421–430 of 514 posts
The scale of some things has forced people to use non humane flagging, and to comply with some tyrannical government requests. The best solution? NAS it or use E2EE providers only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have to provide it by law under GDPR and other directives in the EU.
They can also just delete the data. That would solve it too. (for them)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Daily reminder that a former sitting president is still banned from a major social media network yet we are blessed with updates from literal terrorists, so when another big tech co keeps their eyes open for "terrorists" you know it's a facade to impose their draconian wishes, and remind us proletariat who really is in charge. Daily reminder that big tech is the biggest threat to democracy we face today, even bigger…
I’m my eyes, trump was a terrorist.
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…
I actually think that not making a distinction between publishing to the world and sharing with a small group of people is the biggest source of unreasonableness in all of these debates.
When I'm interacting and sharing with a few people I know or who I just met, I expect companies and governments to stay out of it (unless there is a criminal investigation overseen by a judge). I don't think that's unreasonable at all. It used to be the status quo until not very long ago.
Everything from political activity to copyrights can be discussed in a far more sensible way if we make that distinction. As soon as we erase that distinction, which has sometimes happened because it's the default with some technologies, everything becomes essentially unsolvable.
E.g, I don't want to defend the right to anonymity of someone who directly and systematically influences entire populations just because I expect to be allowed to do the equivalent of talking to three strangers in a pub without showing ID.
Google knows how many different people access a particular piece of shared content. They should just set a reasonable threshold before unleashing their crude algorithms. 2 is not a reasonable threshold. How about 200?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what, a refund for 99% of the time what is a free at point of service to the consumer? For paying private customers yes I'd day fine but in most of these cases in ruling to bet the "free" 1GB was more than enough
> And what, a refund for 99% of the time what is a free at point of service to the consumer? No, but give them a punitive fine (on the order of a percentage of their daily average profits) for failing to live-up to their own expectations set in their own advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Cloudsync is a car superior product and supports every cloud service ever and full encryption. https://cloudsync.bdrive.com/
Its great tech but why charge per device to personal users?
- to keep things affordable for those who can afford to buy only a few devices
- to extract as much money as possible from those who can afford to buy multiple devices
It’s a pricing strategy. That doesn’t have to reflect what it costs them at all, but ideally should match what it’s worth to the customer (if it doesn’t, they either leave money on the table or don’t get sales)
As a person who formerly worked on the technical side of anti-abuse (both content and account) at Google, I urge you to read these kinds of reports critically. There is no reason to believe any of the details given in the post, which incorporates a lot of supposition about how this system works. For example, we have no rational basis for believing that this was done by some robot at Google. It is at least as likely t…
This is your daily reminder that nothing in your digital life should EVER entierly depend on any Google services. Im writing this from an android phone. It is not de-googled per se, but uses a replacement for every single Google service (files, books, maps, search, movies, ...). Yes I pay money for those replacements, but God its good to not my life in the hand of a overzealous ML algorithm.
This can happen with any company! I had Apple lock me out of iTunes, App Store, Mac Store, ... - for an entire month, if not more - alleging that I spammed others with my iMessage account. The fact is that I never, ever used iMessage! I used only WhatsApp, Telegram and SMS. In every support call, I would hear them say the same thing. I would tell them that I never used iMessage, let alone spam others. But, they would…
Lots of parents take a photo of their child having a bath or something similar at least in Europe/Asia and it's clearly of non-sexual nature. Now, how does the Apple algo know that?
I'm generally curious: Have you tried to contact Google before about any kind of issue? It took me like a day or so to chat with an actual person the last time I had an issue.