After reading this you might feel depressed. Maybe this will cheer you up : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcMMzrzgOQo
Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
611–620 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#612It's very inconsistent. How gender, as a purely ideological construct not grounded in science, can be protected under the "hate speech", while at the same time, under the misleading content, it could be easily classified as "Misleading content related to harmful health practices".
In principle, it also boils down to who owns the content. If host - Google, claims moderation rights, it undebatably becomes a publisher and should be treated as such.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#613Earlier 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…
Acquire money and buy land sounds like a very large challenge for most people. I'd say about as hard as setting up servers, but probably harder
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
Early on Fauci was telling everyone how useless masks were [1]. I have a couple people in my social circle that were banned from fb for saying he was wrong early on about masks being ineffective. And several others were banned later for pointing out fauci's earlier stance and calling it all propaganda. You are not allowed to think for yourself. Pick up that can. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-XVfZCX-o
To be fair he never used the word "useless". That's the title submitted by the person who uploaded that. There could be a bit of confirmation bias here. It's as easy for someone with little trust in their government to point to this and say officials are flip-flopping on the information released, as it is for others to interpret it as Fauci saying "don't expect a mask to fully protect you".
It really was that clear cut. The US surgeon general:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200303020926/https://twitter.c...
"Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#615The 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…
> has started to weigh heavier and heavier on me
But not enough to have stopped you from joining in the first place or contributing your time in exchange for salary.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#616Call me old fashioned, but in my day spies, subversives, and criminals kept their communications secret instead of hosting them in plaintext on the servers of a megacorporation almost certainly hellbent against their cause and ready to turn them over to the feds.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#617Earlier 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. Yet it is rational to oppose distribution of what you think is wrong and promote distribution of what you think is right. You must have a hidden premise in there somewhere.
It's rational only if you don't think those powers will ever be turned against you. Once you realize what you're creating is a mechanism to censor rather than a particular instance of censorship, self interest should force you to realize that the censorship mechanism that you're supporting can be turned against you.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if that content is leading to real-world harm The truth can also lead to real-world harm.
We can't make any distinction at all?
Serious here, not trying to be combative. How about sticking to what's legal under the First Amendment of the Constitution?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on a globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority, to have truly free-flowing information." Google's job is to take away the motivation to do this work. Alernatively, if it looks like someone is doing it, hire or acquire them.
Can't I get Google Workspace right now which isn't ad-supported?
It looks like this would still not solve the parent commnter's problem with monitoring and censorship of "misleading content".
https://workspace.google.com/terms/use_policy.html
In particular
You agree not to, and not to allow third parties or Your End Users, to use the Services:
to intentionally distribute hoaxes, or other items of a destructive or deceptive nature;
Your failure to comply with the AUP may result in suspension or termination, or both, of the Services pursuant to the Agreement.
If, e.g., businesses and other organisations were potentially upset about Gmail scanning (remember Google was sued for this and lost) then that dissatisfaction argubaly provides motivation to avoid Gmail.
That motivation could potentially spread outside of businesses and other organisations. Google's job is to take away such motivation.
Arguably Google Workspaces is Google doing its job of quelling a potential uprising, so to speak. They are taking away potential motivation to innovate away from Google and online advertising. (It also highlights the inherent flaws in a "free" services model. For many businesses and organisations, this is not acceptable.)
Meanwhile, the company's core business remains unchanged: providing services for "free" while generating billions in profits through online advertising services.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#620Earlier 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.
I say allow even CP. Take the whole system of control right out of the equation. Make the service 100% free, like sunshine, warming saint and sinner alike.
Then, after we have that working, and we want to remove the CP, find another way. Do it on the client side or whatever.