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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#471

Post by listmaking »

crazygringo wrote: post #388

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…

Actually, this is not even about distribution exactly, but about the "Report Abuse" button: what this page lists are categories of things that, if someone with access to the file clicks on "Report Abuse", whoever is acting on those flags may decide is a violation. Note that the page says:

> After we are notified of a potential policy violation, we may review the content and take action…

So (1) it's not about Google proactively scanning all your files (even public ones: though I guess with sufficiently public files, sooner or later someone will click on "Report Abuse", perhaps even by accident), and (2) I imagine it could happen with files you shared with just your friend, if your "friend" decides to "Report Abuse".

(Disclaimer: I work at Google but not on Google Drive or anything related to these policies.)

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#472

Post by hackererror404 »

rtkwe wrote: post #428
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) ..…

I remember the original theory going round that was getting removed being that it was a lab leak of a bioweapon not the current theory that it was more normal 'gain of function' research that got out. Those are two very different accusations.

If we are honest however, these are theories however "unfounded" they might be...

Science is a continual pursuit of what is accurate and even then when we have a scientific proof, it's often not always permanent.

It was a theory that this came from a lab. It was perhaps another theory that the lab was working on this perhaps in part as a bioweapon. We can get into the politics of why China in general can't really be trusted and so who the heck knows... and that of course leads to skepticism and theories such as these.

These theories may or may not be true the same way "covid-19" came from a wet market may or may not be true. It's okay to say we don't know, here are some theories... That's science.

We should try to get to the bottom of it so that whatever happened is exposed and we can learn from this.

A third party getting in the way and deciding based on who knows what, what theories are okay to talk about and what theories are not okay to talk about is a horrible idea.

Perhaps Google is working on a multi-billion dollar deal with China to put Google in all of the phones made in China? You better believe that if China told Google, "Hey this theory is false (trust us), you better take down anything that talks about it"... Google would be very pressured to comply.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#473

Post by prepend »

crazygringo wrote: post #388

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…

I don’t want a cloud storage provider with only private storage. If I have a library of book files I want to share it with my spouse and if Google is trying to filter out misinform and not let me distribute it to my spouse, that’s bad.

I think we’ll have augmented intelligence through computing soon and imagine how horrific it will be if Google says “you can think misinfo, we just won’t let you think it?”

That’s bad. Storing, creating, and distributing don’t need limits like this.

Asimov’s three laws were possible and they still had issues. Imagine having a law for robots that they couldn’t speak what Google thought is misinfo.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#474

Post by ixtli »

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.

“Within the law” undermines your point. It takes the issue and just shifts it to another location on the map. It resolved nothing.

We need to collectively grow up and acknowledge that not all disagreements can coexist and solve them.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#475

Post by tikiman163 »

Google drive is not supposed to be a mass distribution platform and it actually violates the TOS to treat it like one. You can Argus all you like about privacy and free speech rights, but they do not apply to anyone trying to use Google drive as some sort of free content distribution network. It wasn't designed to let people do that, and Google has every right to ban people for violating the TOS. The fact that they typically haven't reacted to this kind of use on a large scale before now should drive home the point of just how much these idiots have started to abuse the TOS all for the purpose of distributing misleading content.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#476

Post by izacus »

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?…

Uhh, this might be a language difference - here the term "public" company usually means a company that's majorly owned by a government.

Companies owned by private individuals (whether they're publicly traded on a stock market or not) are usually referred to as "private".

So that's what I meant - a company not controlled by a government and has no accountability beyond its private owners.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#477

Post by MuffinFlavored »

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 desperately need to find a globally adoptable alternative to google and the services that it provides

I'm pretty sure Facebook and Twitter aren't far behind in the pursuit of also actively banning content they deem misleading. I don't think it's a Google-specific problem.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#478

Post by Zachsa999 »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #34
bootaccount wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why consider it when you can do it? Behavior can only change when there's a massive drop in MAU and revenue, then the product team will consider backtracking

Because it would be a major inconvenience for me, that's why. Update: I'm getting a lot of criticism here. If your aim is to try to get me to actually make the switch, then the approach you are taking is counter-productive. Instead, I guess you are doing what most people do when faced with something they disapprove of: they do the thing that is easiest and most satisfying, which is to criticize or punish the other pe…

Yes, well said.

Please stand by while I puke and shit and regret opening the comments section of an article discussing whether the first amendment is still valid.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#479

Post by wes-k »

crazygringo wrote: post #388

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…

> Companies aren't allowed to advertise rat poison as medicine and neither are you.

You may want a different example :).

> Warfarin first came into large-scale commercial use in 1948 as a rat poison. Warfarin was formally approved for human use by the US FDA to treat blood clots in 1954.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#480

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

Don't really see the point of responding to policies you dislike with absurdly over-the-top counter-proposals.
Post reply on HN