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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#911

Post by largbae »

atoav wrote: post #896
adflux wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lab leak theory was discarded as false and conspiracy thinking, now many experts believe this to be the case... What is a conspiracy one day can eventually be the truth, e.g. the Tonkin Incident.

I am not aure about the US but here in Germany most experts didn't say it was a conspiracy theory, but that those who claim this is the truth lack the data to back it up. I could also argue that there is a invisible unicorn orbiting the solar aystem. As long as there is no real proof for it we have to accept that it is just a theory. And the more facts align with my theory the more motivation there should be to check…

That's just the point: How could you ever assemble the data to turn a theory into truth if you are not allowed to discuss it?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#912

Post by fighterpilot »

nix23 wrote: post #866
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 believe there is only one truth, and everything else is false. That is maybe true with science, but not with living breathing things. Just one example: What is the best system to live in? Capitalism, Socialism or a mix of Capitalism AND Socialism? Often it is just not a question of truth when it comes to humans.

It just appears that there's multiple truthful answers to that question since you haven't fully defined what the word "best" means.

If you rigorously define what you mean by that word in this question, then there will be one and only one answer.

Of course, whether we're capable of finding that answer is a separate question.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#913

Post by inglor_cz »

sumnuyungi wrote: post #554
seniorgarcia wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I hate you. "But the money" is your argument for contributing to something you recognize as evil. Good on you for having at least some conscience so it "weighs on you". Apparently the money is too good though, or you don't care enough. Curious which one it is.

The toxicity on HN is a strange combination of vitriol and superiority complex. I can't really think of many other forums that spew such hatred while morally grandstanding to such an extent.

On the contrary, my experience from other forums is worse. HN audience tends to downvote simple grandstanding and demands sources etc.

A paradise of moral paladins seems to be Twitter, deliberately designed to stoke tensions and dissuade people from reasoning.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#914

Post by cs2733 »

pmlnr wrote: post #808
cs2733 wrote: post #527

Relevant: How The CIA made Google (2015) https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo... Is Google honestly acting following economic interests? Is it to avoid liability from hosting damaging content? Is it acting to protect us? Google, which isn't event the most valuable company in the world, is worth above all but - give or take - the top 36 countries in the world. A company of this size wields imme…

> Is Google honestly acting following economic interests? Of course. It's following the economic interest of filling the pockets of company C levels.

For many people - when they already have a lot of money - it becomes boring. That thing billions spend their daily lives chasing after is boring for those who have so much of it they don't know what to do with it. For them, what gets them out of bed in the morning is the prospect of using power in fun or interesting ways. In this case, perhaps the power to change the world.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#915

Post by blisterpeanuts »

busymom0 wrote: post #832
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…

The government is actively telling social media companies which posts need to be taken down. That makes them state actors. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-matt-orfalea https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/biden-administration... Here is a partial list of scientific consensus "deniers" proven right which this sort of censorship will either silence by big tech or due to self-censorship: 1. Ignaz Semm…

Most humans are inherently closed to disruptive ideas that challenge their basic world view.

It may be a survival trait, in fact. Not all of us are brilliant mavericks, so we have to rely on group think and past practices. Some disruptions are indeed harmful and must be suppressed firmly for the good of the species, for example inbreeding with siblings and parents.

What's happening right now with the attempted suppression of "hate speech" and "dangerous misinformation" is a classic imposition of majority consensus on a restless, information-empowered population.

It is an attempt to regain control. Never before have humanity had so much decentralized power to disseminate information; anyone can quickly and easily put their ideas out to a vast audience.

Probably a certain amount of control is necessary to maintain order, but obviously, how much is still up for debate.

The suppression of innovation that you have outlined is likely a small fraction of the total. How much might we have advanced, had these people's ideas not been suppressed? How much human suffering might have been averted?

