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

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#621

Post by [deleted] »

duxup wrote: post #204
izacus wrote: post #180

Earlier 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…

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...

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#622

Post by GauntletWizard »

rtkwe wrote: post #428
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) ..…

I remember the original theory going round that was getting removed being that it was a lab leak of a bioweapon not the current theory that it was more normal 'gain of function' research that got out. Those are two very different accusations.

They are exactly the same accusation, with the only difference between them whether that researcher is your friend or your enemy. It is, much like security research, easy to predict but hard to be certain which is which until it's been deployed.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#623

Post by abecedarius »

izacus wrote: post #180
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 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…

1. The GP said nothing about any savior company. They said "We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority".

2. You seem to be saying here that you want a specialized agency to do censorship right, as one centralized decision maker. Am I misunderstanding? A Ministry of Truth?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#625

Post by takoid »

ksec wrote: post #406
izacus wrote: post #180

Earlier 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…

>Turns out, not even Apple is that messiah They were , just no longer the same under Tim Cook. I dont want to derail the discussion into another political debate but my thesis, is that some ideology spread like plague in Silicon Valley. The Good vs Evil. As the OP said Google stated off being good, but somewhere along the line the definition of Good got twisted a little bit. They keep thinking they were so righteous…

Quite relevant quote:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

- John Dalberg-Acton

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#627

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

throwaways885 wrote: post #227
duxup wrote: post #204

Earlier 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.

Yeah. I think there is very little I see that should be censored beyond holocaust denial. Maybe CP.

Oh... it's only you that gets a "...but for the stuff I believe is harmful" in there?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#628

Post by dillondoyle »

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) ..…

There's a big difference between earnest scientific inquisitiveness and at a minimum conspiracy nuts spreading racially biased clickbait, at max coordinated political propaganda to influence an election.

though covid is interesting in other ways too. like vaccines.

I'm ok with allowing someone to think whatever crazy bs they want.

But I'm also fine with removing the 'megaphone' for words that are dangerous to our health. You're allowed to stand on a soap box in a public square, but you're not guaranteed to have your speech boosted on the giant billboard screens above.

The dilemmas we are facing here are inherent to how these platforms are setup and optimized.

The algo is designed to boost the crazy-ness to infect others, therefore stopping the spread of this danger tends to stop the individual speech in terms of how normal posts/content works.

Shadowbanning seems like the answer, and that seems to be what Google is doing here. Though not allowing for instance a public doc url isn't in the shadows.

The key start of the policy is "Do not distribute." Which is why I don't understand why people are up in arms about.

it's a totally different thing if Google goes beyond this and just deletes private content from some algo filter.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#629

Post by psyc »

jedimastert wrote: post #514
psyc wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I guessed. I still don't understand why it is necessary to differentiate a category with 1.7 million members from a category with 17 members. Nobody here is ever, ever, ever (almost) discussing government corporations. I don't understand why people don't just say the 1st amendment doesn't apply to corporations. Everyone would know what they mean. Adding "private" suggests they are distinguishing it from something else. And maybe they are, but it always sounds like they're either misspeaking, confused, or repeating a meme.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#630

Post by tshaddox »

nickysielicki wrote: post #571
contravariant wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When and where did democracy thrive before the printing press?
Post reply on HN