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

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#341

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

izacus wrote: post #180
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…

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 think another error is assuming that having all content within a few hyper-scale hyper-global ad-supported commercial repositories of everything is a natural or healthy state of affairs. Many small websites dedicated to particular things is IMO generally better both from a free speech and a moderation standpoint than these giants that have to thread an impossible needle. In other words, web 1.0 was better.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#342

Post by nitwit005 »

izacus wrote: post #180
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…

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 happened to having specialized agencies regulate and inspect industries?

A lot of censorship has traditionally been governments threatening to regulate industries if they don't self regulate, and that's pretty much what's been going on.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#344

Post by swalsh »

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…

I think what we need is a users bill or rights. There should be certain rules a company just can't decide to make, and there should be certain rights afforded to every user.

Without that we're just choosing between which monarchy to rule us.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#345

Post by lazyjones »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #248
lazyjones wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All these services are easy to replace. What isn't yet available elsewhere is the content discovery possibilities provided by Youtube, especially what would be considered "pirated" content on other sites without deep ties to the government (e.g. full CDs, movies that get uploaded and stay on yt for a long time, to be downloaded by millions).

Point is Google can offer services like Docs for free and still invest money in continually improving them because it sells advertisement-space on its free products. Sure you could build your own. But how would you finance the maintenance of your software and its free-for-customers delivery platform? Answer: By either selling advertisement, or by charging people for using it. The problem really is that by now Google…

As a user, I don't need to compete with Google. I just need an alternative. If I needed collaborative document editing (as a replacement for Docs, a feature I don't use), I'd probably try something like https://www.samepage.io/ . My only use of Docs at the moment is for maintaining some stock price calculations and tracking with the =GOOGLEFINANCE(...) function. There's probably some personal finance apps out there that do the same.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#346

Post by LudwigNagasena »

duxup wrote: post #204
izacus wrote: post #180

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...

I am absolutely happy if a company is ready to host everything legal.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#347

Post by sadosystems »

psyc wrote: post #259
izacus wrote: post #180

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…

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?…

You got it, he is emphasizing the fact that google is not a part of the government. I agree that this distinction is kind of annoying for some reason.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#348

Post by DaniloDias »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #312
ixacto wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this apply to google workspace (paying)customers too? If so google is actually scanning what is supposed to be private information.

> If so google is actually scanning what is supposed to be private information. Am I just too cynical or are you naive for thinking they aren't datamining absolutely anything they can get their hands on?

Logs are only useful if they are monitored.

This individual seems to look at events that happen that don’t align with their prejudices and assumes that the signal is an aberration.

Nihilists get burned. You have to hold people accountable for the consequences of their action rather than their intention.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#350

Post by regnull »

People must be able to exchange information in a secure and private way, free of government or corporate censorship. The fact that there is no common, simple, and ubiquitous way to exchange private messages blows my mind. I wish someone would do something about it.

Oh wait, I did! Here's my attempt to implement email based on Self-Sovereign Identity: https://github.com/regnull/ubikom and https://ubikom.cc

Still work in progress, but it's fully functional. There are no accounts or domains - private key ownership is all we need.

Post reply on HN