Or would we have merely developed the tools to destroy ourselves and our world that much sooner?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#916

Post by inglor_cz »

fulafel wrote: post #880
s3r3nity wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who gets to define 'misleading and/or confusing'? Google? A court case? They claim that anything "misleading" is "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records." This is a wildly Orwellian way to dictate "truth" : it's whatever the government body says is true. (1984 _literally_ has a "Ministry of Truth") Authorities can be wrong, and can _themselves_ be incentivized to mislead. Why place…

That's not correct, the text with more context is: > This includes information about public voting procedures, political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace, election results, or census participation that contradicts official government records. There is no wider applicability of "government records" specified.

So, why is the government considered infallible precisely on those topics, if it is tacitly understood that it can actually make mistakes elsewhere?

Also, the formulation feels strangely US-centric, even though people use Google Drive all over the world and the formulation does not explicitly say which governments are considered as infallible in their census records. With no qualification, "government" can well be government of Iraq, Hongkong or Belarus.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#917

Post by rebuilder »

mjthompson wrote: post #730
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…

I'm not even close to convinced by your response. Relying on the public-private divide as the sole basis for your retort is weak. You also assert that the person is pushing a personal narrative, but I suggest you're doing the same. There's an argument that private corporations that are involved in dissemination of information (search engines and social media) should respect principles of freedom of speech as a democr…

I’m definitely on the side of the argument that says power is power, and private companies can do just as much harm as governments can. However, there’s a difference between gov’t censorship and censorship by private companies like we’re talking about here.

It’s the difference between not allowing the government to say what you can publish and requiring a company to publish whatever you want.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#918

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

Except the term "misinformation" appears nowhere on the page https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505

Instead it refers to "misleading information".

Absent a specific definition of "misinformation" from Google's lawyers -- who likely authored or at least reviewed this page -- we are left to consult the dictionary.

The dictionary defines "misinformation" as "information that is incorrect". There is no requirement of intent. The information may or may not be misleading.

That is, the term "misinformation" may apply to any incorrect information regardless of intent.

Is it possible to have incorrect information ("misinformation") that is not intended to or does mislead (~ "misleading information"). Your answer: ___

Is it possible to have correct information (~ "misinformation") that is intended to or does mislead ("misleading information"). Your answer: ___

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#919

Post by fighterpilot »

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…

It's true that the US government has always compelled private platforms to remove speech if it is illegal as determined by the legislative branch or common law (e.g., hosting child porn). What's unique about the current situation is that what's being censored has direct influence from non-legislative bodies such as the executive branch and the CDC, and what is out of bounds lacks specification and is subject to change according to the whims of a small handful of people.

This is a big change because the legislative body is significantly constrained in what it can censor through multiple mechanisms. The slippery slope concern falls flat in that old context, but not in this new context where 1 or 2 people (who we don't see and who may not have even been directly elected) can label something as misinformation and have it scrubbed.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#920

Post by natmaka »

nolok wrote: post #881
natmaka wrote: post #879

Isn't the underlying main problem (censorship), as (nearly) always, growing up along with the size of the society, that is to say mistrust? I have yet to encounter a small group of people, let's say less than ~15 people (all adult and responsible, children and fools are another matter and must be protected by adults), where someone thinks that others shouldn't access to some content (because they are irrevocably dumb…

> I have yet to encounter a small group of people, let's say less than ~15 people (all adult and responsible, children and fools are another matter and must be protected by adults), where someone thinks that others shouldn't access to some content (because they are irrevocably dumb or evil-minded), that he detains the Truth and has to forbid everything he dislikes. Doesn't that fit 90% of small sized companies ?

It probably depends upon the definition of "small-sized company" :-)

In some companies a form of screening out is in place, barring access to some online material, however it is AFAIK done for economical reasons (avoiding letting company resources used for non-work stuff, avoiding any mistake such as a dubious download, contribution or comment be associated with an IP address rented by the company...), not in order to enforce censorship. Each employee is free to access to whatever he wants... using his own time, computer and network connection.

Post reply on HN