Re: Some web sites collect salacious gossip and charge $2000 to remove it

Apparently, hypothes.is uses the Checkmate URL checking system to filter
out unreliable websites. Thus, you won't be able to see the annotation I
put on the offending post mentioned in my last message.

bob wyman


On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:45 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:

> As a demonstration, I've annotated one of the apparently false claims
> about Guy Babock. To see that annotation, follow this link
> <https://hyp.is/Tsf7LmNMEeuhvCu-FzSNYA/dirtyscam.com/reports/guy-babcock-is-a-paedophile-guy-sanderson-babcock-is-a-paedophile-guy-babcock-is-a-pedophile-guy-sanderson-babcock-is-a-pedophile-who-let-guy-babcock-out-of-his-cage-guy-babcock-is-a-soc/>
> .
>
> If more people knew that annotation was possible, and if better support
> for making it was available, do you think it would help reduce the
> frequency of these problems?
>
> bob wyman
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:30 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>> When you write "Google, et. al. encourages this type of behavior" are you
>> saying that you believe that Google *intentionally* encourages this
>> behavior or simply that the availability of powerful search tools, such as
>> those provided by Google, tends to encourage this behavior by making it
>> more possible? Please forgive my asking, but, on the Internet, it is
>> sometimes hard to tell exactly what someone's words mean...
>>
>> For the record, the Times article does indicate that Google is, and has
>> been, willing to help address these issues:
>>
>>> "Until recently, Google would remove a website from your results only if
>>> it could cause financial damage, such as by exposing your Social Security
>>> number. Now *Google will remove other harmful content*, including
>>> revenge porn and private medical information. At the end of 2019, it
>>> introduced a new category of information it will take out of your results:
>>> “sites with exploitative removal practices.” *Google also started
>>> down-ranking some of the “complaint” sites*, including Ripoff Report."
>>> [Emphasis added.]
>>
>>
>> What more do you think they should or could do?
>>
>> Part of the problem here is that those who are accused on
>> these "complaint" sites have no way to respond in place to the claims that
>> are made against them. But, we could fix that. It seems to me that the
>> Babcock's, and others, would have benefited from tools that allowed them to
>> annotate the improper posts with their own discoverable statements
>> contesting the claims made. A combination of the W3C Annotation Standard +
>> (CredWeb and/or ClaimReview) would allow that. For instance, an extension
>> to Hypothes.is, or a variant, could facilitate entering structured data
>> annotations such as ClaimReview statements. If such annotations were made,
>> then users of web browsers might be able to see a warning flag saying
>> "Contents of this page are disputed" even if neither the complaint author
>> nor the site itself provided a means to contest complaints. What do you
>> think?
>>
>> bob wyman
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 2:59 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/technology/change-my-google-results.html
>>>
>>> Not sure why, but Google, et al. encourages this type of behavior. As
>>> long as lies work, lies will proliferate.  It seems like Google should be
>>> the one to pay the $2000 rip off.
>>>
>>> Be the change you want to see in the world ..tom
>>>
>>