111–120 of 229 posts
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.
Censoring is a losing battle. Because it attacks a symptom. 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 honestl…
Most people dont have the capacity for critical thought on every area of ambiguity/complexity. Its too wide a thought surface, and we have too few hours in a day. So we have things like dictionaries in our minds, filled with information via lots of sources from childhood, tv, peers, etc. Human brains arent logical, they are mostly look up systems.
a) Is critical thinking on "every area of ambiguity/complexity" a true requirement, with respect to the article?
b) How do you think you know what people are or not capable of, especially since we've made practically no effort whatsoever to teach these skills?
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…
1. If there's too much burst traffic (like when a new popular episode is released), you can see that the video exists but GDrive won't let you stream it in the browser. I can't recall if you can still download the file. There may still exist a workaround where if you copy the file to your own GDrive (and your own quota), that copy will be available to you. In any case, usually the file becomes available again when traffic dies down.
2. Accounts sometimes get removed, or at least their shared files are no longer available publicly. I assume this is from getting too many copyright strikes against them.
I would assume if the video was popular, at least #1 would have happened here. It's unclear to me from the article if anything beyond that happened. That said, it wouldn't terribly surprise me if there was some process somewhere that matches up videos banned from Youtube and restricts their availability on GDrive.
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…
Does Google Drive not charge users based on data transfer? With S3 this would not be an issue, but either the uploader or the downloader (with "requester pays" buckets) would end up covering the cost.
From a later comment on this post:
https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505?visit_id=63725...
'Abuse program policies and enforcement
'The content policies listed below play an important role in maintaining a positive experience for everyone using Google products. We need to curb abuses that threaten our ability to provide these services, and we ask that everyone abide by the policies below to help us achieve this goal.
'These policies apply to content within Google Drive. When applying these policies, we may make exceptions based on artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific considerations, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content. Be sure to check back from time to time, as these policies may change. Please also refer to Google's Terms of Service for more information.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, freedom of speech is not guaranteed on a privately owned platform... not sure why anyone expects that.
Windows 10 is a free subscription, and users don't necessarily own a license of their operating system. Under this precedent, what is to stop Microsoft from deleting problematic files off of users' computers? After all, it's a privately owned platform.
You own the storage space you use when using windows on your personal device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scrutiny is on Google due to their paperclip-maximizing promotion of specific Youtube videos and other content. This topic is about simple URL hosting, which does not involve editorializing. Your argument works just as well for an ISP, meaning it's a non-starter if we wish to retain any Freedom.
Name any ISP in America that will distribute your video worldwide for free.
Now, you've got the potential for QoS shenanigans, but I'm certain most people would wake up to the hard and fast line being crossed. Or I could be wrong and they'd just shake their heads disappointingly as my clearly by that point undesirable self was dragged out into the street and beaten half to death for daring to suggest that people should be able to communicate freely.
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…
Does Google Drive not charge users based on data transfer? With S3 this would not be an issue, but either the uploader or the downloader (with "requester pays" buckets) would end up covering the cost.
(+) And business productivity suite product, but I think the same mostly applies there.
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…
> Drive will restrict usage... > ... including terminating your account or ability to use Drive. I think that the controversial part is that the file was deleted. I'd find it surprising if some file from my Drive is just deleted instead of restricting public access or using another form of enforcing the policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The future is all about self hosting and/or peer to peer technology not controlled by a central authority.
Unfortunately, I have to believe the opposite, even if I wish it wasn't true. People don't want to maintain a server, look after backups, deal with software updates, legal stuff, blacklists, ddos attacks, .... it never ends. People want to create some content, publish it and be done. This directly drives the future to externalizing these things to other companies. Distance isn't an issue, economies of scale are huge.…
This is what we try to solve at cloudron.io. You can self host apps on your servers without being that mechanic/electrician/sysadmin.
disclaimer: am co-founder.
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.
How so?
> and the entire article is biased
As are most articles on the topic, from either side.
More importantly: is what they say not essentially true?
What matters more: who's "side" someone is on, or what is true?