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

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#901

Post by MatteoFrigo » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:02 PM UTC

dudeman13 wrote: post #863

FeepingCreature wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there is only one truth, and everything else is false. But I also believe humans do not have access to it.

I agree with this position. The idea that there may be 'truths' sounds utterly bonkers to me. a ^ -a is considered a contradiction for a reason.

There is a lot of subtlety hidden in "a ^ ~a is a contradiction", because physical reality is more complex than it appears.

For example, one of the stunning consequences of Special Relativity is that there exist situations in which an observer says that event A happens before event B, and another observer says that event A happens after event B, and both are correct. Nature does not appear to be at all bothered by this "contradiction", however, and the world works just fine. Even more puzzling "contradictions" arise in quantum mechanics.

For all we know, it appears that reality is indeed dependent on the observer at a deep level. Maybe there is an even deeper level at which statements such as "a ^ ~a is false" hold, but so far nobody has been able to discover any.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#902

Post by throwaway316943 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:06 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #810

lbj wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youre absolutely right and the Ministry of Truth reference couldn’t be more chilling

"Ministry of Truth" references are the opposite of illuminating; they're reflexive association of any attempt to arbitrate truth with totalitarian oppression. The fact is there is no such thing as rule of law without lots of institutions and individuals (private and public) taking responsibility for arbitrating truth. And there's no freedom of speech without allowing them to do it.

If you believe so strongly in the ability of institutions to ferret out untruth then surely you’d be ok with the application of such knowledge. We have the ability to do real time analysis in communications such as email, text and cell phone calls so why not just delete any offending words from those communications in real time so that lies never spread? That way you have perfect freedom of speech, it’s just that your phone calls will be edited in real time so the other person never hears the banned words. Better yet, instead of just deleting then it could reword it ina simulation of your voice so that they only ever hear the accepted truth.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#903

Post by the_other » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:07 PM UTC

acituan wrote: post #851

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, becau…

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

Tell that to the children ICE detained separately from their parents.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#904

Post by u20210717 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:07 PM UTC

devwastaken wrote: post #861

isaacremuant wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American society has been slowly convinced, and then the rest of the world by extension, that this was absolutely necessary to combat the next big threat. First it was to "combat hate", that speech was limited according to what partisan big tech companies decided was fair. It was said it had real-life consequences. Harm. So it should be banned. Then anything from certain parties or ideologies became hate if labeled s…

U.S. barely has "hate speech" laws, so I don't know what you're talking about there. "Big tech" decided to ban people for being hateful to others on their platforms. Those platforms don't exist for your protection against government actors. Nor should it.

What you're saying is "a company banning certain forms of speech on its platforms does not constitute censorship", which is true at least in the strict definition of "censorship", but does not contradict what the GP is saying. What the GP is talking about is a shift in American attitudes that leads to the acceptance of such policies, whereas in earlier times they might have been rejected or the companies in question might not have even thought to implement them.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#905

Post by inglor_cz » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:09 PM UTC

concordDance wrote: post #839

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 wish there were a way to indicate disagreement without hiding comments. Having "dislike" and "disagree" be the same arrow causes problem like hiding this. I'm doing to take issue with your "dangerous lies" classification as not being a useful one. Every bit of censorship can be argued to be censoring dangerous lies. From Russian LGBT censorship to China's censorship of things undermining the narrative of Chinese gr…

"Every bit of censorship can be argued to be censoring dangerous lies."

This. Former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and its secret police (StB) did not say "we are evil and we want to suppress information that contradicts whatever we need you to believe". It was a necessary struggle against Western ideodiversional centrals that were sowing lies among naive young population for nefarious purposes, of course.

Every censorship system will cloak itself in righteousness and necessity. Has been tried for hundreds of times. If anybody still accepts this argument at face value, they are likely ignorant of history.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#906

Post by the_other » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:12 PM UTC

the_other wrote: post #903

acituan wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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, becau…

> That’s not sufficiently true. In fact, asserting untrue propositions is one of the easiest-to-counter ways of misinformation. Tell that to the children ICE detained separately from their parents.

(I confess I replied in a knee-jerk reaction to your set-up, rather than your main point. Sorry for that. Your main point has meat on its bones and seems worthy of further discussion.)

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#907

Post by inglor_cz » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:14 PM 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.

"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."

Are you aware that ideas like abolition of slavery, civil rights or acceptance of gays had to spread precisely in the same way, through gaps in the contemporary societies that made harder to challenge them, often because open declaration of such ideas would mean major trouble for the speakers?

Do you think that our current society is perfect in this regard and thus can suppress further functionality of such mechanisms without adverse consequences down the line?

If not, better not touch the gaps.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#908

Post by dalbasal » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:19 PM 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…

>> it's not about private files, it's about distributing content

The distinction between private files and distributed content is blurred-2-nonexistent, and Google Drive is not a neutral player in that process. The whole premise is that these are just sharing settings.

The premise of this service is that controlling your own files is passe, because content distribution, creation, consumption and need to work seamlessly.

Also, this isn't outside of the greater Alphabet complex. Even in social media, where they are a secondary player, they own Youtube... also premised on the sharing and distributing model.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#909

Post by deadpannini » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:20 PM UTC

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…

> 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'.

Discretionary enforcement power is part of the problem, not a mitigating factor. The policy itself simply gives them carte blanche to remove content with which they disagree:

> When applying these policies, we may make exceptions based on artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific considerations, or where there are other substantial benefits to the public from not taking action on the content.

Even if we give Google the benefit of the doubt and grant that initial enforcement could be judicious, wise, and a net positive for society (pretending like "a net positive for who?" is an easy question to settle), "substantial benefits to the public" is not a limiting principle.

History has taught us that without real, adversarial constraints, this power will always be mishandled and abused. Eventually, Google will make mistakes. In their zeal to prevent misinformation and harm, they will bury a promising drug therapy and it will cost lives. They will disallow evidence of a crime, and they will make exceptions that happen to benefit their biggest markets.

They have the right to do this, but it is surely wrong for us to delegate our judgement to them.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#910

Post by inglor_cz » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 12:21 PM 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…

" 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)"

Ask the rest of the world before you speak in their name. From the other side of the puddle, Jan 6th was a poorly executed riot that was mildly interesting mainly because of the obvious kooks (such as the Shaman) and their outlandish clothing. Don't try to repaint it as a surrogate coup just because polarized American society yearns for Big Defining Events. There is nothing to yearn for. And historical coups, even the unsuccessful-but-plausible ones look very, very different. Usually a lot more bloody, too.

But as far as Ministry of Truth goes, I am with you. Whatever institutions people build, they should imagine them in hands of their worst enemies.