Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content” • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#741

Post by shrimpx » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 6:53 AM UTC

CheezeIt wrote: post #590

tablespoon wrote: post #152

Earlier 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.

Joe Biden has dementia?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#742

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 6:55 AM UTC

weare138 wrote: post #709

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…

>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. Google is not the government. It's a private company owned by private citizens who also have the same constitutional rights. You're not being 'censored'. It's not a violation of your free speech. Y…

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#743

Post by wisty » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 6:59 AM UTC

weare138 wrote: post #709

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…

>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. Google is not the government. It's a private company owned by private citizens who also have the same constitutional rights. You're not being 'censored'. It's not a violation of your free speech. Y…

If something is bad when a government does it, surely it's also bad if a really large company does it.

Come to think of it, why would it be bad if a government censors speech?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#744

Post by make3 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:01 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #388

I 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…

Your message implies that you trust that Google will use this message in a clean way. They won't; they have a history of using algorithms to detect TOS abuses in a very Gung-ho way without any sort of functional appeal process.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#745

Post by sMarsIntruder » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:01 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #388

I 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…

> Google isn't spying on your private files

Yes, it is.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#746

Post by CheezeIt » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:08 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #388

I 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…

Why are you acting like it stops here?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#747

Post by veeti » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:08 AM UTC

baalimago wrote: post #736

> "...that contradicts official government records" Whose government?

Alexander Lukashenko received 80% of votes and anybody who claims otherwise should have their Gmail account, YouTube videos, Play Store apps, etc. permanently and irreversibly revoked.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#748

Post by ibbibby » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:09 AM UTC

"Misinformation" is just another word for "falsehood" or "untruth."

Those of you claiming that "democracy" depends on authorities preventing the spread of misinformation are ipso facto saying that democracy requires the government, or megacorporate cartels with a monopoly on public speech most likely acting as proxies for the government (as Psaki made clear is happening), to define what counts as "truth" (a Ministry Of Truth if you will) and to stamp out what they've defined as "false."

It's insane, and it's amazing to me how many of you have your heads so far up your assessment with partisanship that you can't see that the recent media hysteria over "misinformation" is a blatant example of the contrived "emergencies" that all totalitarian regimes in history have used to seize control over free societies.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#749

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:10 AM UTC

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…

For posterity, readers should note this comment was the OP, initially. Not the support.google.com link. 980+ comments later, HN changed the thread and buried semitones' comment down here. semitones' point was a reasonable and important one: maybe people should think twice about hosting files and other data with a company like Google.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#750

Post by psyc » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:12 AM UTC

wisty wrote: post #743

weare138 wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Google is not the government. It's a private company owned by private citizens who also have the same constitutional rights. You're not being 'censored'. It's not a violation of your free speech. Y…

If something is bad when a government does it, surely it's also bad if a really large company does it. Come to think of it, why would it be bad if a government censors speech?

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is probably no universally compelling answer to that. I think you either hold individual liberty sacred as a sort of deontological pillar, or you try to get clever about minmaxing this nebulous “society” thing I’m always hearing about, moving toward a shared utopia one “we should ban…” proposal at a time.