So is it "misleading" to address a male suffering from a mental disorder who calls himself a "she" as a "he" in my publicly shared google doc?
We have abandoned all axioms.
Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
561–570 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#562No more CNN clips. Got it.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#563What. The. Hell. I suppose limiting sharing might be justified. But limiting access and/or deleting own files is outrageous. For that matter, collections of misleading content can have legitimate purposes. Such as research. Now I'm seriously considering dropping my Drive subscription. Update: I got a lot of upvotes, but tbh I may have misunderstood the new policy, which does seem to (maybe?) only be limited to distri…
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'm not defending Google's policy here. But imagine for every lab leak that Google falsely blocked, it also blocked many dangerous conspiracy theories before they got out of hand. I think is boils down to numbers and I think Google is probably in the best position to have the most accurate numbers, the question is are they also making a decision that is most consistent with those numbers.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#564The march to implement the TPP as the de facto policy of "private" monopolies continues unabated, with full support from our completely amoral and lying intelligence community.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#565Earlier 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.
> Edit: Within the law. To be honest, there is very little I see that should be censored beyond CP.
The thing is, people are never going to agree where the line is drawn. So I’d rather let individual companies decide where they draw the line and if that happens to be not where you’d agree, then you can go support an alternate, if this there are many, who draws the line elsewhere. And for those who don’t want a private entity owning the infrastructure, there is always solutions like IPFS.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#566The 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…
>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.
And that's just fine. People have the right to be assholes.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#567The 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…
Google has property rights.
They don't want BS that is harming everyone on their property.
I would ban the same on my property.
That said, there is no reason to ever use Google. Nothing they offer is so critical that you must use them.
I don't use Google for anything and never will because they are a spyware company.
You willingly work for a spyware company and are trying to claim personal morals? How does that work in your mind? Genuinely curious.
> We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority, to have truly free-flowing information.
How does that work?
Who pays for it?
Who manages it?
You realize that would create a de facto government if an actual government wasn't running it.
Look at any website that has truly "free-flowing information".
They all end up being a cesspool filled with racists, sovcits, terrorists, and pedophiles.
Even places like Kiwifams has rules and deletes posts and bans users that violates their few rules.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#568Amazing 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.
You don't have to be an arbiter of all truth to flag some statements as dangerously untrue. Just because truth is sometimes hard to determine doesn't mean that we have to give up on there being an objective reality
"Dangerously untrue" is entirely subjective. NSA director testified that Snowden revelations were untrue. Snowden revelations cost US credibility, and probably has hampered our ability to "protect the globe". Does that make Snowden's revelations dangerously untrue?
Is there a specific legal test you could propose to distinguish actually 'dangerously untrue' information from info which just threatens existing power structures?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#569Earlier 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) ..…
Maybe it should be the scientists and journalists exploring that possibility, not random Facebook conspiracy nuts? Once an conspiracy is broven true, then FB can let it ride.
Science isn't a god with priests telling you what it says. It's a process that anyone can and should do.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#570Remember, Google can just outright ban your full account and not explain why.