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

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#371

Post by ashtonkem » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

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 personally think nobody should have this kind of power.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#372

Post by pageandrew » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

Latty wrote: post #333

dfdz wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) ..…

There is a distinction between discussing a theory, and presenting it as the truth with no evidence. Not a distinction I imagine automated moderation systems are going to manage well, of course, but it exists.

This distinction never mattered. Any discussion of the theory besides refuting it as "debunked" was banned on Facebook.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#373

Post by ixacto » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

m-p-3 wrote: post #335

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 it's not end-to-end encrypted, it's not private from Google. Google can and will scan anything you feed it.

I’m tempted to make a bunch of honeypot accounts just to see how Orwellian and/or gameable their system is.

What will trigger it? Fan pages to Trump/Qanon? Antivaxxer propaganda? The German federal police paper on how to clandestinely manufacture heroin? Or maybe just a 20mb text file with the “卐” character?!

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#374

Post by dang » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

chaganated wrote: post #90

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…

resignation or gtfo

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#375

Post by native_samples » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #311

hash872 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that we know from experience, after 20+ years of the modern Internet, that if you make a 'free speech' drive/repository place that's widely available, it will host the absolute worst of the human race. Then, let's say you personally were in charge of said Free Speech Drive- every day you'd get up and hear about people using it for (legal) jailbait photos, Islamic State recruiting, collaboration between e…

Another wrinkle in all of this is that you can use free speech as a form of censorship . For example, if someone says something you don't like, you can intimidate them into shutting up by, say, threatening to reveal their personal information, such as their legal identity, address of residence, and so on. On certain corners of the Internet, merely dropping dox is good enough to get randos (who won't even be affiliate…

That's not censorship though. Threats are what people are forced to do when they cannot censor you, as censorship is much more direct. And DDoS attacks aren't speech.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#376

Post by Bud » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

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 regulation of private companies?

Easy answer. The modern GOP happened.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#377

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#378

Post by jinpa_zangpo » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

The problem isn't that one company has made its own decision on what to ban. The problem is that the White House is literally compiling a list and telling all the social media companies who to ban. This is censorship by proxy.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#379

Post by _huayra_ » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:52 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…

I always wonder if it will be challenging to get people used to the idea of paying for these services from a non-Google provider. Although Google hoovers up cash hand over fist (hence the high salaries), having a well-polished set of apps that work as well for low cost is going to be a hard pill to swallow for so many folks that are just used to "free email" by now.

I host my own email and pay about a dollar a month and my non-tech family members look at me like I'm some fool for not using the free stuff. Conversations about the value of data just go woosh over their heads :|

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#380

Post by beebmam » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #362

beebmam wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me why a private company should be forced to host content that they fundamentally disagree with. Why should Google be forced, legally, to carry Chinese state propaganda, for example? Why should Google be forced, legally, to carry ISIS propaganda? There are alternatives to Google. They should host that content there

Why do we not allow telephone companies to censor our conversations? Why can't the power company choose not provide power to offices for political campaigns they disagree with? We afford monopolies certain privileges, but we also require monopolies to have certain restraints. Many of these large tech companies have become natural monopolies. I think its reasonable to expect similar restraints.

I agree with you on restraints on natural monopolies. That should come in the form of limiting their anti-competitive behavior and probably also harvesting user data unconsentually for profit.

But regarding limiting these companies from being able to decide which speech they don't want to host: I don't think you've thought this out fully.

What speech should they be forced to host? Art? Disinformation? Propaganda? Porn? Spam? Terrorism? For illegal speech: Whose laws should they be forced to obey?