Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying "all the experts" think it may actually be true is a big stretch. It's far more accurate to say that the experts haven't ruled it out. But they still think natural origin is far more likely[1]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3
I thought this theory was debunked by scientists over a year ago? https://www.npr.org/2020/04/22/841925672/scientists-debunk-l...
Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
281–290 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#282Earlier 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…
I'm really sorry for the off-topic, but I've been waiting for a chance to ask because I see it here very, very often. What are people intending to denote with the "private" in "private company", especially where the company is so obviously and well-known to be public[ally traded]? What are you trying to distinguish it from by calling it private? Are you just pointing out it's not the government or quasi-governmental?…
I feel the exact same way. I suspect "Private Company" is being used in relation to Public/Private Sector and not in relation to whether or not the company is publicly traded.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#283Earlier 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.
I think most religion is wrong, yet I'm not opposing that. I also think genocide is wrong, and yes, I'll oppose that. Same with anti-vax rhetoric.
While religion can be a real negative, it isn't generally the goal and often, there are good intentions. Genocide hurts people, though, through its nature. Anti-vaccine propaganda hurts folks as well. You simply cannot have these movements without hurting folks.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#284The 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…
like, just stop using google, lol. What's wrong with computing the way it was intended? Stop using the cloud people.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#285It’s ironic that the largest advertiser is concerned about misleading content.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#286Earlier 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…
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.
We still need there to be suitable alternatives, so there needs to be some regulation at least, to encourage competition and/or to prevent companies from reaching a point where there are no longer alternatives.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#287Earlier 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.
In the EU, governments and actually trying very hard to discourage the spread of misinformation, as well as passing legislation that the tech sector has always claimed was not needed. So yes, it's very likely, as it's already happening.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#288The 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…
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!
This is techno-utopianism. The problem isn't technical. Your grandparents won't figure out how to host their own cloud or use Mastodon. Your friends who work at art galleries or in construction won't figure it out either. The reason centralized services proliferate is that they cater to the vast majority of people who don't care about this stuff.
"How do we limit the harm of misinformation while preserving our freedoms?" That's a political problem. We can't just code our way out.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#289Earlier 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.
Is it rational, though? Maybe for a certain type of politically active person. But I believe in free expression (the principle kind, in addition to the 1st amendment kind), so it seems to me it is not rational for me to oppose the distribution of anything legal. Or is it irrational of me to have principles, rather than being maximally self-interested or social-utopia-utilitarian?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#290Earlier 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.
To you it's a golden age, to others this is a period where the internet was thoroughly weaponized by misinformation agents to undermine democracy and civil societies around the world.