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

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#761

Post by narrator » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:28 AM UTC

LimaBearz wrote: post #757

ibbibby wrote: post #748

"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…

It’s also important to understand that the only reason anyone is talking about misinformation right now is because the entire world watched in horror at the events of January 6th, a direct attempt to “seize control over free societies”. (Admittedly a poor attempt at it though) which was sparked by wild accusations, unsubstantiated assertions, and a mountain of failed litigation by “the previous guy”. No amount of whi…

You are saying that this is a lie as if that's math or physics instead of a debatable political point and then circling all the wagons around that determination.

The idea that the coronavirus came from a lab used to be one of those circle the wagons points that anyone could get cancelled for. The evidence is so overwhelming that you're now allowed to post that to social media without getting cancelled. How would that information have gotten out there if the cancel network had been perfect?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#762

Post by otabdeveloper4 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:28 AM UTC

narrator wrote: post #753

ibbibby wrote: post #748

"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…

Sometimes I wonder if Google is in the business of giving out all these free services because of the awesome political power it gives them.

Well, yes. "GovTech" is the ultimate startup pivot.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#763

Post by tomnipotent » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:30 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?

> why would it be bad if a government censors speech?

Because government has a monopoly on violence.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#764

Post by ironmagma » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:31 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #751

ibbibby wrote: post #748

"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…

We aren’t talking about something as basic as truth and untruth. This is Integer and float vs malformed code. Misinformation is code. It’s designed to specifically take advantage of gaps in our society and spread in such a way that makes it harder to challenge it.

Only for pretty creative definitions of misinformation. It could also be just, you know, wrong information.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#765

Post by narrator » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:31 AM UTC

hackererror404 wrote: post #455

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…

Imagine if Britain had this same technology when the USA was founded... It of course would have quickly cracked down on communications and it would have done so in the name of "peace" and "what's right"... This idea that thinking critically of a government and even believing that perhaps the government as it stands today is not the government "of and for the people" (sure could be interpreted as anti-democracy by tha…

If the American revolution had happened 100 years later it would have looked like the Boer war. That's the war where the British used barbed wire and the machine gun to invent the concentration camp.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#766

Post by bolangi » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:32 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?

The distinction between government and big business (what an archaic expression!) is artificial, and doesn't exist in practice.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#767

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:35 AM UTC

beebmam wrote: post #329

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…

Please tell me why a private company should be forced to host content that they fundamentally disagree with. Why should Google be forced, legally, to carry Chinese state propaganda, for example? Why should Google be forced, legally, to carry ISIS propaganda? There are alternatives to Google. They should host that content there

[deleted]

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#768

Post by intended » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:35 AM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #685

crazygringo wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's something fundamentally flawed There isn't really. You're adopting, I assume, J.S. Mill's view, that the cure for bad speech is more speech, which he famously published in 1859. However, since then it's been widely accepted that when speech reaches a certain level of harm then the greater good is to prevent/punish it. You can't incite violence under the guise of free speech. You can't advertise that somethi…

>However, since then it's been widely accepted It's not widely accepted at all, except maybe in the small circle of Silicon Valley elites whose ideas align with yours politically.

There’s a huge chunk of forum managera, BBS admins, moderator who have long since seen this tested empirically.

The Silicon Valley elite are dinosaurs who came to this realization too damn late.

They, argued about free speech too long.

The elite are out of touch.

The greatest hold they have on speech isn’t shutting or removing misinformation.

The hold they have on society is that the data needed to make these decisions intelligently is behind an NDA.

Every scientist who worked on this with data, is employed by These forms.

That is where the silence is deafening. And the success of it is that people are still arguing yesterday’s battles while the front has moved away.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#769

Post by thrwoi4234234 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:36 AM UTC

ibbibby wrote: post #748

"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…

It's actually worse - the "truth" necessarily implies that there is but one, and that everything else in false.

Does this sound familiar ? This is exactly what religious loonies say in order to take control.

Science necessarily involves keeping your own ignorance, epistemic and otherwise, in mind while dealing with things, but it's quite worrying that the West is going back on what was won with blood and sweat.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#770

Post by pronlover723 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 7:38 AM UTC

mjthompson wrote: post #730

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…

I'm not even close to convinced by your response. Relying on the public-private divide as the sole basis for your retort is weak. You also assert that the person is pushing a personal narrative, but I suggest you're doing the same. There's an argument that private corporations that are involved in dissemination of information (search engines and social media) should respect principles of freedom of speech as a democr…

So then, I should be able to paint your house and car with whatever messages "I" want and you should not be allowed to erase them. Is that the argument you're making?