161–170 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The future is all about self hosting and/or peer to peer technology not controlled by a central authority.
Also the past or the present, if you choose to. Most people don't, and get surprised when they find out the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re only in favor of free speech that doesn’t mislead, you’re not in favor of free speech.
This has nothing to do with 'free speech' though. edit: apparently I'm rate-limited from making new posts, but JackFr's response to me below is completely fair. Sorry for not reading more thoroughly!
I was responding to the first sentence, which really wasn’t the whole point of the parent though.
From the article, it seems like they stopped public sharing of the video via Google Drive: > In an article reporting on the takedown, The Washington Post’s Silicon Valley Correspondent Elizabeth Dwoskin complains that after the coronavirus documentary Plandemic was censored on social media, some YouTube clips were telling users how to access “banned footage” from the documentary via Google Drive. > She then notes tha…
So "journalists" are now colluding with platforms to censor information. Brave new world.
Journalist: Hey, can I get a comment on this video, "Plandemic", being distributed on Google Drive?
Google employee: No comment.
And then Google employee sends a message to another employee and says, "Hey, do we need to do something about this? It looks like that video we took down off YouTube for violating our ToS is being hosted elsewhere."
Is it collusion every time a journalist asks someone to comment on a thing happening, and that someone then responds in some way beyond just saying "Yep that's a thing!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It has not been proven Google does that for all 4GB files. Verboten content or not. Without that test, you really can't conclusively say whether it is QoS enforcement or politically motivated.
Turns out, they don't want people using Google Drive as a video streaming service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The implicit idea that they are not a publisher. Now they are. They should lose their protections.
Article 50 doesn't make a distinction between the two, if that's what you're thinking of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, they could support freedom of speech by not limiting access. They do block access, therefore suppressing freedom of speech. Arguing with "they're just saving resources" is ridiculous, especially when considering Google's wealth.
Also, freedom of speech is not guaranteed on a privately owned platform... not sure why anyone expects that.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, right?
Sure, they have a virtual monopoly on electronic communication, and they built their networks through direct and indirect subsidy from tax payers, but it's a "private" network, and they are a corporation, so not just do they get to be evil, but smug people will defend them from anyone even criticizing them.
A corporation was supposed to provide a public good in exchange for the privileges they are granted. I know that there isn't really anything we can do about it anymore. In many ways they have materially benefited from the public. I don't think it is too much to ask that we get something back.
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…
If it's HEVC it would be pretty small. Also, I doubt many people would be interested in that content. Storage-space wise, it's all internally de-duplicated so identical blocks across multiple files of their users are likely stored only once + number of replicas-times. If it were frequently downloaded, CDN/caches would have made it cost-efficient as well.
I don't think that is true at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, freedom of speech is not guaranteed on a privately owned platform... not sure why anyone expects that.
The owners of the first telegraph networks banned journalists who reported on forced child labor and union busting. They manipulated elections and stock prices. And you would have defended those robber-barons. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, right? Sure, they have a virtual monopoly on electronic communication, and they built their networks through direct and indirect subsidy from tax payers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Who do you think is better at running a mail server, you or Google? Neither. My hosting provider is better than either me or Google at that, and there are other companies providing email services who are better still. What Google is "better" at with GMail is providing email whose suckage is just short of the level of suckage that would make it worth its users' while to give up having to just go to one place, their…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The owners of the first telegraph networks banned journalists who reported on forced child labor and union busting. They manipulated elections and stock prices. And you would have defended those robber-barons. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, right? Sure, they have a virtual monopoly on electronic communication, and they built their networks through direct and indirect subsidy from tax payers…
Google doesn't have a virtual monopoly on platforms to distribute video over the web. That is simply not true.
...I was referring to the telegraph operators. Everything I said was true of them. Right down to the toadies that defend the rich and powerful.
But regardless, I think a good case can be made that Google, and the other tech giants, have a near monopoly.