Live data from Hacker News

Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

support.google.com

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#441

I see a lot of comments misinterpreting this. First, it's not about private files, it's about distributing content. Google isn't spying on your private files, but does scan them when you share them publicly. E.g. keep all the pirated movies you want on your Drive, and even give private access to friends, but the moment you make them publicly viewable Google scans them and limits access accordingly. So no, this isn't…

There's something fundamentally flawed about the idea that censorship in the name of preventing misinformation is protecting the foundation of democracy.

You cannot have true democracy if people cannot disagree with their governments, they must be able to disagree with any truth or opinion such a government might consider self-evident, just on the off chance they're right.

I should at this point note that Google doesn't directly claim to go quite that far in preventing misinformation, they mostly claim to disallow things that could harm the democractic process (e.g. telling people to vote at the wrong place, their candidate has died, etc.). At least that kind of information is usually agreed upon (if not there are bigger problems than mere misinformation), though they seem to try to include claims of voter-fraud, which is a bit dangerous.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#442

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…

Build your own cloud with NAS. It’s a game changer.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#443
post #180

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 would much rather live with censorship that can be removed by withholding dollars vs one that requires votes.

Just look at the puritanical rules concerning language and sexuality forced on broadcasters. Those rules are decades old and outdated and will likely remain forever.

When companies fuck up on censorship, the results seem to last only a few years. When governments fuck up, the consequences echo for multiple lifetimes.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#444

Amazing they have the gall to think they still can arbiter truth, considering how YouTube up until recently was banning the "conspiracy theory" that the recent pandemic may have originated from a Wuhan Lab... Something that now all the experts are saying may actually be true.

I am so tired of seeing this crap. Here is what happened: Act I: there was no solid evidence as to where COVID originated. There was speculation of various kinds ranging from transmission from a bat cave via wet markets, to lab leak at a Wuhan lab, to it being a bio weapon. Nobody had solid evidence though people started digging. Act II: a group of pundits and conservative political operatives who were already known…

I am so tired of seeing this crap. Here is what happened:

People said the lab leak theory was debunked because Trump said it.

Maybe what we should focus on is holding HN posters to some standard of reality and these things won't happen.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#445

I see a lot of comments misinterpreting this. First, it's not about private files, it's about distributing content. Google isn't spying on your private files, but does scan them when you share them publicly. E.g. keep all the pirated movies you want on your Drive, and even give private access to friends, but the moment you make them publicly viewable Google scans them and limits access accordingly. So no, this isn't…

Who at Google do you trust to decide what information you and I are allowed to know? What is this person's qualifications? How can they be held to account when they inevitably get it wrong? Where will the highly-transparent write-ups detailing moderation decisions be published? Seems like if Google actually gave a damn about the morality of censorship as some sort of 'neccessary evil' you'd be able to answer these qu…

I don't trust Google to fully filter information for it's credibility ... so I don't automatically trust things shared on Google drive.

But I don't have to trust that Google won't suppress valid positions drive since there are many alternatives for sharing information beyond Google drive, which isn't meant to primarily host public content in any case.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#446
As a government censor it is very pleasing to see commercial companies go above and beyond like this. In the old days I would have to threaten legal action before they instituted preemptive policies. Now all I have to do is wait for an internal group to raise an inclusion/exclusion/psychic violence issue and they'll grant themselves all sorts of broad policing authority. Saves me a whole lot of trouble I can tell you that much!

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#447
post #333
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.

Google will gladly distribute public PDFs that say the elimination of Jews "must necessarily be a bloody process," presented as truth with no evidence.

Why do they get to be the arbiter of what information deserves presentation as truth with no evidence, when they allow Mein Kampf to be presented as such?

This is all assuming that setting a file to public in Google Drive is considered "presenting it as the truth with no evidence."

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#450

I, for one, am happy about this decision. If 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, b…

so when the government starts to promote racism as policy you will obviously be in favour of it.

No I will not.

Life isn't a computer program that you can define with EXTREMELY specific if statements, like HN likes to believe.

So I'm happy with statements such as "Content that is demonstrably false" from google. And I can be in favour of supporting more regulation, but also against regulation that's demonstrably harmful even if I can't write you an extremely specific definition of what harmful of "demonstrably false" is that would cover every single imaginable edge case.

Post reply on HN