Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#211

Post by BitwiseFool »

jfengel wrote: post #120
jonnycomputer wrote: post #22

What. 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…

Many of the components of the abuse page talk about "distribution", but the one about hate speech is simply "Do not engage in hate speech". The way I read that, they could conceivably boot you just for having a private diary of racist rants. I don't know if they intend it that way; it's also possible that they'd interpret "speech" as meaning "speech where somebody else can hear you". But if you were looking for more…

The Terms of Service are written broadly and that's on purpose so that Google can take the liberty of interpreting things however they please. Ultimately, it comes down to the culture of the team that deals with content scanning and take-down requests. I'm willing to bet money that it is staffed by Progressive Bay-Area folks and the implications should be self evident.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#212

Post by bigthymer »

zpeti wrote: post #187
slg wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do we still teach history at school? I'm talking about history of many countries. No fear whatsoever of information control and government censorship. I'm baffled and saddened. I agree. We don't spend enough time teaching about the history of free speech in other countries like Germany. And no, I don't only mean in 1930s and 1940s Germany. I also mean the Germany of today. They, along with much of Europe, have laws…

It is also slowly becoming illegal to criticise Islam. Taking Islam out of the equation do you think it’s a good idea for any religion to actually be off the table in terms of discussion?

> It is also slowly becoming illegal to criticise Islam

Really? Literally "Illegal" as in laws against it, or figuratively as in no longer socially acceptable?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#213

Post by semitones »

izacus wrote: post #180
semitones wrote: post #39

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…

I think your fundamental error is in the fact that you think that a private company (and market competition) can fix these issues. It seems that many people on HN are just waiting for the new Savior company, that will magically have incentives to fight for them instead of making money. It's like hoping for market competition create health regulation in the food industry. Turns out, not even Apple is that messiah, and…

I agree with everything except "I think your fundamental error is in the fact that you think" - I don't think this, and I don't think my post implied that I think that either.

To clarify my statement: "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." - I don't think that the structure provided by a company is sufficient to do this properly. Rather than companies/governments, we need protocols and standards. For instance, what if we had a decentralized app (dapp) built on something like cardano, that allowed one to edit docs that lived on an IPFS? We might have to sacrifice some micro-conveniences (e.g. google docs saves automatically for you as often as every few keystrokes) to make it tenable on something like a blockchain, but it seems feasible.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#214

Post by MattGaiser »

People call for tech regulation.

Government has mandate to regulate tech.

Tech realizes that shift in power and self regulates in a way favourable to the government.

This reminds me of when Reddit tossed out Ellen Pao. Reddit demanded wholesale change, so what they got /u/spez, who happily banned all manner of subreddits when the fight was originally about one.

https://old.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte...

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#215

Post by slg »

zpeti wrote: post #187
slg wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do we still teach history at school? I'm talking about history of many countries. No fear whatsoever of information control and government censorship. I'm baffled and saddened. I agree. We don't spend enough time teaching about the history of free speech in other countries like Germany. And no, I don't only mean in 1930s and 1940s Germany. I also mean the Germany of today. They, along with much of Europe, have laws…

It is also slowly becoming illegal to criticise Islam. Taking Islam out of the equation do you think it’s a good idea for any religion to actually be off the table in terms of discussion?

You are equating criticizing a religion with spreading hate speech. Islam or any religion is not "off the table in terms of discussion". Many European countries, including Germany, simply don't want people crossing the lines into speech that can incite people to harm others.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#216

Post by CodeWriter23 »

echelon wrote: post #145
fraudz4us wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a conspiracy. It is a fact. There are official government funding records of Fauci shipping money not just to the North Carolina lab but directly to Wuhan. There are official government funding records of Fauci explicitly funding "gain of function" research a.k.a., bio-weapons. Fauci needs to FUCKING HANG. Google is hardcore fascist.

I just wanted to respond. Gain of function isn't a conspiracy. It's research methodology. We still don't know for a fact what happened. Lab leak seems incredibly plausible, but we need more data to understand. If lab leak is what happened, then this is likely a case of best intentions that went horribly awry. Your response is far too extreme and discounts the failure modes that may have been more likely. Researchers…

Why not study the Human Immune System and how to reinforce it via diet. Like how they studied bone loss decades ago and decided to add Vitamin D to milk to increase calcium uptake. Seems to me there are millions of potential pathogens that could be problematic for humans, increasing defenses seems to be the rational approach, if one’s intent is to actually preserve human life.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#217

Post by toss1 »

>> "Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm."

One can hope that this will apply to the massive anti-vax campaigns on YouTube

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#218

Post by umvi »

zpeti wrote: post #192
AgentME wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is totalitarianism when you don't let your servers be open relays for antivaxxer propaganda during a pandemic?

Soooo… The Who said the virus isn’t airborne initially. They said masks don’t work initially. What’s your plan of action there? Google censors what the status quo asks them to and then flips and censors the other side the second they change their mind? Does that sound like a good world to you? How exactly does long term discussion happen in that cases? Since basically by about April 2020 you’ve banned all pro mask di…

Well we could create a new government organization that determines what the current best known truth is ("Department of Truth" say) and Google censors just remove anything that goes against the Department of Truth

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#219

Post by danuker »

izacus wrote: post #180
semitones wrote: post #39

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…

I think your fundamental error is in the fact that you think that a private company (and market competition) can fix these issues. It seems that many people on HN are just waiting for the new Savior company, that will magically have incentives to fight for them instead of making money. It's like hoping for market competition create health regulation in the food industry. Turns out, not even Apple is that messiah, and…

Doesn't need to be a private company.

For instance, LibreOffice is looking at WASM:

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/WASM

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#220

Post by seoaeu »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #7

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.

You don't have to be an arbiter of all truth to flag some statements as dangerously untrue. Just because truth is sometimes hard to determine doesn't mean that we have to give up on there being an objective reality
Post reply on HN