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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#691

Post by rdl »

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 guess you can be somewhat brave here knowing that you can get a new job in about 5 minutes. You might want to consider making a principled stand here, though.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#692

Post by aeternum »

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…

I would much rather have a even just a handful of private companies be the regulators rather than a single entity.

If our founding fathers had one guiding principle, it was to distribute power as much as possible as power has a strong tendency to concentrate and corrupt.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#693

Post by hatware »

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…

> I think I would rightly be upset if Google refused to deliver the email

I hope you would be more than upset at that point. That would be terrifying.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#694

Post by kyle_martin1 »

hash872 wrote: post #230
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…

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…

The very worst things in history were actually censored. Ever considered this?

Your argument about "worst of humanity" could equally apply to the best of humanity with free speech.

In fact...who are you to decide what is good speech and bad speech?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#695

Post by xwolfi »

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.

Very little beyond CP seriously. Why do you think the sufferinf of an abused child is somehow the only horror we should censor.

Religious domination, violent intimidation, subtle suggestive manipulation, outright marketing lies, even government propaganda should all be censored to some extent to just be within the law

These plarforms must be editors and yes it means less trash / second being published.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#696

Post by robbrown451 »

jdasdf wrote: post #566
hash872 wrote: post #230

Earlier 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…

>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. And that's just fine. People have the right to be assholes.

And it's your right to think that. But it's my right to think that containing the degree that people can be assholes makes for a better internet and a better world.

In the physical world, if people act badly enough, there will tend to be physical consequences. If someone goes up to a grandmother or little girl or whoever, and starts berating them with vile or threatening speech, they do so at the risk of finding themselves bloodied or worse. Everyone knows this can happen, and unless they are mentally ill, tend to learn at an early age to curtail such behavior behavior before something bad happens to them.

All this has had thousands of years to evolve to the current state, where in most places (at least in the first world), interacting with people in public places is generally pleasant and non-confrontational.

But online, it isn't that way. When there are zero repercussions, things become very unpleasant for all but... well, those assholes.

I get that you prefer such a world, but I don't. How do we work that out? Do we all adopt your way, simply because.... I dunno, I guess because that's what you want?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#698

Post by j0ba »

hash872 wrote: post #230
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…

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…

> Jailbait or non-nude pics of someone's teenage daughter, hosted in the thousands

Even worse, imagine there was a technology that allowed you to print those jailbait photos by the thousands and drop them in Times Square. That would be far too dangerous.

Imagine if that technology was used to spread misinformation about the Catholic church.

Ban the printing press! It's too dangerous. It should be controlled by the church and the state!

Even better, get rid of religion and intertwine religious righteousness with politics. Then the state can control it all!

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#700

Post by robbrown451 »

semitones wrote: post #228
commandlinefan wrote: post #201

Earlier 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…

"At the end of the day, we won't have truly free speech because far too few of us really want truly free speech." - that's a terrifying prospect. I agree, I don't think Google is trying to "protect" people. They are ultimately, almost always, protecting their pockets.

In a sense that may be true, but how is that different from a bar owner asking people to leave if they are causing a disturbance by being confrontational with other patrons? The bar owner doesn't want a fight that can damage property. He doesn't want people to avoid the bar because someone is picking fights, when most of his clientele just want to kick back and socialize with their friends.

Maybe the bar owner isn't trying to "protect" the rest of his customers, he's just trying to maintain a profitable business. Protecting his pockets.

You could apply the same logic to dang, who helps keep HN a pleasant place by doing the same things the bar owner is doing. Yes I imagine he is paid a salary, by the management of YCombinator who see HN as one part of their strategy to make a profit, and therefore his motives are equally cynical.

Ok. Honestly, you can probably reduce all human behavior to such simplistic motives if you want. What I see as someone being kind, you might see as a purely Darwinian strategy to get their genes in future generations.

I'm not all that sure that is a helpful perspective, at least not most of the time.

Post reply on HN