Good. A private entity (corp) exercises it's right to free speech. Google is under no obligation to provide services for anyone it deems troublesome. Would you question a bartender or bar staff for refusing entry to a problematic client?
[deleted]
Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
191–200 of 229 posts
Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Context matters. Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. If someone threate…
> Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social appr…
> At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat.
So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate.
Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech.
Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault, because assault is just a "consequence" of walking around in public.
"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished"
That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims.
And if you say something like that, you are probably a bad person.
Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social appr…
> At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat. So you agre…
> So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate.
I don’t agree, sorry. They seem perfectly sincere; I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” in this context (what would “legitimate” behavior look like here? Never disengaging from another person’s attempt at a conversation, no matter how absurd the priors are? This doesn’t feel like a reasonable standard to demand of others.)
I put “threat” in scare-quotes because I thought it was obvious that this isn’t really a threat in any meaningful sense. Equating it to abuse is specious and distasteful.
Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat. At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social appr…
> At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat. So you agre…
> Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech.
Not sure what you mean by "valid". Sounds like a moral stance. Thoughts are a consequence of speech. A threat is an expression of a thought.
> Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault
No, it does not. Trying to abridge expression, to prevent misinterpretation is impractical. Defensively speaking to that end, is not an element to free speech. It's specifically in opposition.
> "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished"
Or you will be rewarded.
> That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims.
I'm glad you have the right to express your beliefs, although I disagree with how you interpret speech.
Just because someone acts virtuously or within their rights, does not mean they are given privilege, nor guarantee that they will be rewarded, nor guaranteed that there will be no retribution. Speech rights do not solve imbalances of power. The philosophy of free speech, as I understand it, is not about individuals per se. Over time, enough people will have enough opportunity to solve their own problems (including power imbalance), by cultural change.
Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's disingenuous to conflate Alphabet Corporation's political strategies with "the norms and rules of society".
It's disingenuous to conflate a private entities exercising their rights to "refuse a problematic client service" with infringement of the constitutionally protected free speech by a governmental entity.
Oh boy, another "private entities can do what they want" argument. What's the point in saying freedom of speech only applies in public places and protection from the government, and then turning around and handing over control of the biggest tool for sharing information (the Internet) to private companies? Sorry, but the "private companies can do what they want" argument is old and tired when it comes to censorship.
Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
#196Anti-Google article -> Brave ad -> Eye roll.
Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's to be done, then, before we reach sufficient education and critical thinking skills? I mean, that's kind of a boil-the-ocean solution, as you observe. When Trump suggested that ingesting bleach could cure COVID-19, 30 people in NY state were hospitalized the next day for drinking bleach. Saying "we should all be sufficiently educated and critical thinkers that misinformation is harmless" is effectively no solu…
I suggest we start publicizing the problem and teaching these skills (critical thinking, epistemically sound thinking and speaking, etc), and using them here . > I mean, that's kind of a boil-the-ocean solution It may seem like that, but is it really ? Is there some uncertainty involved in the problem space? > When Trump suggested that ingesting bleach could cure COVID-19, 30 people in NY state were hospitalized the…
> I suggest we start publicizing the problem and teaching these skills.... and using them here.
When I was in university 30 years ago I took a class in logic that was required for my arts degree just because we needed more critical thinking. We've not had a shortage of emphasis on empiricism and critical thinking in the last few decades.
> Is there some uncertainty involved in the problem space?
Only insofar as "we need to cultivate critical thinking" is still viewed as a valid response to mass hysteria and delusion.
> If we were to go through the effort of decomposing and explicitly unpacking this sentence,
You've mistaken an illustration for an argument.
> How about we see if the more capable than average minds here at HN are capable of it?
The community at lesswrong.com has bred a bunch of officious assholes, and no general improvement in the community of thinking. Also, Silicon Valley is synonymous with the "more capable than average minds here at HN", and what we have to show for it is the globalised ad market destroying local journalism, and an opt-out surveillance network that intelligence agencies couldn't have dreamed of 50 years ago. The more-capable-than-average minds have proven themselves to be more self-absorbed and venal than the most cynical evangelical preacher could have imagined.
My objection to your idea is that we've had ideal conditions over the last two decades for enlightened thinking to dominate, and it has proven to be more effectively un-enlightened than anything that has come before. We've made a wealth of information available at everyone's fingertips, and the result is unparalleled tribalism and cherry-picking.
Seriously: The most obvious con-man possible is president of the United States, at a time when we all know just how awful a human being he is. You can't plausibly suggest that more of the same intellectual diligence is the answer. We've had ready information and endless proselytizing for critical thinking, and the most powerful nation in the world has the least intellectually capable/honest leader possible. Donald Trump is a reductio ad absurdum of your response.
Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
So "journalists" are now colluding with platforms to censor information. Brave new world.
Not collusion, not "journalists". I imagine it went something like this: 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's like sending a picture of your neighbor's garden to the police, "asking for clarification" about what is permitted.
You can do that, but at least call it what it is.
Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
#199The file was widely shared on Google Drive and linked to from a public twitter message— it was very much not a personal file. And the title literally was, “An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus” referring to hydroxychloroquine. Google’s doing its part to purge pandemic misinformation and prevent harm. The authoring “doctor,” as far as I can tell has never had postgraduate medical training and cannot practice medicin…
The goalpost moving by people here on HN is quite entertaining to watch. Hydroxychloroquine was just bought in bulk by the UK in case it turns out to be a cure.
Apparently the only people who are allowed to have opinions these days are academics employed by governments?
Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Network topological discovery is the hard pill to swallow with p2p based tech. You're paying for it in much higher network bandwidth, cpu, battery, and more. Eventually the tradeoffs will be so minuscule that they will be a rounding error. But right now, that's not true.
Pirate Bay is all magnet links now. Internet Archive serves most items as torrents while acting as a store of last resort. SciHub and LibGen are functional and available. There are tradeoffs, but it will happen, even if it's TXT records for a domain that point to IPFS links (namecoin aside). The future will make it easier, but it works today.
Pirate Bay, SciHub and Libgen are used mainly on desktop computers with an unlimited broadband connection. They are niche communities for enthusiasts (whether the dwindling pool of torrent users, or academics/bookish people). The general public now consumes its content on mobile, and as the GP mentioned there are significant bandwidth and battery costs to trying to provide distributed content over the mobile devices we have today.