Google helps Scientology billionaire Bob Duggan hide a dark family secret (2015)
tonyortega.org
tonyortega.org
Of course Google isn't going to check your website to see if you replaced the images, that's not their job. That's on purpose, that's how the law works. Takedown takes the content down, counterclaim puts it back up, then the claimant sues if they still disagree.
From https://www.copyright.gov/512/ :
> OSP stands for “Online Service Provider.” ... The DMCA contemplates four distinct kinds of OSPs ... referring or linking users to online sites using information location tools (e.g., search engines).
And the text of the law itself (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512) describes DMCA immunity for:
> infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link
I wouldn't blame them for allowing DMCA takedowns to be on the cautious side. It's shitty if they don't give a way to counterclaim though, I've never been the recipient of a Google DMCA so I didn't know.
Removing Content From Google
Even if Google removes a webpage or image from our search results, we are not able to remove content from websites that host it. The page may still exist on the website and this means it can be found through the URL to the website, social media sharing, or other search engines. We recommend reaching out to the website owner to request removal.
Bob was the money-man at a place I worked, long long ago. He wasn't a billionaire then, just a measly little millionaire I think.
He always was a blown-back-hairdo phony. One example: he at one point decided to read some inspirational business text to the whole company. Some jabber about productiveness, etc. While the rest of us dozing off to these empty phrases, he got so inspired that was moved to extemporize "Straight! Like a laser!" into it.
That phrase, "Straight! Like a laser!" became an office joke after that.
Now I really need to go read this article.
The flip side of this is the fact that people who consistently outperform and bring in cash for the organization ("upstat"?) are not to be questioned. Achievement is its own justification.
So Scientology produces a lot of scammers and hucksters. Also a lot of chiropractors for some reason.
edit: an animated version at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6hu3ca
edit: I noticed this because of my expertise in mathematic.
In 2019 the place was raided and the owner Leo Hamel and a San Diego sheriff's captain and two others were arrested for running a gun trafficking ring after a raid by the FBI turned up over 200 firearms and 100,000 round of ammunition in the jewelry shop that the police officer was giving him.[0]
[0] https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/jeweler-leo-hamel-gui...
Source your content correctly or make your own. What seems like a very well researched story is gone because of lazy understanding of rights.
Just republish without the images, it's not a difficult SEO space to rank in, 301 the old article, contact anyone you can to replace the backlink to your new url.
Most SEO content is garbage, rehashed, outdated, unproven.
I have the benefit of owning over 300 sites and managing another 300 or so in some capacity including full analytics access. I don't often see content written by people who "do" and work across diverse industries.
But if you define where you are starting I'd be happy to send a few ideas your way.
Is there anything you'd suggest to get started writing? I was looking to build an audience before starting a software project.
Thanks
From men the have beaten their partners, or been found guilty of rape to people who've been found guilty of fraud every deindex involves someone trying to hide something bad they've done
What do you expect? People aren't going to be asking for articles about their charity work to be de-indexed.
If someone committed a crime, served their sentence, and is no longer required to report it to potential employers, it makes sense they would try to get it de-indexed or most employers would ignore them unfairly after a quick search for their name.
In the old days of newspapers, one could not hide a newspaper article from manual search in the library. Digital indexing is just making search a lot easier, but it should not make it different as a proces, by hiding parts.
ANECDOTE ALERT: I'm vaguely familiar with a local case of an alcoholic abusive father who went to prison for a short time, then spent a few years in rehab/AA. He's a really sweet guy now, extremely ashamed of his past and doing everything he can to make things right (financially contributing to his family and working on repairing their relationships). He was a nobody alcoholic, so his name never appeared in any newspapers, but imagine if it had - he'd probably be broke, homeless and drinking again in no time. This is a pattern we often see with the "town drunks", who everybody knows as such and so any attempts they make to clean up are immediately met with distrust or even worse ridicule. So they never change.
