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

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#851

Post by acituan » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 9:46 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…

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

That’s not sufficiently true. In fact, asserting untrue propositions is one of the easiest-to-counter ways of misinformation.

Real pros use humbuggery; of a set of n true propositions, pick a subset m to lead the audience to your conclusions and you haven’t even “lied”.

That’s why “fact checking” is such a popular way of narrative laundering, because truthiness of individual propositions alone never reveal if someone was bullshitting you.

That’s also why the courtroom maxim is “truth, nothing but the truth, and the whole truth”. Only those 3 properties in combination would exclude misinformation. (Not saying courtrooms necessarily live up to this maxim.)

I agree with the spirit of the rest of your argument.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#852

Post by svara » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 9:46 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…

Your argument lacks any nuance, to the degree that it makes it flat out wrong.

No one is suggesting regulating truth generally, but rather specific cases that are deemed dangerous [0].

Now, you could make a slippery slope argument starting from there and that would be a valid, but different discussion.

The slippery slope argument sometimes applies and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the specific situation. There are examples around the world of governments that very selectively suppress narrowly defined types of speech, in order to protect other values believed to be equally fundamental, but defend the freedom of all others.

[0] Within the bounds of the freedoms that a private company has to operate as it sees fit, or by means of democratic decisions.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#853

Post by Nursie » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 9:52 AM UTC

6f8986c3 wrote: post #837

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…

No, the world watched in horror as American cities burned for an entire year while politicians and media whores, thoroughly protected by police and private security, did nothing. Police were ordered to take a knee to the mob. We were told that this was justice. But the second those powerful people were even slightly threatened, the gloves came off. Only one person was murdered on the 6th. A veteran and Trump voter na…

She was trying to force her way into a chamber where she and the rest of the mob intended to do harm to elected politicians, and disrupt US democratic process.

That’s not really murder. And no, the rest of the world did not look on in horror at the BLM protests. They looked in horror at what caused them.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#854

Post by swiley » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 9:53 AM UTC

svara wrote: post #852

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…

Your argument lacks any nuance, to the degree that it makes it flat out wrong. No one is suggesting regulating truth generally, but rather specific cases that are deemed dangerous [0]. Now, you could make a slippery slope argument starting from there and that would be a valid, but different discussion. The slippery slope argument sometimes applies and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the specific situation. There…

"generally do this in specific cases."

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#855

Post by powerapple » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 9:55 AM UTC

The problem essentially was created by tech companies such as Google and Facebook. The fact is that everything you are reading online are from both ends of the political spectrum, the majority middle do not speak out, the same as in real society. Algorithms using likes to amply voices from both extremes. The people in the middle don't care about liking it, but having to bear the result of recommendation algorithms, and can't help to be political.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#856

Post by acituan » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 9:55 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.

That depends how you draw the lines around the selfhood of Google. Did 2004 Google have the same intentions as 2021 Google?

Organizing information and making it useful sounds altruistically anti-misinformation. And maybe the search engine of the past was a net good against misinformation. And then maybe the ship attracted folks with less than ideal intentions over time, making your premise more and more true. Maybe 2031 Google will be much worse.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#857

Post by devwastaken » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 9:57 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…

This isn't a government entity.

Government: can imprison, fine, and enslave you. Corporation: can ban you from online platform.

Companies absolutely and always have enforced their own version of "truth". While Google says this thousands of other companies of similar size are regulating their version of "truth" internally. As we speak lobbyists are paid to make sure senators will vote along their version of "truth". There is no such thing as neutrality, and never has been, only the illusion of inaction.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#858

Post by svara » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 10:03 AM UTC

swiley wrote: post #854

svara wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument lacks any nuance, to the degree that it makes it flat out wrong. No one is suggesting regulating truth generally, but rather specific cases that are deemed dangerous [0]. Now, you could make a slippery slope argument starting from there and that would be a valid, but different discussion. The slippery slope argument sometimes applies and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the specific situation. There…

"generally do this in specific cases."

I think I see what you're trying to say even if you're doing so very obliquely - the point is that this never was and never will be an issue that it makes sense to think of in absolutes.

Speech has never been free in this absolute sense anywhere, because, at the very least (!), there are cases where speech has obvious, immediate, terrible consequences.

That means that the difficulty lies in figuring out where exactly to draw a line along a blurry boundary. Hence the slippery slope issue.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#859

Post by himinlomax » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 10:04 AM UTC

nickysielicki wrote: post #571

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…

The bigger problem that I have with the idea that misinformation kills democracy is that it seems to suggest that misinformation is some new phenomenon or that the average person has been well informed throughout the history of western democracy. Democracy thrived before the printing press. Democracy survived the invention of the printing press, which was mostly in the hands of magnates who could afford it. Democracy…

> Democracy thrived before the printing press

No it didn't.

Do you have examples of democracies before the printing press besides Athens and arguably the late Roman Republic? Those happened nearly two millenniums before the press and didn't last that long. "Thriving"?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#860

Post by intricatedetail » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 10:05 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…

Come on man, this is classic boiling frog.