A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
on 26 May 08:41
nextcollapse
Yeah fuck Google. Delete all Google accounts before it’s too late. Plenty of alternatives exist and you can still benefit from their rankings and whatnot, if your business depends on that.
Glitchvid@lemmy.world
on 26 May 12:25
nextcollapse
Sort of hard to exist without interacting with Google at all (lots of the material I’m given in courses is hosted on YouTube).
Your best bet is to use separate isolated/siloed accounts for their different services, never let your GCS account be attached to Gmail or one of their consumer facing products for example, lest it get nuked because some automated system went haywire and now you’re scrambling to get the account back.
pulsewidth@lemmy.world
on 26 May 15:11
nextcollapse
You can use YouTube without an account. And without even using their website, bypassing their ads and their tracking.
Android has Grayjay, Newpipe, Pipepipe, Vanced.
Windows has Grayjay, Newpipe, Freetube, yt-dl and others.
Linux has Red, Utube, Freetube… You get the point.
You do still need a login for age-locked videos, but those are a small subset of YouTube.
Glitchvid@lemmy.world
on 26 May 16:01
nextcollapse
For now. Google is clearly experimenting with baking ads into the delivered video streams, YT Premium members get served different endpoints already in preparation.
sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
on 26 May 16:08
nextcollapse
also. if you want to watch youtube on teevee on normal hardware, you are pretty much paying for premium...
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 26 May 16:11
nextcollapse
that’s a problem too, but the discussion was about interacting with google. fuck them for showing ads down our throats, but at least they don’t know who watches the video (when using a proxy like invidious), and so they can’t build a profile of you, and they can’t bombard you with tailored manipulative ads either, just something possibly totally irrelevant.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
on 26 May 16:18
collapse
Google is clearly experimenting with baking ads into the delivered video streams, YT Premium members get served different endpoints already in preparation.
Enshittification is guaranteed even for the paid tier.
Maybe there’ll be silver, gold and platinum memberships next. How long til you realize you’ve been had?
All the content i watch gets age locked because youtube is run by prudes.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
on 26 May 16:16
collapse
Sort of hard to exist without interacting with Google at all
I explicitely did not claim that.
And as the other guy said, you don’t need a G account to watch youtube.
Reverendender@sh.itjust.works
on 26 May 14:43
collapse
Wait, you can actually delete a Gmail account?!
chaosCruiser@futurology.today
on 26 May 09:08
nextcollapse
“Some years ago, I provided my phone number to Google as part of an identity verification process, but didn’t consent to it being shared publicly.”
That may have been the case at the time, but Google have a bad habit of updating legal documents and settings from time to time. Even if you didn’t consent to it directly, you may have agreed to a contract you didn’t read, which resulted in Google doing everything permitted in that contract. Chances are, the contract says that Google can legally screw around as much as they like, and you’re powerless to do anything about it.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
on 26 May 16:20
nextcollapse
Those pesky “We have updated our privacy policy” emails. And “by ignoring this message you have signaled consent” (paraphrasing).
chaosCruiser@futurology.today
on 26 May 19:49
collapse
People should really start demanding more sensible terms. Currently, people just don’t care, and companies are taking full advantage of the situation.
It might be an Android phone you’ve called who marked the phone number as a business and added Three Rings to it. Might not be, I’ve just noticed I get queried after being called or calling numbers not in my contacts, whether it’s a business phone number.
This makes sense to me.
TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 26 May 12:54
nextcollapse
I recently discovered that if you ask gpt-4o if there are any anarchist therapists in Florida, it provides my phone number in the text body of the response. I think this is very cool, but my partner disagrees 😅
Guy uses phone number for business, shocked when it gets listed for that business. More at 11.
CouncilOfFriends@slrpnk.net
on 27 May 06:48
collapse
Except he provided it for identify verification, and if I was asked for this my assumption would be they need a mobile number to send a verification text message. If Google wanted a business number in order to publish it online they should state that clearly.
