YouTube services appear to be down
Bad look for YouTube
According to Twitter, this is a worldwide outage. When was the last time a Google service had an outage this bad?
I feel so vulnerable all of a sudden. I'm gonna go take a walk outside.
God help the pornhub servers...
Well, when a site the size of youtube goes down, that's going to put a very sudden, very strenous load on isitdownrightnow.com.
I guess when billionaires stop dying from cancer, I will start believing all those conspiracy theories about the cure having been found already.
As someone who had cancer, it always gets me how cancer doesn't care how much money you have.
It's so surreal seeing this tweet from a couple weeks ago. Doctors believed his chances were good...
The world has lost a great man. He was a co signer of The Giving Pledge, and so will help others in many many years to come. Rest in Peace.
Companies obviously need to be taxed more.
I guess most people have an issue with this, but one side thinks that Sheeran should be taxed far less, while the other wants these companies taxed far more.
Read the article dude.
He earned less than Starbucks and Amazon made in profits last year but Ed Sheeran paid more in tax than either company.
He needs a better accountant.
Here is why it's completely different, if anyone cares:
1) No third parties were involved.
2) Google found an exploit in the service during a large internal security audit push. They fixed it promptly. This was not an exploit that they found out about because someone else was abusing it.
3) It's likely nobody ever exploited this bug before Google discovered it.
Because of those points Google made the (incorrect) decision to just fix it and not disclose it. The fact that, at the time, the Cambridge analytica scandal was in full swing and Google knew that even though it was not similar, this would be lumped in with it by lazy/tech journalists like the one who wrote this article.
I won't justify that decision. It was wrong. Now consider this: do you want to to do business with the company that proactively finds bugs like this and fixes them (with a very large internal initiative) or do you prefer the model of every other tech company which is wait until a security researcher contacts them, then ignore the problem until the exploit is made public and then scramble to fix it while villifying the researcher for disclosing the problem publicly months after it was privately reported and not fixed? Because I can cite literally dozens of examples of every other tech company (Microsoft and Apple included) operating that way.
In short: Google didn't disclose and that was bad, and yet this story still shows that they are leading the industry in terms of security and protecting customer data. Comparing them to Facebook here is exactly the sort of lazy, poorly-conceived journalism that scared Google away from doing the right thing.
The person who wrote this article gives the hypothetical example of Google allowing a third party company to scan customer email in order to fan their outrage while lamenting the hidden terms in the TOS that probably allow such things. The truth is that Google explicitly does not do that. No data shared is with third party companies except when legally required. Instead, Google scans your email and serves you the ad but the third party company never gets anything about you from Google. You get the ad, they get the bill. They don't know who saw that ad, just that it was someone who met their criteria.
Facebook TOS does allow them to share data. It's a totally different model If someone writing about tech really doesn't know that already, they could have figured it out with ten minutes of research. See? Lazy.
This article starts from the false premise that not disclosing internally discovered security bugs is bad. All companies, and I mean every single one of them, perform security analysis from time to time, and results are rarely, if ever, disclosed.
Bloomberg needs to stop churning out these fear mongering articles on security, or at least, hire people capable of understand the issues at hand and fact check them.
How is it an incorrect decision? Do you think companies should be disclosing every bug they discover? There would be thousands of reports a year
Not OP but I don't think it was the wrong decision. Every other point made by OP was spot on. Google is finding security holes and fixing them themselves. I don't think it's necessary at all to disclose that they fixed a security hole at all to the public if it was found internally and not exploited.
Media coverage does seem to control public opinion on this stuff. Just look at the PSN vs Expedian leaks. Sony had to provide free credit monitoring service and took years to recover their image, but Expedian basically got a slap on the wrist for leaking literally every American's identity.
"...but we TOTALLY have the legal authority to stop STATES from imposing net neutrality rules...look at the silly monkey"
It's not telecommunications... but it's not a utility either? Wtf
IIRC the argument is that ISPs are content providers.
I cannot think of a single piece of content my ISP has ever intentionally provided me. The only time they're not dumb pipe is when something breaks.
If they are a content provider then my local govt that owns the roads is actually in the food service industry since I drive those roads to get taco Bell each night. Why is there not a judge that can stand up to this lunacy.
Apple says this verbatim in their stores to thousands of customers a days.
Every customer service rep I have ever spoken to has said that opening a device up voids the warranty.
I'm pretty sure most things have foil "void if broken" stickers
Yup. Tons of companies do this and those policies are not enforceable under US law, BUT most companies will basically nicely say "take us to court" because they know most consumers won't try to legally fight a giant corporation over a voided warranty. It deters most users from repairing their devices and they can throw pocket change worth of legal fees at the few that actually try to fight it.
This is what class action law suits are for, right?
Good for them!
Wonder if subpixel rendering was one of them...
It's still a nice move for Linux, but also for themselves. As they helped Apple back in the day, MS doesn't want the market to seem like a monopoly and risk being broken up. They're pretty happy with their position right now.
Well... let's say it's a novel stance for Microsoft after they tried killing Linux in court using a sock puppet a decade ago, and succeeded in destroying the ISO standardization process to keep their monopoly on office documents. Also, look up the halloween papers.
No they did not.
They joined OIN and said they would not assert those 60,000 patents against Linux. That is not the same as "open sourcing" them.
I get a half-dozen daily for a decade. Make it stop.
Last week my own cell number called my cell phone. What a joke.
At this point the majority of my calls on both my call and land line are spoof calls. I've missed a couple legitimate doctor's office calls because I won't answer if I don't recognize it. It's fucking bullshit that any of us should have this issue for a service we pay for!
And that the FCC regulates. They aren't regulating shit. FCC, at this point, is a tool of bad corporate welfare.
Pretty sure most people only had one because they made you have one if you wanted to have a YouTube account.
I was an early adopter and VERY quickly lost interest. It never caught on like Facebook did so most people didn't have it which made it useless as a social network
It was never alive.
I like how the story has successfully been shifted from "massive data breach" to "lol nobody used Google+ good riddance".
Instagram already has 1 advert for every 4 posts on my timeline. I dread to think what they come up with next to increase ad exposure.
I used to enjoy looking at Instagram but now it seems like my feed has an ad or a "sponsored post" after every third image, some of which are obnoxious videos that autoplay with sound. In short, ads have ruined the experience, like they always do.
What do they think will happen when people get sick of seeing 70% ads and 30% content?
This is not a surprise I do some analytics work for advertisers using instagram and the interaction rate is incredible. Truth is there is a large majority of the population that just does not know the difference between an ad and a user submitted post.