It's not delisted. Anna's Archive is huge. The fact that Google participates in an entirely voluntary transparency log that gives you this information should illustrate to you where they stand on the issue of their needing to be compliant to the DMCA. It isn't clear to me why online communities constantly invent fan fiction of evil enemies when organizations merely comply with a reasonable interpretation of the law of the land they are incorporated in.

▲

wiseowise a day ago | parent | next [-]

Apparently corpo doesn’t hesitate to remove it when it benefits consumer, because “we just follow the law, citizen!” But when it benefits corpo it takes decades of suing and multi-billion fines to make a change.

Totally not evil, just business, comrade, amirite?

▲

pftburger a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

100% Here in Germany its invisible deleted, and the process handle by a private company

▲

mptest a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

no one, and i mean no one, has to invent the history of evil corporations doing evil things. Climate change? Cigarettes?, shit let's go modern. CZ? SBF?

if it's not clear to you may i suggest with the upmost respect that you read surveillance capitalism by zuboff (a successor to manufactured consent in my humble opinion).

I guess my question is where do you get the confidence or belief these companies are doing anything BUT evil? how many of americas biggest companies' workers need food aid from the govt? look up what % of army grunts are food insecure. in the heart of empire.

Where on earth do you get this faith in companies from?

	▲	a day ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

idiotsecant a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Publicly traded corporations are machines whose only lawful purpose is to make money. They are legally obligated to be sociopathic systems. They aren't evil like an axe murderer, they're evil like a gasoline fire. They may be useful when properly controlled, but they're certainly never worth defending in the way you seem to feel the need to

▲

deaux a day ago | parent [-]

>Publicly traded corporations are machines whose only lawful purpose is to make money.

Hey, so this isn't the case at all, publicly traded companies are under no lawful obligation to focus only on making money. Fiduciary duty does not mean this in any way. It's a common misconception whose perpetuation is harmful. Let's stop doing it.

▲

Imustaskforhelp a day ago | parent | next [-]

> publicly traded companies are under no lawful obligation to focus only on making money

You changed the word "purpose" to "obligation"

I think there is a big difference b/w the two.

I would consider a correction in both of these statements, that the only purpose isn't to make money but rather to make valuation (but same thing most of the times)

They'd rather lose on profits or even burn the profits if that would mean that somehow their valuation could grow faster.

But sooner or later the profits will catch up to the evaluation (I hope) and only profitable companies should have their valuations based on top of that in an efficient economy.

Public traded corporations get money from people indirectly via retirement funds or directly via investing in them directly. The whole idea becomes that the profit to a person retiring is not the profits of the company but rather the valuation of the company. Of course, they aren't a legal obligation to profit itself but I would consider them to be almost under legal obligation to valuation otherwise they would be removed out of being publicly traded or in things like S&P 500 etc.

As an example, in my limited knowledge, take Costco, some rich guy would say for them to raise the price of its hotdog etc. from 1.50$ to 3-4$ for insanely more profits. Yet, they have their own philosophy etc. and that philosophy is partially the reason of their valuation as well.

When the rumour that costco is raising the prices of their hot dogs, someone might expect stock prices to increase considering more "profit" in future but rather the stock prices dropped.. by a huge margin if I remember correctly.

most companies are investing into AI simply because its driving their valuations up like crazy.

I don't think its an understatement to say that companies are willing to do anything for their valuations.

Facebook would try to detect if girls are insecure about their body and try to show advertisements to them. This is in my opinion, predatory nature showed by the corporation. For what purpose? for the valuation.

▲

jdpage a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The purpose of a system is what it does.

▲

philipallstar a day ago | parent [-]

It's not "a system". Each company is run by different people, and is under different pressures, and makes different decisions. Monolithing that is silly.

	▲	jdpage a day ago \| parent [-]
		Each company is a system, though. And they exhibit certain behaviors common to their type.

▲

soco a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Potato, potahto. While you're right that the law doesn't state it, it's also true that it is the only goal they have, so there's that.