61–70 of 229 posts
There is no reference to organisations, writers or editors anywhere on this site if I'm not missing anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Note that the article doesn't say explicitly whether Google deleted the video from drive, or simply disabled the public sharing of the video. If they only disabled sharing (like they would for spam, pirated materials etc.) this may be understandable.
This is a hugely important distinction. Can we please figure this out before we pick up the pitchforks?
This is crossing a very bad line, and is absolutely unacceptable. My company of about 50 people on G-Suite will be canceling our subscription and moving to Office 365 within the next three months. We had discussed it in the past due to their history of flagrant disregard for the security and privacy standards we require, but this has galvanized the conversation and we're prioritizing it on the near-term now. I'm sure…
The future is all about self hosting and/or peer to peer technology not controlled by a central authority.
It's always about convenience though. Nothing beats being able to access your files by visiting a website.
This means, if they so choose, they could remove speech they oppose form youtube, google search, and emails.
Why are most people comfortable with a reactionary approach to this problem, and waiting to see if they exercise this right in a disagreeable manner? Wouldn't it be better to develop a solution before the need arises and legislate a clear limit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The future is all about self hosting and/or peer to peer technology not controlled by a central authority.
Self hosting was 20 years ago. Who do you think is better at running a mail server, you or Google? Do you want to deal with spam complaints, security, OS upgrades, DMARC, SPF, etc? It's all a pain. FYI I run my own mail servers as a hobby, but still have my main personal account on gmail.
The cure for ignorance is not trying to hide missinformation (that just empowers the spreaders, gives it credence (they wouldn't bother suppressing it if it weren't true), or drives it into dark places you can no longer detect how much of a problem it is).
The cure is to educate people and teach them critical thinking (both of which are expensive and honestly most governments/companies/people in power don't really want a free thinking populace (they want a populace that believes their propaganda)) and to spread the truth (not that effective on populace who lacks high level of education and critical thinking skills)
does anyone know who the people behind the reclaimthenet.org domain are? The headline seems intentionally misleading and the entire article is biased, as seems to be the case for most of the site, almost exlcusively focussing on censorship of fringe figures out of conspiracy and far-right political circles. There is no reference to organisations, writers or editors anywhere on this site if I'm not missing anything.
A lot of the articles are also... misleading at best.
I dunno, this site just feels pretty strongly like a misinformation campaign.
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 s…
name an instance of google removing a google drive file for bandwidth cost.