Their definition of misleading says it "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records". Because no government record has ever been wrong before, right?
Man those ellipses are doing a lot of work in your quote.
Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
661–670 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#662The 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…
So happy we have companies like Google doing moral arbitration versus companies like Walmart/Newscorp doing this. Wait till round two of Idiocracy capitalism, we will miss these days.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#663I 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…
>All our legal protections ultimately depend on a democratic foundation -- undo that with misinformation and you don't have anything anymore.
No, they don't. They have never depended on an entity deciding what information should be disseminated and what information should not be.
This move isn't any different than AT&T or the one guy with a Gutenberg Press in your region deciding what you can and cannot read.
Our legal protections depend on the citizens and the government adhering to them.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#664The same Whitehouse that is pushing tech companies to do this also said today that if you’re banned from one social media platform (for posting verboten material), then you should immediately be banned from all platforms.
This is third world authoritarianism, except they outsource the dirty work to the tech companies.
I know everybody hates playing the “If Trump did...” game, but come on! You all know exactly what the response would be to something like this and it’s the correct response.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#665The 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…
> What happened to having specialized agencies regulate and inspect industries?
The whole point of free speech was not to have a government agency regulating and inspecting what you are allowed to say.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#666The 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 Urbit’s first principles approach to this is really interesting.
They’re the only ones I’ve seen that seem to have hit on a reasonable trade off to fix the common issues around federated services (simple administration, keeping versions in sync, first class network between users etc.)
The functional OS design is really cool too - I think it has potential to solve a lot of these issues.
I don’t really care that Google is removing dumb content from their services, but I agree that computing can be a lot more than it is. Users have lost ownership over their own compute. We have PCs, but everything is in the browser on someone else’s servers. Urbit is cool because it’s a way to get that ownership back.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#667Earlier 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…
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…
That, and Google has ~ 20 years of history where they were perfectly fine and they've really only started to act up recently in ways that are, at worst, objectionable and inconvenient without being particularly harmful.
The risks of letting market competition sort it out are much smaller than the risks of making it a political football. As a political topic it is basically going to be two parties fighting over which set of lies get to be true. That won't be better.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#668OK, fine. If I share a document with all of Hacker News saying, Google will delete this document without my express written permission, and they apply their policy without exception:
Do they delete the document because it's misleading? If they do, it's not.
Gotcha Google.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#669Earlier 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…
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?
[deleted]
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#670The 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…
These alternatives exist though, they are just not popular. We can’t very well force people to adopt these alternatives to make them “global”.
It’s also not clear to me what these alternatives should do differently. Should they just host anything as long as it’s not illegal? I just read an article today about how social media is killing people by spreading vaccine misinformation. So they’re going to get pressured anyways, just from a different source.