[deleted]
Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
31–40 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#32The doc in question ( https://archive.org/details/frontline-workers-testimonies-va... ) contains anecdotes mixed with blatant lies about vaccine side effects. I totally agree that moderation can be overreaching, but this is not one of those cases. (Edit: context from the submitter here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27858045 )
Drive is a storage service.. I don't expect Google to moderate any of my content, as long as it is legal.
This is about _distribution_.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#33So I could be banned for sharing a document that says 'Google is evil' ?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#34What. The. Hell. I suppose limiting sharing might be justified. But limiting access and/or deleting own files is outrageous. For that matter, collections of misleading content can have legitimate purposes. Such as research. Now I'm seriously considering dropping my Drive subscription. Update: I got a lot of upvotes, but tbh I may have misunderstood the new policy, which does seem to (maybe?) only be limited to distri…
why consider it when you can do it? Behavior can only change when there's a massive drop in MAU and revenue, then the product team will consider backtracking
Because it would be a major inconvenience for me, that's why.
Update:
I'm getting a lot of criticism here.
If your aim is to try to get me to actually make the switch, then the approach you are taking is counter-productive. Instead, I guess you are doing what most people do when faced with something they disapprove of: they do the thing that is easiest and most satisfying, which is to criticize or punish the other person, and to pat themselves on the back for being better.
But criticizing people just isn't an effective way to change people's minds or behavior.
What would work in this case? Showing them a path forward.
In this case, I presented a real problem, that it would be a major inconvenience to switch. That is the truth. I don't live in some idealized fantasy world, where I can take actions for free.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#35Their definition of misleading says it "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records". Because no government record has ever been wrong before, right?
Pressure by Chinese government, maybe?
No, this is just an extension of their policy on covid misinformation.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#36Misleading title. Google Drive bans *sharing* "Misleading Content," which means they can disable sharing if a doc containing blatant misinformation starts to be widely shared on other platforms. (Edit: This doesn't mean they'll go into your drive and remove doubleplusungood content) Google Drive is now widely used as a social media platform -- I even get spam from google drive share notifications now! And so I'm sure…
"In some cases, no amount of context will allow this content to remain on our platforms..." sounds exactly like they will "go into your drive and remove doubleplusungood content."
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#37Amazing they have the gall to think they still can arbiter truth, considering how YouTube up until recently was banning the "conspiracy theory" that the recent pandemic may have originated from a Wuhan Lab... Something that now all the experts are saying may actually be true.
Saying "all the experts" think it may actually be true is a big stretch. It's far more accurate to say that the experts haven't ruled it out. But they still think natural origin is far more likely[1].
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#38Amazing they have the gall to think they still can arbiter truth, considering how YouTube up until recently was banning the "conspiracy theory" that the recent pandemic may have originated from a Wuhan Lab... Something that now all the experts are saying may actually be true.
Youtube is still populated by actual conspiracy Qnuts. Much of the YouTube active discussion is right leaning, look to the comment sections.
Google isn't trying to arbiter truth, it's a combination of doing what China tells them to do and not being the arbiter of truth by removing almost anything related to covid. Simply discussing it can get you demonitized or your video removed.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#39The road to hell is paved with "good intentions". We desperately need to find a globally adoptable alternative to google and the services that it provides. Docs, Sheets, Drive, etc. are fantastic services in that they work really well on a massive scale. However, Google's increasing role as an arbiter of right vs wrong and a steward of information puts too much power into the hands of one corporation, whose best interests are provably not aligned with that of the general population.
I've been working as a SWE at google (in ads...) for over two years and I've really started to loathe it over the past year. The pay is fantastic and it's really hard to walk away from that, but the idea that they are not (or at least no longer) contributing to the better world that I think we need, has started to weigh heavier and heavier on me...
We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority, to have truly free-flowing information.
edit: added quotes around "good intentions"
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#40Ahh Hell No! I mean - Who gets to define 'misleading and/or confusing'? Google? A court case? If they (Google) want to impose restrictions such as "Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users" - Might I suggest that they apply those very same standards to their own behavior. * But who can watch the watchmen? * I am grateful that I have a symmetric ftth connection. Information (correct or inco…
> Who gets to define 'misleading and/or confusing'? Google? A court case?
They claim that anything "misleading" is "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records."
This is a wildly Orwellian way to dictate "truth" : it's whatever the government body says is true. (1984 _literally_ has a "Ministry of Truth")
Authorities can be wrong, and can _themselves_ be incentivized to mislead. Why place the center on them vs. individual responsibility?
Helping people understand, weigh, and index information and sources is an important problem - but solving it in this way is _absolutely not_ the right way to do it.
EDIT: spelling & grammar