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
The argument would be the magnitude of their impact on how a member of society can search for, view or transmit information is too large for Google to be deemed a private company. If a private company impacts a nation's states democracy to such an extent that it rivals it in power, they ought to be classified as something else.
Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
391–400 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#392The 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…
Putting aside intent, cost etc. What can / should these companies do that'll make everyone happy?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
A. Which government? All governments in general collectively? Or just the governments you want to believe? I'm sure they aren't going to listen to the COVID skeptic President of Brazil, right? Even better, as a user , can I appeal to the authority of a different government than the one I live in? Let's say I appeal to the authority of Brazil as governing my content even though I live in the US. How does that work? B.…
Well, we only have to go back a year, and you are saying the Trump admin is the only one speaking truth… I find it insane that Silicon Valley companies have such short memories, and can’t even comprehend that 1 year ago the same policies would have resulted in banning anything Trump disagreed with.
It's sad. I used to work there. What monster did we create, exactly.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#394That means it will only be enforced if someone reports a file I created or should I expect some google employees or ai to scan my files for the mentioned content?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#395Related: @BreesAnna First time I’ve seen a cloud drive blocking a document... It was a very long document re vaccination headlines from around the world. https://twitter.com/BreesAnna/status/1384763150109716481
I wouldn't consider it misinformation, but it is misleading.
There can be several causes of serious side effects, most of which I believe to be either contamination, a pre-existing condition which got its last kick due to a component of the vaccine, or something like this.
In any case, the document notes that around 2500 people have died, and according to what I checked in the database of the CDC, now around 4500 have died. This includes those who accidentally fell down the stair after tripping over their cat, but who got their vaccine a couple of hours before, but that doesn't matter.
So from 34,000,000 Covid-19 cases in the US 608,500 died = 1.79%
From 334,927,961 administered doses in the US 4,434 died = 0.0013%
If you are vaccinated you're protected by at least 40% (used to be 90+) against getting infected and if you do, it will me more likely that you won't have to go to the hospital.
There are a lot of people who tend to ignore this comparison, probably because it makes them feel more important to know about these deaths and we, the sheep, just get silently vaccinated, because they tell us to do so.
The point is, that it has benefits, and also some minor risks, to get vaccinated, yet the article attempts to make you believe the contrary, that the risks are too high. So yes, it is misleading, but in a somewhat dangerous way. There are people who are easily influenced by this kind of narrative.
Now, the question is still open for debate: should Google be allowed to decide if content like this can't be shared over their platform.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#396The 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…
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…
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#397Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#398Ahh Hell No! I mean - Who gets to define 'misleading and/or confusing'? Google? A court case? If they (Google) want to impose restrictions such as "Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users" - Might I suggest that they apply those very same standards to their own behavior. * But who can watch the watchmen? * I am grateful that I have a symmetric ftth connection. Information (correct or inco…
I think Google would agree with you. If you're going to share information that (in Google's perception) is wildly misleading, they'd prefer you do it off a domain that doesn't have "Google" in its path. And all of us are free to do that.
The "My Server, My Rules" point of view is absolutely 100% valid ( and also why I commented about asymmetrical ftth).
But, What I am also saying is this -
At what point did the Google that was the 'Do No Evil' version pivot in to a position such as they are currently taking?
When did the ethos of 'Let's do good things for good reasons for the good of humanity' pivot to what is potentially a Section 230 nightmare?
To repeat my question - Who judges (and adjudicates) what is or is not misleading or confusing?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#399Earlier 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...
> we're all outraged when these companies host some stuff that we don't like I'd argue that there is already a (fairly) tried and tested process in place to deal with this, it's the legal system. There are plenty of media outlets that publish stuff I don't particularly like, but almost none of it is illegal, so - to be blunt - I just have to suck it up. Some of my friends have opinions that I - at times - violently d…
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#400If there's one thing that's became way more obvious to me over the past year and a half is just how susceptible a lot of people are to conspiracy theories and other similar content.
In an ideal world we would have different solutions, however we don't live in a perfect world so I welcome decisions like this. Yes it does open doors for more government control and censorship, but I'd take that if it means reducing conspiracy theories, racism, etc.