So, all you have to do to “out” anyone who ever talks to you on the phone is mis-inform Google that the number is a business and “boom” they’re out there.
Makes one want to start using callerID spoofing as a regular practice. I am calling from 212-555-1212.
If you wanted to do that, you could just edit it into a business listing directly, or even create one. If it’s from the “was this a business” prompt, I expect it takes a bunch of people to say yes, not just one. (And if you get that prompt, Google associates your number with a business already.)
I expect it takes a bunch of people to say yes, not just one.
I expect the algorithm is a) not publicly published, and b) changes periodically - like to just require one click when a particular department needs to “make their numbers” by the end of the quarter.
you could just edit it into a business listing directly
I challenge you to find any “free and easy, one click” business listing that gets 0.1% of the visibility of a Google info business phone number.
I wonder if it’s possible to specifically exclude your business/website/project from google search. Surely that must be something you can legally do.
misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 May 18:17
nextcollapse
Sure, reach out to every website and human on the planet, read through each terms and conditions, and hire fewer than 8 billion lawyers to litigate if they don’t. Easy peasy.
Now do the same for bing, ddg, startpage, yandex, yahoo, kagi, brave, ask, ecosia etc etc…
Which is to say, if it’s on the internet and publicly accessible, assume it’s permanent and going to be indexed at some point.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
on 27 May 07:05
nextcollapse
I understand the story is about google adding a guy’s number to a business profile, which seems very odd. But I wonder if anybody here is old enough to remember phone books? I haven’t seen one in a while, but in the landline era the phone company used to automatically deliver one to everybody who had a phone. A large physical book with the name, address and phone number of everybody in the local area, except people who paid extra to be unlisted. If you didn’t want to look somebody up in the book you could dial a number and a helpful operator would tell you their phone number so you could call them. This was totally normal and didn’t bother anybody - how do people feel about that whole concept now?
Its weird how more people decided to use this information against people in the modern era than people in the past.
Etterra@discuss.online
on 27 May 13:25
nextcollapse
Well I mean you had to go the the kitchen and then look around in the cabinet for the yellow pages. Then you would realize you had five of them, and would say “why the hell do we have five phone books?” Then you’d their out the old ones, only to realize they were all outdated. Then you’d ask your family if they knew where the current one is, and it turns out that it’s propping up the short end of the old couch in the basement. Then you’d need to go get it, but since somebody dumped old leftovers in the trash (this was before recycling) they’re all gross. So you had to go grab a suitably thick replacement, and figure that the table of contents book from the 1982 encyclopedia set you’ve always had would work. You after your 3rd trip up and down the stairs you’ve finally got the phone book but can’t remember why, but while you have it you decide to order a pizza, then throw the book in the cabinet where they go. Two days later you find the phone number you needed in the first place, written on the back of an envelope.
Yes, I remember these (they also send a map of the city with all the street and public transportation lines)
But the point is that you can be unlisted from these (and as far as I remember it was free). Not sure about the part where you can call an operator that tell you the number you are looking for.
Anyway, the problem is that Google seems to have shared the phone number even if the user declined to do so (and by the user account, the number was not listed for years). This just seems a move from Google that show a total disperect of the user decision.
In the US the “standard” low cost line was listed in the white pages by default, you effectively paid extra - per month - for an unlisted number.
As far as I remember in Italy the situation was different.
You can ask to delist the number when you sign the contract and it was free. I am not really sure if in the case you decided later to delist the number you needed to pay a one time fee for that, but keeping delisted was always free.
Italy, and all of Europe, have always had a greater respect for personal and a lesser respect for business’ profits than the U.S.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
on 27 May 21:24
collapse
The phone company definitely did charge extra for unlisted numbers. The number lookup service, which was just called “Information”, was accessed by dialing 411 - the origin of “What’s the 411?” In the olden days you got a human being, then they automated it with voice recognition. In most places 411 doesn’t exist anymore but it was in service until only a few years ago.
