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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#581

Post by shadowgovt »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #501

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 den…

> We wouldn't want providers not to be able to decide what content to distribute.

That is basically what some people want.

Hacker News is looking at the choice between the George Orwell future and Neal Stephenson future and finding neither to its liking.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#582

Post by JasonFruit »

throwaways885 wrote: post #272
zpeti wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s sad to me is that someone who really should be a hero to everyone in Silicon Valley, the journalist who decided to publish Edward Snowden’s stuff, at insane risk to himself, has been warning about censorship forever. (Glen greenwald) Yet now he’s apparently a right wing trump apologist to most people on the left. That doesn’t change the truth of what a person who’s put a lot on the table is saying. Censorship…

Snowden (and countless others) are hero's. This new breed of authoritarian leftists do not represent Silicon Valley and tech at large, but rather silence those of us who do still believe in free speech. I'm petrified about speaking out because I don't want to be labeled as a far-right trump apologist. No, believing gigantic megacorporations shouldn't censor information is not "right-wing".

Please, please do speak out! Otherwise, the only people speaking are the authoritarian leftists and their worst possible opponents, the Trump apologists. People speaking in favor of speech they do not agree with are the most compelling free-speech advocates of all.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#583

Post by IX-103 »

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…

I don't think the answer is alternatives, as you would just be trading one master for another. What we need is 1) for clients to retain control of their data and 2) standardized formats and interfaces for handling data. If moving off of Facebook was as simple as creating an account somewhere else, then things would be different. If Google doesn't own your data you can tell them how they are allowed to use it.

As for Google, I've given up on anything revolutionary from them. They have a lot of smart people with good ideas but they've grown so big that they can't "move fast and break things" without breaking whole sectors of the economy--and given the number of anti-trust suits Google is embroiled in, I think the governments of the world know it. That said, Google generally seems to at least try to do the right thing, even if no one there seems to know exactly what that is.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#584

Post by matheusmoreira »

underwater wrote: post #523
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) ..…

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.

Scientists? Sure. Journalists? No. Banning discussion but allowing the mass media free reign means people are being fed propaganda.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#585

Post by shadowgovt »

Pick-A-Hill2019 wrote: post #398
shadowgovt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google would agree with you. If you're going to share information that (in Google's perception) is wildly misleading, they'd prefer you do it off a domain that doesn't have "Google" in its path. And all of us are free to do that.

That is a very valid point and I'm sorry you are seeing downvotes on your comment (so have an upvote from me). The "My Server, My Rules" point of view is absolutely 100% valid ( and also why I commented about asymmetrical ftth). But, What I am also saying is this - At what point did the Google that was the 'Do No Evil' version pivot in to a position such as they are currently taking? When did the ethos of 'Let's do g…

I think Google (and the rest of FAANG) is wrestling with the uncomfortable possibilty that they are pawns in several nation-states' disinfo campaigns and they suspect their previous lack of intervention and professional having-no-opinion on questions of fact made everything worse.

It's possible that "Don't be evil" means "exercise control over the things you create." Frankenstein's monster wasn't created evil... It learned cruelty after its creator abdicated responsibility for it and it was exposed nakedly to a cruel world.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#586

Post by [deleted] »

contravariant wrote: post #441
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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#587

Post by cmckn »

overgard wrote: post #532
crazygringo wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's something fundamentally flawed There isn't really. You're adopting, I assume, J.S. Mill's view, that the cure for bad speech is more speech, which he famously published in 1859. However, since then it's been widely accepted that when speech reaches a certain level of harm then the greater good is to prevent/punish it. You can't incite violence under the guise of free speech. You can't advertise that somethi…

Giving anyone the ability to arbitrate what is "good" speech vs "bad" speech is way too much power. In any era of history there have always been "truths" that were massively popular and eventually overturned. I don't think we are the first era to be an exception. So when you're talking about punishing "bad" speech you are talking about creating super powerful entities just because they agree with you. That intent sca…

> Giving anyone the ability to arbitrate what is "good" speech vs "bad" speech is way too much power.

But that isn't at all what is happening here. Google has decided that they don't want to enable people to distribute certain data using their platform. They're not being crowned the omnipotent oracle of good and bad.

> you are talking about creating super powerful entities just because they agree with you.

This position is bizarre to me -- what do you think an elected government is? I vote to create "super powerful entities that agree with me" every 4 years. Those entities possess the power to destroy all life on earth. Google is not anywhere near as powerful as those entities, and while it is not (directly) democratically accountable, it does derive its power from its users.

No information will be permanently erased just because Google does not spend money and time making it available on Drive.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#588

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

dfdz wrote: post #310
jonnycomputer wrote: post #22

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…

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) ..…

Lab leak theory has always been taken seriously but it was also largely hijacked by racists at the time who were much louder than the scientists. If memory serves.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#590

Post by CheezeIt »

tablespoon wrote: post #152
lettergram wrote: post #143

Interesting... so I wrote a wrote an article on gun violence https://austingwalters.com/firearms-by-the-numbers/ Guess it contradicts the official position of the current administration (not reality). So will my drive content be removed? Similarly, I have been monitoring the CDC change the covid19 deaths rate over time. https://austingwalters.com/changes-in-the-cdc-counts-of-deat... It appears the CDC had been inaccu…

> Guess it contradicts the official position of the current administration (not reality). So will my drive content be removed? Below is the actual policy. What term do you think your blog post violates? > Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users. This includes: > Misleading content related to civic and democratic processes: Content that is demonstrably false and could significantly undermi…

> It also includes incorrect claims that a political figure or government official has died, been involved in an accident, or is suffering from a sudden serious illness.

In other words, it bans correct claims that Hillary Clinton had health problems, and that Joe Biden has dementia.

Post reply on HN