Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content” • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#221

Post by oarsinsync » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

semitones wrote: post #76

andai wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google docs etc aren't even Google's inventions, Google just bought them. I think it's important to emphasize that, to dispel the notion that you need to be a big company to make a product like that.

I agree that you do not have to be a big company to make a product like that, but it seems like you have to be a big company in order to host and deliver it.

> I agree that you do not have to be a big company to make a product like that, but it seems like you have to be a big company in order to host and deliver it.

The tragedy isn't in what you've said, but rather what you haven't said. The implication is already that a product of GDocs/GSheets quality should be free, as part of a large company's moat, rather than a paid for product that people will pay for.

The tragic reality is thanks to these large companies turning what would otherwise be successful standalone businesses, into free additional features.

I've used that word because Steve Jobs famously described Dropbox as a feature. Google has effectively made MS Office a feature. Apple effectively made operating systems a feature, by giving away macOS and iOS for free with their hardware sales.

Increasingly, everything becomes a feature, in search of what? For big tech, it's to sell users attention.

Meanwhile, on the other side, big media is charging us to give them our attention...

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#222

Post by polynomial » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

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…

Even more problematic is the difficulty current algorithms have in distinguishing "engaging" in a certain class of speech acts from studying said class. This requires a subtlety of parsing humans are (sometimes) capable of, but machines still struggle with.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#223

Post by floatingatoll » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

natural219 wrote: post #186

floatingatoll wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's on the front page right now, but I'm not sure it deserves to be given the quality of HN's discussion so far. The top ten highest voted comments are essentially redundant copies of the same outrage, stated slightly differently. If everyone is just going to pile on and state how upset they are, instead of replying to each other's comments and keeping one thread for all the outrage, what's the point in bringing thi…

Why are you not outraged, lmao.

I am, but anything I would have said was already said by one of the top ten redundant outrage comments, so I'm not wasting HN's time piling on in that regard. Upvotes are a stellar alternative to "me too" replies that contribution nothing but redundancy.

It's interesting that you interpret my reply as containing an opinion about the post topic, when it doesn't state any opinion about Google's actions at all. I don't consider it appropriate to infuse every statement I make with outrage, even if I'm outraged, because that saps the life from communities when it's a common practice. Perhaps you're (incorrectly) reading between the lines that the lack of infused outrage as some sort of statement of my opinion?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#224

Post by starkd » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

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…

Government regulation is no substitute for competition. The ability for consumers to walk away to a suitable alternative maintains a continual accountability that a single agency is unlikely to deliver.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#225

Post by commandlinefan » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

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…

> I do think Google has a legitimate interest in regulating use of it's services as means of distributing information

If so... do you think that your ISP also has a legitimate interest in regulating use of it's services as means of distributing information?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#226

Post by duxup » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

JasonFruit wrote: post #210

izacus wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What makes you think the government is that Messiah? Is it likely, in your view, that the government will go out of their way to "encourage the spread of misinformation"? I'm not seeing that happening.

>What makes you think the government is that Messiah?

I didn't get that impression from that post...

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#227

Post by throwaways885 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #204

izacus wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The other truth is we're all outraged when these companies host some stuff that we don't like ... and get upset when they don't host the stuff we do like. Consumers aren't rational. Neither are their demands. I'm probably no more rational than anyone else, but I'm honest that I sure as hell don't want to give money to a service that is happy to host some violent folks content / garbage...

> The other truth is we're all outraged when these companies host some stuff that we don't like

Please, speak for yourself. I think these companies should host absolutely everything[0]. Between 2010-2016 was the golden age for these companies actually being free and open.

Edit: Within the law. To be honest, there is very little I see that should be censored beyond CP.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#228

Post by semitones » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #201

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…

> Google's increasing role as an arbiter of right vs wrong The problem is that (I doubt) Google is really doing this out of some misguided attempt at "protecting" people but rather as a reaction to what they perceive to be what the people want. When America was a very religious (Christian) country, media distributors stayed away from anything that appeared "blasphemous". They didn't necessarily do it because there wa…

"At the end of the day, we won't have truly free speech because far too few of us really want truly free speech." - that's a terrifying prospect.

I agree, I don't think Google is trying to "protect" people. They are ultimately, almost always, protecting their pockets.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#229

Post by drluke » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

hollasch wrote: post #171

drluke wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it time we make it easy for people to host thier own clouds… Like Nextcloud. All in one at home server with Owncloud Plug-N-Play. While we are at it, have it ready to go for hosting emails and Federated Social Media. To be honest, it would be a challange, but totally doable. Decetralize the interenet once again!

ISPs have shown increasing comfort with delisting sites they deem bad. I'm a huge proponent of commoditizing data hosting, but the culture today leans heavily toward "filtering" information.

ISP Censorship is next on their list… They are going to push normal discorse underground and bad ideas will just fester instead of being natually filtered out in the proving grounds of public discorse.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#230

Post by hash872 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

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…

The issue is that we know from experience, after 20+ years of the modern Internet, that if you make a 'free speech' drive/repository place that's widely available, it will host the absolute worst of the human race. Then, let's say you personally were in charge of said Free Speech Drive- every day you'd get up and hear about people using it for (legal) jailbait photos, Islamic State recruiting, collaboration between extremist militia groups in various countries (including your own), actual illegal content, and so on. Pretty soon the FBI & CIA start contacting you about some of the actual or borderline illegal content being hosted on Free Speech Drive. Do you want to deal with that?

For one thing, it's easy to say 'well we'd only take down illegal content'. But in practice there isn't such a bright line, there's lots of borderline stuff, authorities could rule something posted on your site illegal after the fact- lots of these situations are up to a prosecutor's judgement call. Would you risk jail to push the boundaries? Coordinating 1/6 wasn't necessarily illegal until- it was.

If Islamic State is recruiting on Free Speech Drive, posting manifestos, encouraging Western residents to actual jihad- you wouldn't take that down? You'd leave it up if it hewed up to the line of being legal- really? Jailbait or non-nude pics of someone's teenage daughter, hosted in the thousands- you wouldn't take that down? It's easy to be an absolutist in an Internet argument, it's much harder when you face the sort of everyday content moderation issues you see in the real world