Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 229 posts

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#51

Post by walesminutecopy »

This might be the relevant section in the Terms of Service:

Public streaming Drive allows you to store, share, and stream video content, but should not be used as a replacement for a content distribution network. For large-scale public streaming, YouTube is a better fit. Drive will restrict usage when it appears that it's being used for large-scale public streaming. Repeated violations may result in additional action, including terminating your account or ability to use Drive.

https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505?visit_id=63725...

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#52

Post by yegle »

Similar news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16668267

What I learned from that post is that as soon as you start share your file, it's no longer a private file and stricter guideline/requirement applies.

This is also indicated from the TOS:

> Files in your individual drive are private, until you decide to share them.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#54

Post by jrockway »

I don't see any evidence that Google applied a misinformation policy here. It could be that they simply don't want to pay for the bandwidth to serve video without any ads in it. It is a big file and a lot of people want it. That can get super expensive.

I don't know how big this file is, but let's say it's a 4GB DVD image. That ties up 1Gbps for 32 seconds, which means that with a 1Gbps link to your server, you can serve it to less than 3000 users a day. Even if you're getting budget residential ISP prices for your transfer, you're talking 1 cent per 10 copies of the video. At AWS prices, you're talking 36 cents for every copy of the video downloaded.

This sort of thing is why you either peer with an ISP at 10Gbps or more, charge money for file hosting, or use a p2p file sharing application.

Until I see some evidence that this is misinformation censorship (for example, Google removing a private file with a transcript of the video), I'm going to assume this is just limiting the impact on other users from a free user with a popular huge file. As HN always says, if you're not paying for something, you're not the customer.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#55

Post by tinus_hn »

virmundi wrote: post #47
addicted44 wrote: post #37

It's not entirely clear to me, but did Google delete the file from the user's personal, private drive, or did they delete public access to the file? Because the former is unacceptable, but the latter is not as big a deal at all.

The trouble is where do they draw the line. Say I share a pamphlet about how Jesus reclaims humanity from the corruption of sin. If Google thinks all Christians are superstitious bumpkins, does that give them the right to remove my public share?

They have the right to stop hosting whatever they are hosting for any reason or no reason at all. What makes you think they can be forced to host your files?

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#56

Post by jrockway »

dvt wrote: post #43
addicted44 wrote: post #37

It's not entirely clear to me, but did Google delete the file from the user's personal, private drive, or did they delete public access to the file? Because the former is unacceptable, but the latter is not as big a deal at all.

How is (what is basically) a unilaterally executed "gag order" not a big deal?

Do any cloud providers provide free unlimited outbound transfer? Because that's what a public file on Google Drive is.

Cutting off someone who is abusing your free tier isn't censorship.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#58

Post by elliekelly »

tinus_hn wrote: post #53

Is it really personal files if it’s used as a file sharing service?

It definitely seems like the “share a Drive file” method was used to widely distribute a video that didn’t comply with Google/YouTube’s policies. And using Drive in that manner is, of course, also a violation of their policies.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#59

Post by jfoster »

virmundi wrote: post #47
addicted44 wrote: post #37

It's not entirely clear to me, but did Google delete the file from the user's personal, private drive, or did they delete public access to the file? Because the former is unacceptable, but the latter is not as big a deal at all.

The trouble is where do they draw the line. Say I share a pamphlet about how Jesus reclaims humanity from the corruption of sin. If Google thinks all Christians are superstitious bumpkins, does that give them the right to remove my public share?

The line will be drawn arbitrarily and inconsistently, which might not be as bad as it sounds.

There will always be some content that just has to be banned.

No moderation will ever get the rules & the line exactly right, but they can be close enough to reasonable.

The consequences matter. Losing private access to a file is quite bad, but Google deciding they don't want to help you publicly share something is a bit different. (note that in this case it's unclear which of those things it was)

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#60

Post by blisterpeanuts »

adrianN wrote: post #14
nafix wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they are digging their own grave unfortunately. The majority of people seem to be Ok with this, and the majority will continue to use these platforms. I still use these platforms even though I hate what they are doing. We really do need some alternatives...

There are alternatives, but they don't have a free tier.

Regarding the sharing of controversial video content, isn't Bitchute pretty much a free alternative?
Post reply on HN