[deleted]
Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
511–520 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#512The 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 know there are a ton of people who, like you, want alternatives. Unfortunately nobody is willing to pay for it. Advertisers (and governments and criminals) pay handsomely for surveillance-driven "free" platforms, but who will pay for the development, maintenance, productization, polish, and support of open decentralized alternatives? Users have been conditioned to believe that software should be free, and the more…
> I know there are a ton of people who, like you, want alternatives. Unfortunately nobody is willing to pay for it.
I don't know, I pay for O365. I know a lot of people that do. And remember; Google Drive is not free either. To get more than a minimal amount of storage you have to pay. As a result, most serious users of these services are already paying for them.
However, we end up paying AND keep getting judgement on our data. It really should be E2E encrypted and these conditions should only apply for files that are actually shared with external people.
However, I've heard many stories of people getting their accounts banned for having copyrighted content on their drive that was never shared at any point.
If it wasn't for the fact that I mainly have O365 for other stuff (email in particular), I would never pay for OneDrive under these conditions. Imagine your computer suddenly going like "oh hey this is a downloaded movie, you shouldn't have this!!" and deleting it from its harddrive. Or worse, even forbidding you to log in and access any of your data.
Ridiculous of course but this is the situation we now have with online storage. I back my OneDrive up every day for this reason.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#513Just to be clear, this is about the "Report Abuse" button. This page lists categories of things that, if someone clicks on "Report Abuse", Google may decide is indeed abuse, and take action. So this does not apply to private files, but to files for which someone with access to the file decided to complain. Note the page title, and that it says:
> After we are notified of a potential policy violation, we may review the content and take action…
There are a lot of comments here. Many may indeed hold the opinion that even when someone clicks on "Report Abuse" for a file being distributed via Google Drive on the grounds of "misleading content", then Google shouldn't take action like "restricting access to the content, removing the content, and limiting or terminating a user’s access to Google products". That's a valid position, and legitimately a criticism one can hold, and this discussion makes sense. But there are also quite a few comments imagining this to be about Google proactively scanning everyone's private files, so just making this clear. (The submitter probably understands the distinction as they put "distribution" in the title, but clearly, some comments do not.)
(Disclaimer: I work at Google but just posting as myself; have no special information here but this is just my obvious reading of the page.)
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#514Earlier 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?…
The term "private company" has no relation to whether or not it is traded publicly. It simply means the company is not owned by or controlled by (in some sense) the government, but by "private" individuals
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#515Earlier 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.
This is what I think people often miss in those discussions. There is an assumption that everything shared/'hosted' online is someone's opinion and thus should be allowed to be shared.
This was never a case on the internet, don't trust what you read online. What should be regulated is what can be advertised, because most what you read is indistinguishable from an ad. Smoothies cure cancer - an ad or someone believe some antivax type bullshit? What if it's an ad to vote for a particular party because the other will do unbelievable bad things? Fanatic or serious opinion? Should you allow those kind of post on your platform?
In my opinion you should just because it is the only way to make sure that your platform is not taken seriously and will prompt people to read something a bit more serious. It will stir controversies on twitter but who in IRL seriously considers an opinion of a twitter person?
Edit: I went for a smoke I thought about it a bit more, take a look at voat vs reddit. Voat was created as a response to censorship on reddit and look at the cesspool of a place it is. Companies do not censor content because they have a moral stand or a political agenda, they moderate the content because otherwise it will turn into a shit you wouldn't believe (HN does it to). There is much more trolls on the internet responding to everything they can than legitimate people trying to have a discussion.
New Eternal September started with social media and those not hardened by the internet before have a hard time to just dismiss what they read as 'a troll'
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#516Earlier 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 so google is actually scanning what is supposed to be private information. Am I just too cynical or are you naive for thinking they aren't datamining absolutely anything they can get their hands on?
Their policies for Workspace accounts has tight restrictions on what they are allowed to use your data for. So they shouldn't be "datamining absolutely anything that they can get their hands on".
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#517This is an insane policy. The only way to know what's true vs false is by allowing free expression not supressing it.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#518Earlier 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
> Please tell me why a private company should be forced to host content that they fundamentally disagree with. Prior to the civil rights act, companies didn’t serve certain people based on their race because they disagreed with that race. It’s not that Google should be forced to carry stuff, they should be forced to not discriminate because they don’t like it. ISIS propaganda is illegal and should be taken down for t…
> ISIS propaganda is illegal and should be taken down for that reason.
What specifically is illegal about pro-ISIS speech?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#519Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>many alternatives for sharing information beyond Google drive
You'll be disturbed to learn then that every major social network heavily censors information in an opaque manner.
What about the elderly or others who might only know how to use Facebook or YouTube? Fuck em?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#520I 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…
You are assuming a professional is reading whatever the content is you are distributing and will make a rational, fair decision.
No.
It's going to be a minimum wage indentured Google servant that doesn't quite understand what they are reading but they have 17.5 seconds per case to make a decision. They will shoot first and ask questions later. What if the document is satire but they couldn't understand it? Oh well there goes one strike against your account, or maybe that's your third strike and now ALL your Google accounts are banned.
We already know what the appeals process is like. Unless you get it publicized on Hacker News et al, you won't get any chance to appeal.