381–390 of 514 posts
That didn't take long to reverse: "Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Your account has been re-enabled" https://support.google.com/drive/thread/127021326/google-has...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ability to fix an account lockout is not 'premium'.
Are you saying it shouldn't be... or are you saying it isn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think if google really thinks you're a terrorist that they are obliged to go on supporting you? There's a big difference between having no idea terrorists use your platform, and actually supporting them by enabling those you believe to be terrorists.
Who is this "Google" person that "thinks" he is a terrorist? There is no actual human entity here that is doing any "thinking" at all. It is an automated system, that cannot be argued with or challenged by normal means. Terrorism is an INCREDIBLY SERIOUS allegation. It should be dealt with by law enforcement and the courts. And the penalties for _false_ accusations, which is exactly what this is, should be severe as…
Terrorism should not just be dealt with through the courts. If you think someone is committing violence against others your responsibility is to shut down all support of that person, you mustn't aid them in any way. There's no requirement that private entities wait for the courts before stopping commerce with suspected terrorists. If you are google, that means completely locking out all accounts that you identify as involved in terrorism.
The supreme court has held that when making statements of public concern, you haven't committed libel if you are acting without malice. It's pretty clear google wasn't acting with malice here, and that it is a great public concern if someone is actually amassing armored vehicles to use against others. And just because someone is a terrorist, doesn't mean you should or can act through the courts. If google believes someone is acting against non-US nationals in a foreign country, then there's very little the US courts could pragmatically do about it other than order entities in the US not to support them. Of course if evidence did emerge that google flagged that terrorist activity was happening, and they continued supporting that activity, I don't think that would look favorably during any prosecution.
Which, yet again, brings me to my original point, which is that google shouldn't even be putting themselves in the position to scan private data and open themselves up to the liability of having invade privacy and to suspect someone is engaging in crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think if google really thinks you're a terrorist that they are obliged to go on supporting you? There's a big difference between having no idea terrorists use your platform, and actually supporting them by enabling those you believe to be terrorists.
I'd say when you twig to google as a violent terrorist it should escalate to a real human to check before shutting the account down and forwarding it to the FBI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having recently dealt with what I’m assuming are a meatbag support team from Microsoft (specifically their business partnership program), I can honestly say there’s not much difference between a bunch of useless meatbags and no support whatsoever. It took me 4 weeks to sign up for a service which requires few business details and proof of a domain by form of an invoice . For a reason I don’t understand, it has no bea…
That's easy to fix. You have a government body that takes complaints and if a company receives too many complaints over their customer service, they must pay a penalty.
One of the simplest functions of a justice system - before impartial judgement, before detailed laws, before qualified advocates - is simply the right to summon a powerful person to justify their actions. Increasingly it seems that we will need this to be applied here, ideally in some simpler and less costly way than a full trial. It is just wrong for companies to make money by inviting people to rely on them , and t…
I agree. But I'm not sure what the solution is. A lot of people will say "Hey, it's a private company", and as a libertarian minded person I tend to agree. But increasingly these private companies have more power of my life than my own government does, and it's accelerating further it seems.
This isn't new, by the way. Companies have had their way since the advent of the telephone, it was just in the shadows since the internet wasn't around and we didn't have companies attaching their brand name to every consumer-unfriendly act committed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you use for maps?
OpenStreetMap can be quite good: https://www.openstreetmap.org
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope I'm not the only one who got a little squeamish at this...I understand the logic, "don't let people transfer/share things that are illegal". But it doesn't sit right that 1) A gigantic private company operating across most of the world/laws/jurisdictions/precedents etc...is in charge of determining (with little to no human oversight) what can and can't be shared between individuals. Who might even be in compet…
>But it doesn't sit right Your argument makes sense, and I share your feelings on an emotional level, but at this point, the whole argument can be reduced to "sharing video files streamed from google drive is an equivalent of hosting a video on youtube, so the same rules apply", and that's hard to beat. If you want to store whatever material you want for personal consumption, you are welcome to. But if you enable sha…
Lets say you and I opened a joint safe deposit box at the bank to share USB drives together with movies on it. If the bank found out, they wouldn't be required to drill it open and scan the drive to make sure none of the movies were copyrighted. This is google drilling open the safe deposit box because someone shared the keys, and they think there may be a movie they don't like there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenStreetMap can be quite good: https://www.openstreetmap.org
Mapquest is still good. Google was better when they first got going, but has since declined well below Mapquest.