51–60 of 1001 posts
Google is analyzing your files for content, and flagging if it doesn't align with narratives that a government body sets - and _removing all trace of that content._
If this doesn't conflict with the "hacker pathos," what the fuck is Hacker News then?
Amazing 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.
Since this is blatantly false, I would ban this as misinformation if it happened in a place I moderated. I'm don't care if it's about China, I care about not enabling misinformation. If people want conspiracy theories, there are friendly forums they could visit, but they want them in serious forums too.
Their definition of misleading says it "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records". Because no government record has ever been wrong before, right?
Which government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pe…
The second best things we can do is support projects and be vigilant against the creep of corporate interests into FOSS.
Their definition of misleading says it "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records". Because no government record has ever been wrong before, right?
Even better, as a user, can I appeal to the authority of a different government than the one I live in? Let's say I appeal to the authority of Brazil as governing my content even though I live in the US. How does that work?
B. Because no government has ever lied on official records when there is a disaster. For sure. And no government is currently, right now, lying on their records to save face. For sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3
I said that almost "all the experts" agree that it may be true, not that they necessarily believe it to be so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pe…
Most people are like you though, too lazy to do anything and they'll subject themselves to whatever big G says is good for them.
The 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 inte…
Their definition of misleading says it "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records". Because no government record has ever been wrong before, right?
Banned misinformation "includes _census participation_ that contradicts official government records."
Census participation. For example, "You didn't register in the census last year? You're ineligible to vote." It's aimed at misinformation that discourages people from voting.
That seems much more reasonable, and far more precise, than information that contradicts any government record.