaranteed to bear fruit... There's no guarantee enough people care about this problem to make a big enough noise for the problem to be addressed :( ).
Guthur 2021-08-18 11:33:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Google is trawling the Web for content they don't own to produce a derived work in the form of a knowledge panel, no?
mrweasel 2021-08-18 11:55:11 +0000 UTC [ - ]
saos 2021-08-18 15:54:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]
winkeltripel 2021-08-18 13:45:45 +0000 UTC [ - ]
iicc 2021-08-18 13:17:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]
Likely Google has avenues for handling their requests to keep them on side.
jliptzin 2021-08-18 16:22:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]
anotheraccount9 2021-08-18 15:48:54 +0000 UTC [ - ]
raman162 2021-08-18 12:14:06 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I hope someone here can help you solve this issue. I won't be surprised if you got more press coverage that it will help.
LeifCarrotson 2021-08-18 14:12:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]
You were close to the root of the problem when you wrote "...to have a large corporation come along and continuously and consistently misrepresent my work and cause distress..." - the thing which is misrepresenting you and causing distress is an unmoral computer program. (Unmoral: Lacking awareness of moral standards, in contrast to immoral, intentionally rejecting morality, or amoral, aware of but acting without regard to morals.) The computer program doesn't have a concept of distress or harm. All it knows to do is to display its best guess of a portrait of an author when someone searches for the author's name. It has no ability - was not programmed with the ability - to understand that sometimes there may not be a photo of the person or that sometimes this is not good. That's still anthropomorphizing the program - it does not understand anything and does not know what is good. It just creates knowledge boxes with photos to accompany searches for author names, always.
When you contacted Google, the person who responded to you may not have been a person - instead, the entity behind your email was likely another computer program, designed to handle complaints about faulty knowledge boxes. If it was a human being (unlikely), they did not go to the source code file for the website google.com/search?q=andrea and delete the \<img\> tag, nor did they add an understanding of the concept that some authors don't have public photos and some knowledge boxes ought not include a photo to the knowledge box algorithm. Either the program or the human just flagged the first image as incorrect, and let the knowledge box program run as it did before and find another image. There is not (yet) a fault mode that indicates "this person's knowledge box ought not be accompanied by a portrait" or "this person's knowledge box ought not exist".
What other comments seem to be suggesting is that tech companies ought not run algorithms that work well 99% of the time, nor fault handling algorithms that handle 99% of the faults effectively. I'd take a slightly more nuanced approach and suggest that instead, programmers and spec authors should consider fault handling first, and expected operation second. It's very simple to follow the expected path, when you have to handle forks in the road it does get exponentially more complicated. Eventually, you always need a "defer to human" option. It would be prohibitively difficult (expensive) to defer to a human every time, or even 1% of the time, but that option needs to be available.
zepolen 2021-08-18 14:04:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]
hourislate 2021-08-18 13:46:19 +0000 UTC [ - ]
davidgerard 2021-08-18 10:18:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]
dingosity 2021-08-18 20:15:45 +0000 UTC [ - ]
I don't know if it would work because I suspect Google has algorithms to detect faces and won't let you set something that doesn't look like a "real" face to your profile picture.
And setting a random stock image photo of someone seems like a bad idea. There's software out there that can generate a fake face that might pass the Google "real" face test, but for how long? When Google changes their algorithm, will that face get rejected and then you're back to square one.
bronzeage 2021-08-18 08:46:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
99mans 2021-08-18 01:36:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]
AndreaVass 2021-08-18 15:25:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]
jl6 2021-08-18 09:14:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]
exikyut 2021-08-19 05:19:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]
After a second go at dubiously tinkering with Algolia, I finally found a post I knew I'd seen a little while back:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24811669
> I have a good friend at Google. The motto they go by is that unless 10000 people are impacted by an issue, it's really not worth their time to investigate.
At Google's scale, this makes absolutely perfect sense: Google (according to Wikipedia) currently has 139,995 engineers, and up to approx. 2 to 4.8 billion customers (using a floor of Chrome's user base and a ceiling of "number of users connected to the internet"). This means each and every engineer has a broadly averaged/amortized potential impact on up to 14,286-34,286 users. None of those developers will consistently produce useful output if they're thinking about all that responsibility all day, and probably quite a majority wouldn't produce any output at all if they were tasked with interacting with all the users their products impacted (the most impactful developers might be faced with queues filling with maybe 300 tickets a second or more).
However, at world scale, where just about everything that relates to humans is sufficiently fractal-like that it doesn't track along a 10,000-entry/point/dimension/column/etc-sized graph/curve/vector space/BigTable/whatever, you get issues like this.
I can kinda understand (while headscratching through the math for this for the first time) why Google hires so many external contractors (who presumably aren't counted as employees?) to try and combat this sort of thing, but there's only so much that can be done there too.
It's a really difficult problem.
Human empathy seems to have a serious bathtub curve for "things and problems that are human-sized", with maximum sensitivity around maybe 1-20 people. Anything smaller than a human is only intrinsically interesting if it's cute, and anything bigger than a human can probably figure its problems out itself, and is only intrinsically worth my attention if whatever it's doing might kill *me* in particular, and possibly the group I'm in.
Sadly, this is a problem *because* the humans on both sides of the fence equally bleed red and run the same legacy firmware, while the producer end of the queue is grossly under-represented.
Scaling up an individual's or group's impact unfortunately hits the edge of that empathy bathtub curve in a hurry when you go beyond even just a few hundred recipients, let alone a thousand. What am I supposed to think of 150,000 Twitter likes, or 20 million TikTok views, or 20 upvotes on HN? It sort of blurs out to a fuzzy "...:D" that holds zero semantic value (it doesn't provoke an intuitive context-specific response), and also close to zero little intrinsic value (I don't know how to reason about it in isolation).
So, what are Google's engineers supposed to do to solve these kinds of problems? Serious question.
Saying "they're big enough, they'll figure it out" is just bumping into the edge of the empathy curve. Saying "well, they need to scale out their empathy" implies the engineers at Google have access to some sort of intrinsically more sensitive model of intuition (the self-correcting kind that would naturally occur at the individual level and propagates outward in groups). A real solution is needed here.
The only thing Google can do is collectively whittle away and figure out solutions to this fundamentally non-intuitive problem using... *drumroll*... bureaucracy. "NOOOoooo," I hear you say... but that's the only glue available to collectively hold *checks* 139,995 empathy bathtub curves together. Yep, it's like the PHP of duct tape, but sadly humans haven't figured anything else out yet, crazily enough... almost like the empathy model we use doesn't find solving for the problem space as a whole interesting, or something...
--
Ignore the above, Google is a mean bully that abused their power for {killing {Google Reader/related-image search/other favorite product}/locking someone out of their account/locking Android down/having UI inconsistency/etc etc etc} D:<
geoduck14 2021-08-18 12:27:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]
MaysonL 2021-08-18 14:44:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]
adsche 2021-08-18 13:56:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=andrea+vassell
AndreaVass 2021-08-18 15:31:04 +0000 UTC [ - ]