India doesn't have enough purchasing power to convince big tech companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) to store the data of Indian residents in India. Also, there are not many local tech monoliths with consumer apps to fall back on (like China had).
Since India depends heavily on apps & services by big tech, I doubt such requirements like GDPR has would be enforced. Although the right to ask a website to delete all information about one and so on are quite good and could work.
Apple Maps is honestly no where close to Google Maps. Especially in dense Indian cities with multiple roads to reach a place, some roads are not even there on Apple Maps. It also (like OSM) lacks in contact details of businesses, open/close time, etc. which are a real value add for Google Maps.
I think Google can probably not fix it. Users will have to be manually reporting as spam.
These websites on seeing traffic from Google's crawler bots show a perfectly legit and highly SEO optimized website, but for anything else show other spam. If Google starts indexing from random IP ranges, most websites would probably block indexing from “unofficial IPs” or some companies (esp in EU) would file some lawsuit against Google. The reason being that some pay-walled news article websites won't be indexed properly, as the “unofficial IP-ed” Googlebot will not get the paywalled content.
If a website lies to Google itself, I believe the only way to solve it is by reporting the search result as spam or Google contracts people to somehow visit all billions of web pages (again the same problem – from different IP ranges) to verify it as a legit page.
I would like to know how Google currently handles it and probably how it could be improved
They can see all the domains that have served a given snippet.
They also have history to identify where each snippet was first seen.
If SO has a lot of traffic and a good reputation, and if the same snippet is found first at SO and then later at bunch of newly created, low volume, low reputation domains, then show the SO result and not the others.
The practice of "cloaking" has been around for ages and I'm sure Google has (or at least had) solutions against it.
I'm not sure on what grounds could someone sue for crawling from random, unaffiliated addresses as long as the crawling isn't causing a denial of service (they can always check robots.txt using the main IP then use that to throttle crawling from random IPs as to remain compliant).
> The reason being that some pay-walled news article websites won't be indexed properly, as the “unofficial IP-ed” Googlebot will not get the paywalled content.
Your emails are not scanned for building an advertising profile. This rumour comes up quite often, Google has thankfully stopped doing it for a long time now.
> I think it has not been trained on NFT art (crypto punks and so on).
How exactly are you defining NFT art?
I mean, it can literately be anything: Dorsey sold a screencap of his 1st tweet, Nadya from Pussy Riot did some creative stuff, and the Ape crap was the bulk of this stuff that got passed around.
I think what can be gleaned from that short-lived non-sense is that value is subjective and that the quality of a valuabe piece of 'art' is equally as hard to define. Much the same with its predecessor: cryptokitties.
Heads up: I think you meant "in vain" rather than "in vail". However, a similar phrase is "to no avail" which also means that something was not successful.
I doubt that just using nextdns could help in that. Couldn't they just hardcode and make requests to, say 8.8.8.8 or an unknown address, to resolve their DNS-over-HTTP domains?
Yes they can. You need to additionally run a firewall on your mobile device (and/or a firewall on your home network) and block all of the common DNS IP. Then only NextDNS or your choice of DNS is available (and encrypted)
Google just wants you to use them for DNS so they can still see where you are going :-)
Then why did China ask for the Hambantota port[1]. It is a clear strategic and economic policy. Not to deny other countries haven't done that in the past; but it is a clear way of gaining control - especially the taking control over infrastructure part.
Same is the case with Africa, and many projects of which do not benefit the citizens of those countries in any way too. [2]
The Hambantota case is described in detail in The Atlantic's articl, which explains why it's not a debt trap. For one, the feasibility study for Hambantota was first made by Canada — the Chinese only came in later, competing with western countries for its construction. Second, see this excerpt:
> Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota.
Even if we assume that Hambantota is a problem, total Sri Lanka debt owned by China is still at 10%, much less than non-Chinese debt. China is not the biggest problem, if it is one at all.
Whether projects benefit citizen really is up to African governments. Chinese companies build whatever African governments ask them to; Chinese don't force their projects on Africa. When I buy a house and the house doesn't end up benefiting me, that's my problem for having chosen that house, not the mortgage's fault for "debt trapping" me.
But it's not at all set in stone that none of the projects, or even the majority of the projects, are useless. In a recent study, "China Surpasses US in Eyes of Young Africans, Survey Shows": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-12/china-sur...
I'm not sure why you're carrying so much water for China, a huge nation that can fend for itself.
China absolutely throws its weight around - just like all the other big nations.
It also blindly pursues its own self-interest again like all the other big nations.
China also isn't a monolith, with companies and individuals making deals or going after projects abroad. Sometimes on win-win terms, sometimes trying to screw a target out of money. Again - just like other nations.
China uses money in diplomacy. That's just a fact. They do so not out of altruism but out of self-interest.
I can also turn this around: I'm not sure why you have so much problem with me pointing out that accusations are not based on facts. It sounds as if you want those accusations to be true despite facts.
What is wrong with doing things not based on altruism? There is nothing wrong with business. Nobody builds bridges and hospital for free.
Since India depends heavily on apps & services by big tech, I doubt such requirements like GDPR has would be enforced. Although the right to ask a website to delete all information about one and so on are quite good and could work.