Live data from Hacker News

Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

support.google.com

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#571

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 does…

The bigger problem that I have with the idea that misinformation kills democracy is that it seems to suggest that misinformation is some new phenomenon or that the average person has been well informed throughout the history of western democracy.

Democracy thrived before the printing press. Democracy survived the invention of the printing press, which was mostly in the hands of magnates who could afford it. Democracy survived the invention of television and radio, which was (and still is) in the hands of a select few magnates. We build up terms like "journalistic integrity" and look at the past with rose colored glasses as if these mediums delivered pure objective truth.

If anything, what we're seeing with the internet is a more true democracy with a wider range of opinions, less controlled by small groups of plutocrats. If you don't like to see the death of that plutocracy, or you're happy to see a new group of benevolent plutocrats come in to retake control the narrative, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you don't really like democracy.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#573
post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I don’t really think this holds up. I have personally dropped all Google products I use in favor of privacy-focused alternatives. For example, GA>Fathom, Gmail>Protonmail, etc. So I’m sure privacy-focused competitors will pop up soon, or perhaps they already exist and I simply don’t know of them because I’m not a big user of the OP’s listed Goog products. The market has most certainly spoken: we prefer privac…

> The market has most certainly spoken This laughable arrogance. The market has most certainly spoken but not in the way you and your microcosm think it has. The market doesn't give a fuck about privacy. They want convenience and want to pay as little as they for it. Privacy might seem to be on people's tongues at this moment and it will continue to be still, but only a core few will actually make decisions that inco…

I’m referring to the segment of the market I’m in. I didn’t mean ‘the market’ as in 100% market share. I should have said “the market is speaking.” No need to come off as rude.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Act II is grossly misrepresented. It wasn't just the GOP and a lot of evidence was presented. In fact, there hasn't been a whole lot of new evidence presented since then.

The comment you're replying to is a perfect example of why tech companies shouldn't be trusted to be arbiters of truth.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#575

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…

It's a real problem. It's easier to suppress such content, but the problem is, it just goes elsewhere where it is almost completely unchecked, and it just proliferates in much darker circles as a result, and we have even less exposure as to its true volume. Maybe there should be more of an effort to reduce peoples' incentive to engage in that sort of behavior in the first place. Why do people join violent extremist g…

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#576
In case you were wondering why countries that don't feel like being pets to the US like China have their own Google's, Twitters, and everything.

It's not just for "government control". They'd do the same even if they were perfect democracies.

It's first and foremost for avoiding such blatant foreign control.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#577

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…

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#579

What. 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…

The headline is misleading. This makes it sound like anything that's misleading is banned which is false. They are banning very specific things that are veritably false like spreading fake election rules, spreading false election dates, etc.

These things have happened:

>The Trump campaign has sent Facebook advertisements to tens of thousands of voters in swing states, erroneously telling them it was election day after the social media group’s ad blockers failed to detect messages that violated its rules on misinformation

Is the election date a matter of opinion? I don't think that lying about what day is election day is protected speech- its malicious and attacks the very foundation of Democracy.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

First, since you've been derailing thing from one question another, I have to mention that a thing shared publicly from a Google drive account is no more accessible than a thing shared from a website that a person sets themselves, so Google drive accessibly is not particular answer to social network news filtering.

But on the topic of social network news filtering, anyone who uses a social network is implicitly consenting to that network's filtering of information.

Once upon a time, most people got their news from a single newspaper - well informed people might read several papers as well as newsmagazines but even this implied a lot of filtering. Those newspapers filtered the news more heavily than any present network.

Post reply on HN