Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#301

Post by summerlight »

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…

> We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority, to have truly free-flowing information.

How naive. The reality is terrible, probably much more than what you can imagine. Let's assume that someone tries to find out teenager victims for cybersex trafficking at a massive scale on your proposed infrastructure with "free-flowing information". How will you stop them from doing so? Is it just a hypothetical scenario? No. This actually happened on Telegram, which refused official government's order to shut down the chatting room on a victim's request.

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

Please don't underestimate how far average people's malice can go. Both private and governmental intervention exist not just because of "good intentions", but it come from the real demands from the society.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#303

Post by charonn0 »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #99

Simple solution: Google can delete whatever it wants for being "misleading content" but if they ever get it wrong, even in the slightest, 10% of Google's wealth is transferred to the aggrieved. If Google is so confident in its ability to be the sole arbitrator of truth for humanity, they should have zero issue with agreeing to this because it will be zero risk. Of course they will never agree to such a condition beca…

This might be reasonable if the aggrieved user has a right that Google violated. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#304

Post by TameAntelope »

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…

Are we, as humans, entitled to a certain level of UX, or are we simply entitled to the ability to share information?

Because if it's the former, then yeah Google itself needs to be replicated and provided for all humanity. If it's the latter, well what does FTP not have?

I'm having a very hard time seeing how one specific implementation of any technology becomes so important that to live without it is to be deprived of a human right.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#305

Post by mberning »

A Russian troll farm buys some election ads on facebook and it’s a national security crisis with years of investigations and hearings. Google decides to play god with the flow of information and I highly doubt they receive anything more than the slightest pushback from our political establishment. Our elected officials are asleep at the wheel.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#306

Post by sneak »

Google turns over user data on any Google user instantly to the US government without a search warrant, including that of US citizens. Anything in Google is free for the taking by the feds.

There are already sufficient reasons to stop trusting them with your data. This is not the first and it won't be the last.

Google delenda est.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#307

Post by bserge »

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.

Well then 00-10 was the platinum age. Few behemoths, lots of smaller companies, less focus on marketing and money, fewer idiots online, a focus on hosting your own stuff from 0.

But I agree, platforms should be neutral. And people should still strive to control as much of their online properties as possible. Not just give it to Amazon and Google.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#308

Post by zuminator »

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.

Host absolutely everything? Instructions on creating explosives, chemical and biological weapons? Some future doomsday weapon? Would you say everything should be available up to and including methods for any unbalanced individual to single-handedly kill thousands or millions? How about your personal details, ID, address, employer, medical history, surfing, shopping habits? Would you even be ok with hackernews piercing the veil of your "throwaways885" username and publishing it?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#309

Post by [deleted] »

Jiro wrote: post #183
tablespoon wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guess it contradicts the official position of the current administration (not reality). So will my drive content be removed? Below is the actual policy. What term do you think your blog post violates? > 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 undermi…

I can see how information that contradicts the CDC falls under "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." Of course, it wouldn't actually fall under anything since it's not misleading, but such things get interp…

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#310

Post by dfdz »

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…

A recent high profile example is the lab leak "conspiracy theory". Facebook block discussion of the possibility that Covid-19 started from a lab leak, but now scientists are seriously considering the issue.

Imagine if Google had this policy last year, and a scientist posted a Google Slides presentation about the merits of the lab theory (and imagine it was banned under the misleading "health" information umbrella) ....

Disclaimer: I use dropbox (mostly since they have supported linux since when I started using the service, and when I started using the service, the syncing was much better than google drive) But now I have another reason!

Post reply on HN