Wait, I suspect that we don’t live in the same country.
In Italy keeping the number unlisted was free (you just needed to declare it when you were signing the contract) and I have no memory of something like the 411.
With social media, e-mail, and the rest of it “out there” people have started assuming that “unlisted” is the default for voice phones now. Also, in those “good old days” of the ubiquitous phone books, the listings were mostly land-lines, and mobile phones were unlisted by default. Because of the rates charged for mobile calls in the dying days of the white pages, there were even special laws regarding unsolicited calls to your mobile phone.
It used to be difficult AND expensive to get an unlisted domain name as well, but that has been evolving and now it’s a no-cost checkbox option when registering whether you want your contact info to be listed with the domain ownership or not.
Times do change, and while we are generally more exposed than ever, I believe the shifts to more “private by default” configurations of our contact info are a good thing.
misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 May 18:20
collapse
It’s like having 100,000 yellow pages books. In the days of old you might be able to switch cities if you were trying to evade a stalker. Now you’ll have to change your name, face, and accent.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
on 27 May 21:28
collapse
You can still pay for lookup services. I got a 1-month subscription recently to contact the mom of a friend who disappeared. All I had was the guy’s last name and the town he said his mom lived in. Cost 7 or 8 bucks but it was worth it. So anyway I imagine a stalker wouldn’t need a ton of resources to track a person down using pay services.
misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 May 23:22
collapse
If you know the town then in the old days you could go there and get a yellow pages. But your point is valid, because there’s so many other privacy concerns this one is a drop in the bucket. I’m much more scared of the government watching me through my neighbor’s ring cameras just because I said Luigi Mangione is innocent on Lemmy (which he totally is). Or that Elon Musk told us he’s a Nazi sympathizer and I’m repeating what he said, neutrally.
Teknikal@eviltoast.org
on 27 May 22:03
nextcollapse
I think it’s dodgy as well I’d been job searching and I guess I accidently linked Google somehow, so now the sites completely ignoring the details I gave it and insists on sending everything to my Gmail instead of Proton which I actually ditched Gmail for.
I was really getting into that article, and then it just just suddenly ends. How anticlimactic. I was hoping the article writer was a bit more dedicated towards finding out why Google posted his personal number in the first place…
Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de
on 28 May 04:23
nextcollapse
Isn’t it a function of Google Maps that anybody can submit changes to the business informations of a company listed there?
It’s like a wiki where all registered uses can suggest contributions.
threaded - newest
Yeah fuck Google. Delete all Google accounts before it’s too late. Plenty of alternatives exist and you can still benefit from their rankings and whatnot, if your business depends on that.
Sort of hard to exist without interacting with Google at all (lots of the material I’m given in courses is hosted on YouTube).
Your best bet is to use separate isolated/siloed accounts for their different services, never let your GCS account be attached to Gmail or one of their consumer facing products for example, lest it get nuked because some automated system went haywire and now you’re scrambling to get the account back.
You can use YouTube without an account. And without even using their website, bypassing their ads and their tracking.
Android has Grayjay, Newpipe, Pipepipe, Vanced. Windows has Grayjay, Newpipe, Freetube, yt-dl and others. Linux has Red, Utube, Freetube… You get the point.
You do still need a login for age-locked videos, but those are a small subset of YouTube.
For now. Google is clearly experimenting with baking ads into the delivered video streams, YT Premium members get served different endpoints already in preparation.
also. if you want to watch youtube on teevee on normal hardware, you are pretty much paying for premium...
that’s a problem too, but the discussion was about interacting with google. fuck them for showing ads down our throats, but at least they don’t know who watches the video (when using a proxy like invidious), and so they can’t build a profile of you, and they can’t bombard you with tailored manipulative ads either, just something possibly totally irrelevant.
