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

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#501

Post by sillysaurusx » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

Throwing in my comment like a penny down a wishing well:

Google recently turned off my gmail because my google drive quota was exceeded. They were "protecting" me from myself, by denying me the ability to buy more storage. They refuse to accept any payment method until I deliver a passport photo to them.

The problems here go a bit beyond them being the steward of information or arbiter of right vs wrong. They'll deny you service for any or no reason, and leave no recourse when their algorithm malfunctions.

That said, they can ban distribution of misleading content. It's their right, and no one can dispute that. I'm not sure what people hope to accomplish by expressing outrage over this. We wouldn't want providers not to be able to decide what content to distribute.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#502

Post by Spivak » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

pcdoodle wrote: post #21

I can't believe we give a company such power in exchange for so little.

The power to arbitrarily take down content on their own servers? Like I'm with you that it's an overreach but this really isn't that much power in the grand scheme of things. Don't publish on Google Drive and they can't touch you. Very very little pushes you to publish on Drive. Unlike social media where the lock-in the the ability to find an audience Drive is a glorified S3 bucket for all it matters.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#503

Post by throw_nbvc1234 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

BrainWorm wrote: post #488

contravariant wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does…

Soapbox, Zine, Flyer, Specialty Forum, Usenet, Civilian Radio You aren't censored if you can't generate a link to Bits on a google server.

Do you feel the same way about free speech zones? Don't like what someone says, just force them to move out of the way so they end up protesting to an empty audience. Naturally if it's a big enough protest you may have to use violence (tear gas, riot police ect...) to do this but hey, they still get their right to free speech, so i guess it's all good and democratic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#504

Post by chroem- » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

In 2003 the US Government and media collaborated to start the Iraq War based on false reporting. Tens of thousands of people died. Today, the notion that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction would be suppressed as "misinformation" because it contradicts the official narrative.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#505

Post by contravariant » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #493

contravariant wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does…

What would you do to combat the deliberate misinformation campaign that is weakening the US and many other countries? While propaganda and polarization are not new, the speed, reach, and aggregation are only possible with modern communication. An early tidbit that may have been lost with deplatforming was that Euro leaders also disagreed, citing that only the state could be trusted with that power. However, the US Co…

It's a hard problem for democracy, the best countermeasures I know of are transparency and education, but those are mitigations at best, you can't really do much if a majority of people believe an untruth.

You could also elect me as your benevolent dictator, I'll be happy to bring the misinformation to an end, but the lie I'd tackle first would be that this has anything to do with democracy.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#506

Post by ajsnigrutin » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

Companies should really decide and be either platforms (only remove directly illegal material, when reported, and carry no responsibility for other stuff) or a published (cherry pick what they want posted/hosted, and carry all the responsibility for the posted content.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#507

Post by contravariant » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

BrainWorm wrote: post #488

contravariant wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does…

Soapbox, Zine, Flyer, Specialty Forum, Usenet, Civilian Radio You aren't censored if you can't generate a link to Bits on a google server.

Call me a deontologist but if it's good then all of them should do it and if it's bad then none of them should.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#508

Post by jaywalk » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #491

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…

No I wouldn't. Google is not necessarily wrong here. The issue is that you cannot easily 'own' a part of the internet, despite much of our life playing out there. In the real world, if no one wants to host you and your group, the standard answer is to acquire money and buy your own land, your own broadcasting, etc. On the internet, this is much harder for 'normal' people to do, requiring them to use services like Goo…

> once parler was taken down, I purchased several servers off ebay, rented colocation space, and set up my own services. But I have the technical know-how to actually 'own' part of the internet without depending on anyone else.

You said you rented colocation space. You (I assume) are paying a monthly fee for an Internet connection for your servers. You are absolutely depending on others who can be pressured just like AWS was with Parler. Don't kid yourself.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#509

Post by koonsolo » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

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.

You clearly don't have kids that consume content on the internet.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#510

Post by tsimionescu » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #255

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 ... and get upset when they don't host the stuff we do like. Is this actually true? I only think certain fringe Twitter groups are mad that companies host controversial things.

There is a long history of people in the USA and elsewhere being mad that companies host certain things - pornography was illegal to distribute for decades because of such beliefs, and is still segregated from non-pornographic content, and shunned by all regular advertisers (you won't see Coca-Cola ads or Beats headphones on pornographic sites) for precisely this reason.