251–260 of 1001 posts
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…
> It also includes incorrect claims that a political figure or government official has died, been involved in an accident, or is suffering from a sudden serious illness.
1) What is the ruling if I store and share a CNN video of a Don Lemon show in which he and a mental health professional discusses her diagnosis that a political figure, whom she has never met, is mentally ill.
2) Same thing but on Fox News and different political figure
3) Same thing but on Infowars but about Hillary Clinton
> Content that is demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in civic or democratic processes.
and
> This includes information about public voting procedures, political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace, election results,
1) Claims in the media and by political figures that the gubernatorial election in the state of Georgia was fraudulent
2) Claims that a Presidential election was "hacked" by a foreign state
3) Claims that a Presidential election was fraudulent
> Manipulated media: Media that has been technically manipulated or doctored in a way that misleads users and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm.
Again here, dealing in pure objective truth versus media spin and misleading framing:
1) Out-of-context edits suggesting that political figure called neo-nazis "very fine people"
2) A video, absent context, of a fictional reading of a phone call transcript, during an impeachment
3) A statement by a political figure that the COVID-19 virus may have leaked from a laboratory
I will be very surprised if the enforcement does not fall on partisan political lines.
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.
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...
Is this actually true? I only think certain fringe Twitter groups are mad that companies host controversial things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ... and get upset when they don't host the stuff we do like. Is this actually true? I only think certain fringe Twitter groups are mad that companies host controversial things.
How is this _not_ on the front page? 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?
Would you expect any company not to do this?
Where does it say "Google is analyzing your files for content" in the way you claim? It's not "all content that doesn't align with narratives that a government sets", it's "information about public voting procedures, political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace, election results, or census participation that contradicts official government records.". That's a lot more specific than you imply, and a lot more like "you can't spin up an overthow-the-government movement using Google services" than "you can't disagree with the government", even if it's literally "you can't say Obama was born in Kenya" - there is apparently a human review involved.
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…
Sorry, this has just been becoming a peeve for me on this site. I just want to know what you're trying to express by calling a company that is not privately owned, "private". Thanks.
I read regular stories on HN about employee activism on certain types of popular issues around gender and race, involving petitions and publicity. Spotify, Apple, Google. Yet nothing about the march towards totalitarianism and information control - always with good intentions and to our benefit - promulgated with stories such as this. Not a peep from our young Silicon Valley activists. Do we still teach history at sc…