Enshittification is guaranteed even for the paid tier.
Maybe there’ll be silver, gold and platinum memberships next. How long til you realize you’ve been had?
All the content i watch gets age locked because youtube is run by prudes.
I explicitely did not claim that.
And as the other guy said, you don’t need a G account to watch youtube.
Wait, you can actually delete a Gmail account?!
“Some years ago, I provided my phone number to Google as part of an identity verification process, but didn’t consent to it being shared publicly.”
That may have been the case at the time, but Google have a bad habit of updating legal documents and settings from time to time. Even if you didn’t consent to it directly, you may have agreed to a contract you didn’t read, which resulted in Google doing everything permitted in that contract. Chances are, the contract says that Google can legally screw around as much as they like, and you’re powerless to do anything about it.
Those pesky “We have updated our privacy policy” emails. And “by ignoring this message you have signaled consent” (paraphrasing).
People should really start demanding more sensible terms. Currently, people just don’t care, and companies are taking full advantage of the situation.
And such contracts are legally unenforceable, if you’ve got the resources to sue.
This makes sense to me.
I recently discovered that if you ask gpt-4o if there are any anarchist therapists in Florida, it provides my phone number in the text body of the response. I think this is very cool, but my partner disagrees 😅
Guy uses phone number for business, shocked when it gets listed for that business. More at 11.
Except he provided it for identify verification, and if I was asked for this my assumption would be they need a mobile number to send a verification text message. If Google wanted a business number in order to publish it online they should state that clearly.
The author suggests it was added through people answering the “is this a business” prompts on their phones, not the identity verification.
So, all you have to do to “out” anyone who ever talks to you on the phone is mis-inform Google that the number is a business and “boom” they’re out there.
Makes one want to start using callerID spoofing as a regular practice. I am calling from 212-555-1212.
What do you mean “out” them?
Get their phone number published on the open internet.
If you wanted to do that, you could just edit it into a business listing directly, or even create one. If it’s from the “was this a business” prompt, I expect it takes a bunch of people to say yes, not just one. (And if you get that prompt, Google associates your number with a business already.)
I expect the algorithm is a) not publicly published, and b) changes periodically - like to just require one click when a particular department needs to “make their numbers” by the end of the quarter.
I challenge you to find any “free and easy, one click” business listing that gets 0.1% of the visibility of a Google info business phone number.
I wonder if it’s possible to specifically exclude your business/website/project from google search. Surely that must be something you can legally do.
Sure, reach out to every website and human on the planet, read through each terms and conditions, and hire fewer than 8 billion lawyers to litigate if they don’t. Easy peasy.
If it’s your personal info, you can ask for it here.
If it’s your own website you want delisted, that’s here.
Now do the same for bing, ddg, startpage, yandex, yahoo, kagi, brave, ask, ecosia etc etc…
Which is to say, if it’s on the internet and publicly accessible, assume it’s permanent and going to be indexed at some point.
I understand the story is about google adding a guy’s number to a business profile, which seems very odd. But I wonder if anybody here is old enough to remember phone books? I haven’t seen one in a while, but in the landline era the phone company used to automatically deliver one to everybody who had a phone. A large physical book with the name, address and phone number of everybody in the local area, except people who paid extra to be unlisted. If you didn’t want to look somebody up in the book you could dial a number and a helpful operator would tell you their phone number so you could call them. This was totally normal and didn’t bother anybody - how do people feel about that whole concept now?
Its weird how more people decided to use this information against people in the modern era than people in the past.
