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

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#271

Post by commandlinefan » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:03 PM UTC

h3rsko wrote: post #60

I highly reccomend people look at Cryptomator[1]. It encrypts all your data on your google drive or dropbox etc, but works like normally on your local machine. Allows you to use these services while blocking the provider from being able to view your unencrypted data. Also its free and open source! [1] https://cryptomator.org/

I keep hoping to see a fully end-to-end encrypted, peer-to-peer, uncensorable communications channel catch on... but if it hasn't caught on yet, I don't think it's ever going to. Too many people believe that "if you don't have anything to hide you don't have anything to fear" - so they figure if it looks like they're hiding something, they should have reason to fear.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#272

Post by throwaways885 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:03 PM UTC

zpeti wrote: post #117

mancerayder wrote: post #105

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…

What’s sad to me is that someone who really should be a hero to everyone in Silicon Valley, the journalist who decided to publish Edward Snowden’s stuff, at insane risk to himself, has been warning about censorship forever. (Glen greenwald) Yet now he’s apparently a right wing trump apologist to most people on the left. That doesn’t change the truth of what a person who’s put a lot on the table is saying. Censorship…

Snowden (and countless others) are hero's. This new breed of authoritarian leftists do not represent Silicon Valley and tech at large, but rather silence those of us who do still believe in free speech.

I'm petrified about speaking out because I don't want to be labeled as a far-right trump apologist. No, believing gigantic megacorporations shouldn't censor information is not "right-wing".

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#273

Post by jonnycomputer » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #225

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?

I think ISPs should be public utilities, so, no.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#274

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #124

thinkingemote wrote: post #107

Its a slippery slope but not for the reasons you might first think. It's because this is turning a platform into an publisher. Soon more and more governments will be demanding publishers to enforce editorial standards. There seems to be no platforms these days that say they are just that. Even cloudfare, a peice of background infrastructure is happily editorialising certain things. With this idea, try not to get suck…

>It's because this is turning a platform into an publisher. The "platform vs. publisher" dichotomy that crops up in these conversations is propaganda. Exercising editorial control over content does not create a distinction between one or the other, or convert one into the other. The distinction doesn't exist as a matter of law, legal right or obligation. Every web site and service, from tiny phpbb forums to FAANG sil…

I would recommend you read the actual law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the PUBLISHER or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

So yes. In the actual law, there is something called a publisher, and the law is distinguishing the website from being something as opposed to a publisher.

So yes, there absolutely is a "distinction" being made here, regarding something that the law itself calls a publisher.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#275

Post by trentnix » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:04 PM UTC

And to be completely consistent with their censorship and account termination on Youtube, their app store, and ads, their justification for banning "misleading content" will be opaque and frustrating. And if they screw up, you'll get the old "inadvertent error" or "administrative error" catch all.

The support and excuses for why this should be acceptable is pretty much summed up as: as long as it's not my ox being gored it's fine!

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#276

Post by unyttigfjelltol » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:04 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…

>speaking ill on certain topics is modern-day heresy

The AUP would be more transparent if it simply banned "modern-day heresy". Folks would then be tagged as tech-heretics, and many would wear that badge with honor.

Calling questionable, unproven, unpopular or ambiguous information "misleading"-- it's a doublespeak. Worse, having my cloud drive spontaneously dumping or blocking my data because some algorithm or faceless reviewer disagrees with the content-- that's totally unacceptable as a consumer proposition. Is my Android phone next simply because I'm posting an HN comment Google might disagree with? Seriously, it's completely unworkable from a consumer position for Google to arrogate to themselves that power.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#277

Post by michaelpb » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:04 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.

> Between 2010-2016 was the golden age for these companies actually being free and open.

Were they really though? I'm pretty sure there were plenty of things, especially things deemed to be "Intellectual Property violating", which were strictly banned on all these platforms far before 2010. One example is that Google has been removing search results for as long as I can remember.

In other words, what was in your perspective "free and open" was very restrictive and politically pro-corporate from my perspective --- hardly an "objective stance" but instead a very political stance on what was permitted and what was forbidden.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#278

Post by pm90 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

Actual Content:

Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users. This includes:

Misleading content related to civic and democratic processes: Content that is demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in civic or democratic processes. This includes information about public voting procedures, political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace, election results, or census participation that contradicts official government records. 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.

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.

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.

Misleading content may be allowed in an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context, but please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand this context. In some cases, no amount of context will allow this content to remain on our platforms.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#279

Post by constantinum » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

MR4D wrote: post #142

As I read this, there is not one link to an alternative to Google Drive in the comments. Any suggestions? Distributed solutions (or self managed) preferred.

As i've mentioned above, Skiff, still in invite only beta looks like promising alternative [https://www.skiff.org/]. [disclaimer] I don't work for them. I waiting for the beta early access though.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#280

Post by irthomasthomas » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

I just cancelled my drive subscription.

I don't know how anyone could continue using it after this.

I probably have dozens of docs and hundreds of research papers contradicting government health advice on diabetes and heart disease. These would fall under "Misleading content related to harmful health practices" since they promote a health theory which the government considers harmful.

However I would have cancelled regardless since the idea of automatic bans and/or content deletion based on ML models is crazy. They are obviously going to find a lot a false positives and I can't deal with the idea of trying to speak to google to explain that their algorithm mistakenly flagged my innocent content. In other words even if you are the perfect citizen, there is a chance you will get flagged anyway.