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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#811

Post by wwweston »

bigbluedots wrote: post #791
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.

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.

> people must be allowed the ability to discern for themselves which information is useful

Including people who run institutions like Google.

If they can be compelled to disseminate content they think of as irresponsible, so can you.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#812

Post by dorgo »

yarcob wrote: post #798
estaseuropano wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

downvotes are free speech

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#813

Post by vixen99 »

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…

> Companies aren't allowed to advertise rat poison as medicine and neither are you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin

In fact, they are and they do. (Ok, not you unless you run a pharm company). The best known rat poison is warfarin, an anticogulant used world wide as a medicine under various names.

As to your main point, how do you or others on SM, define misinformation? Do you believe the shadowy folk (qualifications unstated) who pontificate at FB, Twitter, Google and Wikipedia? That has to be absurd and shocking. Anyone who wants to (and wants to seems to be the issue), can see the fatuity of this after searching for overturned consensus views as supported by the SM platforms mentioned. The search should include the peer-reviewed literature.

A most recent volte-face relates to Covid origin, In April it was undoubtedly of natural origin as we were authoritatively informed by the Lancet. Now in July, the previously regarded conspiracy theory is taken seriously by people able to make a judgment. Who does one believe, the unknowns at SM or someone like Peter Palese, https://labs.icahn.mssm.edu/paleselab/) who was among 27 scientists who had earlier signed the Lancet letter denouncing as “conspiracy theories” the notion that the coronavirus could have escaped from a lab — or even be man-made. He now disavows that claim as do many others of similar status.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#814

Post by 6510 »

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?

Its a step in the wrong direction. The next step is to forbid asking that question. Step 3 is war to get our rights back. 2 and 3 may take time. Say 6 years for 2 and 1000 years for 3.

1000 years of blaming the witches, the socialists, the unionists, the jew, the Muslim, the Chinese, the Russians and of course you!

If you were defending the governments right to censor speech you were useful in installing it. When the censorship is accepted by the masses you become someone known to publicly share an opinion about a forbidden topic. Presenting the question for others to answer the way you just did is much worse than having your own opinion.

If we allow people like that, before we know it, we have people questioning everything!

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#815

Post by freebuju »

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…

> You're not being 'censored' .. It's not a violation of your free speech... You're free to petition

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

> It's a private company owned by private citizens who also have the same constitutional rights.

The scale at which Google operates today, anything short of defining some of its popular products as public utilities would be disingenuous.

> Access to Google Drive is not a 'right'

Except this is not a Google drive (the product) access issue. It is an access to information issue, if you look at it fundamentally.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#816

Post by dorgo »

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…

>and you're free to just host your files someplace other than Google Drive

And that other place won't censor me?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#817

Post by concordDance »

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.

> To be honest, there is very little I see that should be censored beyond CP.

And, just to make the point of how hard it is to get consensus here, I'll disagree with you about the CP under some conditions.

I think others will too.

For example some would say that voluntarily made CP (e.g. 17 year old's nude pics) should be uncensored, others might just include an exception for simulated images, still others would say allow everything as long as there's a very low likelihood of victim or victim's connections stumbling across it and no money is changing hands.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#818

Post by ibbibby »

LimaBearz wrote: post #786
l33t2328 wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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” Regardless of if the riot on Jan 6 was an attempt to seize the government (it wasn’t), this line of reasoning doesn’t track at all since the concept of “misinformation” as a public enemy has been brought up ad naseum sinc…

There’s a bit of nuance there though to isn’t there? Let’s be honest, “misinformation” between 2016-2020 just meant “things written about me I don’t like”, it only came from one person/group.

Where have you been? Hall monitors at CNN and other outletd like Oliver Darcy have been shrieking about "misinformation," and successfully lobbying to get people censored on that basis, constantly for the last four years.

Recall that the "fake news" scare (and "post-truth era" etc) was actually started by the media before Trump appropriated it against them. And in most cases it was used against people for expressing skeptic towards favored conspiracy theories about the 2016 election.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#819

Post by hfkwnfb »

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…

I don't think there's much distinction between "you're not allowed an opinion" and "you're allowed an opinion as long as you don't tell anyone".

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#820

Post by weare138 »

dorgo wrote: post #816
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…

>and you're free to just host your files someplace other than Google Drive And that other place won't censor me?

If Gab, 4chan and millions of porn sites can find hosting I'm positive you could too.
Post reply on HN