Well I mean you had to go the the kitchen and then look around in the cabinet for the yellow pages. Then you would realize you had five of them, and would say “why the hell do we have five phone books?” Then you’d their out the old ones, only to realize they were all outdated. Then you’d ask your family if they knew where the current one is, and it turns out that it’s propping up the short end of the old couch in the basement. Then you’d need to go get it, but since somebody dumped old leftovers in the trash (this was before recycling) they’re all gross. So you had to go grab a suitably thick replacement, and figure that the table of contents book from the 1982 encyclopedia set you’ve always had would work. You after your 3rd trip up and down the stairs you’ve finally got the phone book but can’t remember why, but while you have it you decide to order a pizza, then throw the book in the cabinet where they go. Two days later you find the phone number you needed in the first place, written on the back of an envelope.
It was used against people in the past too, probably more underreported then than now.
Yes, I remember these (they also send a map of the city with all the street and public transportation lines)
But the point is that you can be unlisted from these (and as far as I remember it was free). Not sure about the part where you can call an operator that tell you the number you are looking for.
Anyway, the problem is that Google seems to have shared the phone number even if the user declined to do so (and by the user account, the number was not listed for years). This just seems a move from Google that show a total disperect of the user decision.
In the US the “standard” low cost line was listed in the white pages by default, you effectively paid extra - per month - for an unlisted number.
The operator information was basically a phone company employee reading the white pages info to you, for a fee.
As far as I remember in Italy the situation was different.
You can ask to delist the number when you sign the contract and it was free. I am not really sure if in the case you decided later to delist the number you needed to pay a one time fee for that, but keeping delisted was always free.
Italy, and all of Europe, have always had a greater respect for personal and a lesser respect for business’ profits than the U.S.
The phone company definitely did charge extra for unlisted numbers. The number lookup service, which was just called “Information”, was accessed by dialing 411 - the origin of “What’s the 411?” In the olden days you got a human being, then they automated it with voice recognition. In most places 411 doesn’t exist anymore but it was in service until only a few years ago.
Wait, I suspect that we don’t live in the same country.
In Italy keeping the number unlisted was free (you just needed to declare it when you were signing the contract) and I have no memory of something like the 411.
With social media, e-mail, and the rest of it “out there” people have started assuming that “unlisted” is the default for voice phones now. Also, in those “good old days” of the ubiquitous phone books, the listings were mostly land-lines, and mobile phones were unlisted by default. Because of the rates charged for mobile calls in the dying days of the white pages, there were even special laws regarding unsolicited calls to your mobile phone.
It used to be difficult AND expensive to get an unlisted domain name as well, but that has been evolving and now it’s a no-cost checkbox option when registering whether you want your contact info to be listed with the domain ownership or not.
Times do change, and while we are generally more exposed than ever, I believe the shifts to more “private by default” configurations of our contact info are a good thing.
It’s like having 100,000 yellow pages books. In the days of old you might be able to switch cities if you were trying to evade a stalker. Now you’ll have to change your name, face, and accent.
You can still pay for lookup services. I got a 1-month subscription recently to contact the mom of a friend who disappeared. All I had was the guy’s last name and the town he said his mom lived in. Cost 7 or 8 bucks but it was worth it. So anyway I imagine a stalker wouldn’t need a ton of resources to track a person down using pay services.
If you know the town then in the old days you could go there and get a yellow pages. But your point is valid, because there’s so many other privacy concerns this one is a drop in the bucket. I’m much more scared of the government watching me through my neighbor’s ring cameras just because I said Luigi Mangione is innocent on Lemmy (which he totally is). Or that Elon Musk told us he’s a Nazi sympathizer and I’m repeating what he said, neutrally.
I think it’s dodgy as well I’d been job searching and I guess I accidently linked Google somehow, so now the sites completely ignoring the details I gave it and insists on sending everything to my Gmail instead of Proton which I actually ditched Gmail for.
I was really getting into that article, and then it just just suddenly ends. How anticlimactic. I was hoping the article writer was a bit more dedicated towards finding out why Google posted his personal number in the first place…
Isn’t it a function of Google Maps that anybody can submit changes to the business informations of a company listed there?
It’s like a wiki where all registered uses can suggest contributions.
anyone can make a google company profile. seems like clickbait.