As an employer I would like to know who I am hiring and their history, good or bad. I have absolutely no problem hiring an ex-convict, but I care what is the crime and what position would make it not eligible - for example I would hire a thief, but not as a warehouse manager. In fact, not knowing about a potential problem is a bigger problem than "being unfair". I believe in redemption, but not in "born again".
Yes, which is why we have laws - to bring fairness to a system that is indifferent to it. And the ability to serve your time and then move on with your life is one of the ways.
I completely understand your point of view and I'd be similarly careful with someone who just got out of prison. Here's the thing: you said you wouldn't hire "a thief" as a warehouse manager, but someone who went to prison for theft, did their time, got out and has been probably more law-abiding than the rest of us is not a thief - they were a thief.
Again, caution makes sense for a recent offender, but after they do their time and don't do commit more crime for some time, it definitely becomes unfair to judge them for it. Unfortunately, most people don't see it this way, they only see a criminal, which is why employment is such a big problem for ex-cons (esp. in the US) and why I believe there should be a "right to be forgotten" at least after some time has passed.
// And hell, I'd love a former thief as a warehouse manager - who better to spot other employees stealing stuff than someone who knows exactly how it's done :)
In the end, you cannot make the universe fair by enacting human laws. Paid or not, mistakes from the past exist even if you hide it under the carpet. Same as you need to learn from history, not to ignore it, this particular history should be available, not hidden.
This obviously makes it hard for them to move on. It’s an impossible line to draw concretely, but there is a distinction between branding someone for life over what may have been a one time mistake and keeping an accurate and accessible record of the news.
The examples you used as examples are obviously pretty horrible and won’t draw sympathy, but there are obviously other crimes.
Maybe you are thinking of every deindex that you see articles written about?
There was a fraudulent website listing my vacation rental as their own with their own number listed as the "owner's phone number" and everything. The entire site is vrbo listings with fake owners number. Every property had the same number.
Do you know how hard it is to get a website taken down in the U.S.? Their hosting provider, GoDaddy, did nothing saying they don't deal in illegal matters and to contact the FBI. The FBI did nothing. The only thing that got the listing taken down was a DMCA request to GoDaddy on the photos and text as they were ripped direct ly from VRBO. In 48 hours my listing was removed. Site stayed up and my listing came back two more times. Each time I filed a DMCA with GoDaddy and the listing would be taken down. Even their BBB listing had multiple people calling it a scam. https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/cape-canaveral/profile/vacation-re...
Excerpt from the letter from GoDaddy:
If you have concerns regarding abuse issues (such as scams, etc) please submit a complaint using the form located at ABUSEFORM.COM. We are not able to assist you with abuse based complaints from the Intellectual Property Infringement Claims department.
If you feel that illegal activity is taking place with regards to this website content, you'll want to contact law enforcement. GoDaddy is not a law enforcement agency and cannot perform an investigation of this nature. We will be happy to assist law enforcement if they contact us directly about an open investigation.
Thank you.
Kindest Regards,
[REDACTED]
Go DaddyNope, I'm thinking of the notifications I get in my inbox from Google when they deindex articles from a couple major UK newspapers
Here is a thought. We should create an organization whose sole purpose is to praise the ultra rich people, in return for “donations”. We can then use this money to tackle issues like homelessness, public infrastructure etc. The bigger their donations are, the more outlandish the praise should be. We can hire the best songwriters, best sculptors etc for this purpose!
What else are these rich people getting from these stupid organizations other than made up titles and praise? Why can’t we do the same and use the money for something good instead?
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+perplexing+tale+about+b...
TL;DR: Rich family who are Scientologists has some adopted kids, sent a couple to live in South Africa with church members. Family then also funded once struggling Scientology organization there. Maybe they have lied about adopted kids still living with them, but rich people sending kids to live somewhere else isn't super rare. Seems maybe family more wanted to hide it from other members than the public?