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

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#261

Post by landryraccoon » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

throwaways885 wrote: post #227

duxup wrote: post #204

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 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.

That's your choice.

Isn't the point of the free market that consumers are free to vote with their dollars?

I don't want to give my money to companies that host things that I find morally abhorrent. That doesn't mean other companies can't host that data, simply that I don't want any of my dollars to go to those companies.

If the vast majority of consumers also don't want to give money to companies that host that content, that's the hosting company's problem. The free market is speaking. Nobody is making it illegal for that data to be hosted, but nobody is obliged to pay for it to be hosted. So it seems to me that things are working as intended.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#262

Post by DeathMetal3000 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

sysadm1n wrote: post #241

Surprised nobody has mentioned ProtonDrive[0] as a near future candidate for eliminating these types of incidents. Since the data is encrypted, ProtonDrive can't make arbitrary value judgements on your data. For me personally I can't wait for it to arrive so I can wean myself off Google properly. It's the one final thing that I need to replace Google with: Proper Encrypted Cloud Storage. [0] https://protonmail.com/bl…

Sync.com already exists and is e2ee. Why people keep using non e2ee services and get outraged when their data is misused I can’t understand.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#263

Post by bopbeepboop » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #208

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 could be sued if they helped distribute dangerous misleading health-information. It's really not about their "good intentions" but about their self-interest. It's not about freedom of speech either. Everybody has the right to say whatever they want, and Google has the right not to distribute it. Free markets 101. The fact that Google has de facto monopoly in some areas is a problem that government needs to dea…

Google actively suppressed holding Fauci accountable for gain-of-function research.

I don’t believe their censorship makes people safer — in practice, it seems to enable establishment dishonesty.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#264

Post by gcanyon » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

throwaways885 wrote: post #227

duxup wrote: post #204

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 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.

This is reasonable as an ideal, but could be harmful in practice. A significant percentage of the U.S. population believes inarguably wrong and demonstrably dangerous things at this point. It is possible that the only effective way to fix that is corporate censorship. That wouldn’t make me happy, but I’m not going to agree with letting a crazy person steer the Titanic into an iceberg just because it’s their right to do so.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#265

Post by constantinum » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:01 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…

Tools like Skiff[https://www.skiff.org/] are on the path of being that "alternative" which is, quoting from their website "..a privacy-first collaboration platform with expiring links, secure workspaces, and password protection."

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#266

Post by gizmo » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:01 PM UTC

CyberRabbi wrote: post #233

duxup wrote: post #204

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...

Do you support the right of others to host content you consider violent or garbage?

In a free society sites like liveleaks and wikileaks absolutely have a right to exist. As well as all the fringe conspiracy sites.

The problem with censorship by Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Google is different. Here the government is putting pressure on the tech companies to censor content they don't like. Censor the bad people or risk antitrust action.

It's so gross and so clearly in violation of the first amendment. Even elected officials and professors are not exempted. It doesn't matter if you're elected by the people or if you're an expert in your field, if you say something that is considered 'misinformation' by the Ministry of Truth you get censored. It's outrageous, and if big tech doesn't change course we need to start building alternative platforms. But it might already be too late.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#267

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:02 PM UTC

avivo wrote: post #173

Google can do a much better job of making clear what is out of scope. When I first saw this headline I was also surprised and outraged. Looking more closely, this is just about distribution , probably in terms of "content hosting". It doesn't target individuals or families storing whatever they want for themselves. This made more sense in that context. For example, if I create a fake video urging people to vote illeg…

> if that content is leading to real-world harm

The truth can also lead to real-world harm.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#268

Post by thinkingemote » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:02 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #253

This seems like a move to lessen upcoming monopoly legislation by preemptively banning stuff that the government is about to deem "misleading" or "dangerous."

Agree totally. Both parties in the USA have had public hearing of the large tech companies. They were effectively given the ultimatum, censor or be be broken up. There was a fair bit of overlap but during the questions, the democrats were pro removal of fake news (this was during Trump's term) and the republicans were anti non competition, anti monopoly.

I doubt that platform to publisher is a wise move but it's probably the only one they could do.

As an aside, during the hearings it was Amazon that seemed less concerned...

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#269

Post by samlevine » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:02 PM UTC

You are not immune to censorship.

The things that you say and write now are very likely going to be put under a microscope in the future and be found wanting.

And you will have to choose between lying, keeping your mouth shut, and having your entire life (digital and personal) torn apart for not agreeing with whomever is deciding what's true that day.

If you want to have freedom of speech you have to have the freedom to say things that some people think are lies. And let other people do the same.

There are laws to deal with edge cases that are seriously damaging, like libel. Which, unsurprisingly, is quite hard to prosecute in the US due to first amendment protections.

Google banning illegal content is entirely reasonable. Kicking out users who are disruptive to the platform itself is also justifiable. This is not that.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#270

Post by michaelpb » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:02 PM UTC

guerrilla wrote: post #237

duxup wrote: post #204

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. Yet it is rational to oppose distribution of what you think is wrong and promote distribution of what you think is right. You must have a hidden premise in there somewhere.

That is rational, yes. I think pretty much everyone thinks this way, with differing definitions of both "promote" and "oppose", and "wrong" and "right".

Though I may be misunderstanding what you are getting to here.