If this doesn’t motivate you to remove Google from your life (and career), nothing will.
Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
631–640 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#632Earlier 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) ..…
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.
I heard it was hijacked by Emmanuel Goldstein and the Brotherhood, those vicious rogues. Just look at the evidence.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein
edit: viscous indeed
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#633Amazing 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.
Youtube is still populated by actual conspiracy Qnuts. Much of the YouTube active discussion is right leaning, look to the comment sections. Google isn't trying to arbiter truth, it's a combination of doing what China tells them to do and not being the arbiter of truth by removing almost anything related to covid. Simply discussing it can get you demonitized or your video removed.
>Much of the YouTube active discussion is right leaning, look to the comment sections.
So what? What are you suggesting?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#634Earlier 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.
The same scientists who lied about mask effectiveness at the start of the pandemic which may have contributed to thousands of additional cases and deaths?
The same journalists who said lab leak theory was "racist" (NYT's chief COVID editor made this claim less than a month ago)?
The same organizations who said COVID was not transmisable human-to-human in late January, following orders from the CCP (the WHO made this claim repeatedly, without independently verifying it)?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#635Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google's increasing role as an arbiter of right vs wrong The problem is that (I doubt) Google is really doing this out of some misguided attempt at "protecting" people but rather as a reaction to what they perceive to be what the people want. When America was a very religious (Christian) country, media distributors stayed away from anything that appeared "blasphemous". They didn't necessarily do it because there wa…
Oh Thank You. That is an interesting take I haven't thought about. For those us not from US, it this "as a reaction to what they perceive to be what the people want." really represent the majority as in your example when America was very religious? Because it seems to me, ( and I know zip about US ) this action only please half and anger another half?
Given the amount of information Google has about its users I feel certain that they know exactly what percentage will be angered by this and what percentage will either applaud it or just not care.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#636Earlier 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) ..…
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.
Is your position that scientifically plausible ideas should be censored because random racists use it?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#637Does "Loose Change" count as "misleading content"?
The original has been replaced with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0skCyy7TObQ but it is still possible to find copies such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZAXFbAnbA
It seems to me people that a lot of people around me who are all up and arms about "Covid-19 misinformation" actively promoted this "documentary".
Last year, I tried to put up something that had a rational discussion of the problems inherent in constant testing of asymptomatic people[1]. It took three months to get all sorts of automatic bans removed. By that time, I had lost all motivation.
[1]: https://www.covid2020.icu/false-positive-false-negative-simu...
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#638Earlier 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.
>Within the law
Within the law from which jurisdiction? :-)
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#639This is bad
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#640Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
>> 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 Joe Biden has dementia.
Do you have a source for that that isn't blatant uninformed speculation, hopes and wishes, or a doctored video [1]? Preferably one that is well known and has enough credibility to not be banned from Wikipedia.
Also, which of these is dementia?
1. death
2. an accident
3. a sudden, serious illness
[1] IIRC, during the election there was one pushed by the Trump campaign that was misleadingly edited and slowed down to create the false impression that Biden had dementia.