Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
821–830 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#822Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#823"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.
Except you won't be doing the banning, and it's not going to end well for any of us after you help to give the people who will be doing it the power they want with rationalizations like this.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#824"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…
There is no "arbitration of truth here". Google are telling you what you can and can't use THEIR shit for. Don't like it? Go make your own.
Now, if Google was able to somehow cause you to go to jail for the content you were posting, your argument would make sense.
But as it stands, this comment is a crazy overreaction that probably has merit in some context, but not this one
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#825I would really love all of sorts of services (e.g. email, documents, photo storage, etc etc) prepackaged as docker images I can pop somewhere and open source, and I just pay for hosting and a licence fee.
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#826"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…
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#827"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…
What a brain dead argument. Side stepping the inaccuracy of the claim that democracies aren't threatened by propaganda and fake news, Google is entitled to do what it wants. There is no "arbitration of truth here". Google are telling you what you can and can't use THEIR shit for. Don't like it? Go make your own. Now, if Google was able to somehow cause you to go to jail for the content you were posting, your argument…
Rebecca MacKinnon, former CNN Bureau chief for Beijing and Tokyo, wrote a book called Consent of the Network that lays all this out. She says, “This is one of the features of Chinese internet censorship and surveillance—that it's actually carried out primarily by private sector companies, by the tech platforms and services, not by the police. And that the companies that run China's internet services and platforms are acting as an extension of state power.”
The people who make that argument don’t realize how close we are to the same model. There are two layers. Everyone’s familiar with “The Great Firewall of China,” where they’re blocking out foreign websites. Well, the US does that too. We just shut down Press TV, which is Iran’s PBS, for instance. We mimic that first layer as well, and now there’s also the second layer, internally, that involves private companies doing most of the censorship."
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-matt-orfalea
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#828"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…
> democracy requires the government, or megacorporate cartels with a monopoly on public speech most likely acting as proxies for the government Who says that individuals or business institutions making judgments and using their resources to arbitrate truth -- especially institutions like Google whose business is about information -- are acting "as proxies for the government" instead of taking responsibility for hones…
Imagine a society that censors the disinformation/propaganda that trans women are women out of a sincerely held belief that this is indeed disinformation. Oh wait, Russia already does that.
Why would American attempts at suppression be any better? Or any better than what happened during the McCarthy era?
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#829"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…
> democracy requires the government, or megacorporate cartels with a monopoly on public speech most likely acting as proxies for the government Who says that individuals or business institutions making judgments and using their resources to arbitrate truth -- especially institutions like Google whose business is about information -- are acting "as proxies for the government" instead of taking responsibility for hones…
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-matt-orfalea
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/biden-administration...
Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”
#830"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.
But I also believe humans do not have access to it.