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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#791

Post by bigbluedots »

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.

In a free society, people must be allowed the ability to discern for themselves which information is useful, true, or otherwise. We do not need a state or its proxies to tell us which information is correct.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#792

Post by bigbluedots »

narrator wrote: post #761
LimaBearz wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where is all this overwhelming evidence that the virus came from a lab?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#793

Post by read_if_gay_ »

estaseuropano wrote: post #779
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…

Ok I'm not pro censorship, but I'll bite your bait. Firstly, this is a content policy, this is separate from actual enforcement. I would doubt that google enforces this proactively, rather they want a possibility to shut down what has now been dubbed 'fake news'. Secondly, reading this with an open mind their focus seems to be on dangerous falsehoods, think things that can get people in prison (double voting?), healt…

> I would doubt that google enforces this proactively

Google is absolutely already blanket banning stuff on Youtube. There is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

> there are some dangerous lies

Yes, and the WHO has committed to dangerous lies as well.

Hell, in your own example, you're saying the Nazis justified WW2 with lies.

Government officials provably cannot be trusted to disseminate "the truth".

>private companies

These are not normal private companies. Citing GP, these are

>> megacorporate cartels with a monopoly on public speech most likely acting as proxies for the government

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#794

Post by PixyMisa »

ironmagma wrote: post #764
intended wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or indeed, correct information that contradicts an officially recognised position.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#795

Post by pfortuny »

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…

This argument is exactly what the Inquisition argued. Now try to explain to me why the Inquisition is bad.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#796

Post by PixyMisa »

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…

This is in itself misinformation.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#797

Post by bilvar »

intended wrote: post #760
bamboozled wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely true. If I can't explore new ideas, evaluate information and make up my own mind, no matter how much bullshit exists, I'm not living in a democratic free society anymore. I'm living in a technological dystopia, and authoritarian state. I'm afraid, skepticism is part of a healthy democracy...no matter how much the government want me to get a jab. When did Google feel the need to be the world police?

Your brain is mapped. Dear god people - we know how to create malformed content. To assume you are immune is like assuming you are immortal or that your computer is unhackable. Modern Misinformation is malformed code, being done at scale. It’s cluster bombing civilians who can never muster the resources to defend against it. It’s not about you. It’s about the attacker.

Are you arguing that the people who decide what's misinformation and what isn't are somehow immune to that kind of hack on their reasoning faculties?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#798

Post by yarcob »

estaseuropano wrote: post #779
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…

Ok I'm not pro censorship, but I'll bite your bait. Firstly, this is a content policy, this is separate from actual enforcement. I would doubt that google enforces this proactively, rather they want a possibility to shut down what has now been dubbed 'fake news'. Secondly, reading this with an open mind their focus seems to be on dangerous falsehoods, think things that can get people in prison (double voting?), healt…

I'm sorry to see one of the more nuanced comments downvoted. Looks like the hacker news free speech anarchist task force is busy today.

Funny how they demand radical free speech, but downvote/flag anyone who disagrees, while using a forum where comments with too many downvotes are hidden automatically.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#799

Post by wwweston »

wutbrodo wrote: post #725
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…

> All our legal protections ultimately depend on a democratic foundation -- undo that with misinformation and you don't have anything anymore. Similarly, your rights don't matter much if you're dead. This is an insane conclusion to draw, because it blithely ignores that it positions Google as an oracle of what's threatening to democracy and what isn't. The examples in the current policy are fairly narrow, but this is…

It's funny to see people freak out about this when entire foundation of Google is built on the proposition that it can make effective judgments about the relative value of various content out there on the web.

Like, if Google has a hidden agenda here that makes it any more fundamentally compromised as a judge of disinformation than anything else, then whether or not it will be a free CDN for arbitrary content isn't remotely our biggest problem.

And if they're just that bad at sorting information from disinformation in spite of their considerable resources and ostensible value proposition, same thing goes, although that's an opportunity for someone else to the extent that there's a market for understanding reality.

So, yeah. Google by its nature is going to play a role regarding what's a threat to accurate understanding and democracy. It's not alone in this; journalism does it. The academy does it. The courts do it. Businesses do it.

The way you get a well-functioning society where robust discourse turns into better perception and refined ideas isn't that everybody takes a hands off approach, it's that everybody -- all institutions and individuals -- take responsibility.

Not to mention that requiring Google (or anyone) to carry and disseminate information that they consider irresponsible... well, compelled speech isn't exactly freedom of speech.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#800

Post by clon »

estaseuropano wrote: post #779
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…

Ok I'm not pro censorship, but I'll bite your bait. Firstly, this is a content policy, this is separate from actual enforcement. I would doubt that google enforces this proactively, rather they want a possibility to shut down what has now been dubbed 'fake news'. Secondly, reading this with an open mind their focus seems to be on dangerous falsehoods, think things that can get people in prison (double voting?), healt…

> You can think and discuss what you want, but if you broadcast your views to a wide audience you should also be held to a higher standard. The real issue is who does the accounting.

It is exactly because you, nor anyone else, can come up with an acceptable solution to your last point, it is surely a lesser evil to have free speech, however "dangerous" it may turn, rather than have a benevolent accountant with the speech monopoly turn on us.

Post reply on HN