The OP choose to write and publish a book, about controversial material under their own name. That was a series of choice clearly made to manage risk while taking a stand against a cult.
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?
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Used to be, you could write a book under your own name, and there was nobody who published someone else's photo claiming that person was the author of your book. Now, if you write a book under your own name, could be somebody will publish someone else's photo claiming that person is the author of your book. And you're trying to make that the fault of the author, in stead of the entity publishing the false association?!? Sheesh, man, can't you even hear how crazy that sounds?
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.
Google allows you to take ownership of a knowledge panel
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.
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?