Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

workspaceupdates.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 269 posts

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#141

Post by nivenkos »

makecheck wrote: post #106

We need “dumb” infrastructure again, that you can simply pay for with few strings attached, where the provider cannot fiddle with things at all, leaving enforcement to other authorities. We build roads; yes, those roads might be used to transport stolen goods but the road builder doesn’t get to sit there and inspect every vehicle (and accuse the wrong people sometimes and ban them from driving). It’s just so damned c…

If the road builder was held legally liable for everything on their roads you can be sure they would do.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#142

Post by bigtech-1984 »

umvi wrote: post #124
RIMR wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Use of these consumer-grade cloud services comes with pitfalls. I see no utility in pretending that alternatives don't exist though, because they're pretty abundant.

> That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Can you though? I would consider AWS "in the cloud" yet they will give you the boot if they disagree with you morally[0]. Same with Cloudflare[1]. So it seems even infrastructure-level cloud offerings are prone to moral arbitration. Hosting on your own hardware is the only option, but even then.…

Your best bet is probably to pursue hosting in another country with better freedoms.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#143

Post by fs111 »

bencollier49 wrote: post #59
fs111 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty email providers out there. Free and paid. It should not be a problem for anyone to switch. Moving off of Gmail doesn't mean to self host. It is a bit of work to tell anyone about your new address, but that's it.

Changing upwards of 200 logins to use a new email address may be troublesome. Do you keep a list?

Yes, my password manager

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#144

Post by ocdtrekkie »

ricardobayes wrote: post #54
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One easy to block is storage.googleapis.com ...Regularly used to host malware, but legitimate users generally throw their own domain in front of any usage of that service.

No don't do that, this is exactly why IT/opsec is hated in organizations. False positives.

I have so far seen a single instance where a legitimate organization sent someone a storage.googleapis.com URL. I have seen literally hundreds of phishing emails do it.

Which is to say, the problem is organizations using storage.googleapis.com URLs, not organizations blocking them. And probably Google should be doing a better job policing content on their content domains if they don't want them to be blocked by default.

(Similarly, all Chrome Web Store extensions should be blocked by default, with an allowlist for requested and vetted ones... there's simply too much malware to default to anything else.)

I'd love to block Google Drive by default too, but there is enough legitimate use that at present that would cause too many false positives, and it's a balancing act.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#145

Post by jsnell »

Manheim wrote: post #135
Manheim wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is disturbing is the reason they give for why they will do it. One thing is if the drive is specifically used for cyber attacks and other malicious operations over the internet, but they refer to these rules; https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505 and they are extensive to say the least. On top of that this is yet another move from Google to declare their rights to control your content and access to it if…

sorry, maybe I misread your question. Did you mean to say that they already did this without any notice to users, and the only change now is that they will start to send notifications when they do?

Yes, that is exactly what the blog post is saying. It has never been the case that you could use Drive to just share files in an unlimited manner. They used to notify about this in the Drive user interface. Now they will also send an email notification in addition to that.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#146

Post by awinter-py »

oh they're removing files that violate their rules. my brain initially read this as removing files which download the uploader's tos, which is dystopian but in a much cooler way

same prediction as always, moderation is an ecosystem that requires transparent enforcement and dispute processes.

new moderation norms will bend the economics of social media towards the reddit model: small communities, moderation primarily provided by 'community owner'.

Platforms provide a layer cake of less frequent 'nuclear option' bans on top of that -- platforms deplatforming communities so their host doesn't deplatform them.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#147

Post by skinkestek »

jeffbee wrote: post #78
archhn wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The panic is people's fear of the Iron Heel[1]. For most of us, the systems we depend on are controlled by other people. In this chaotic political climate, when these systems start closing in on us, or restricting us in new ways, there's no way of knowing where the tightening will end. Some are incredibly insulated and have no worries about the kind of world we're living in, but others are constantly on edge and feel…

The only basis we have for panic here is that reading skills and critical thinking are in dangerously short supply among commenters here, who collectively believe themselves to be smart and independent thinkers despite all available evidence.

To me this isn't as much about reading skills as it is about being aware of and remembering newer history and being able to apply a mental ruler to the observations and see what way it is heading.

That second part I consider close to critical thinking and it seems to be what people does.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#148

Post by BoysenberryPi »

sovietmudkipz wrote: post #120
RIMR wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Use of these consumer-grade cloud services comes with pitfalls. I see no utility in pretending that alternatives don't exist though, because they're pretty abundant.

Is there a source that breaks down this sort of stuff on your own hardware in a beginner friendly or at least explicit way? One hesitation I have to exposing something public that may not be secure, compromising my home network. It’s intimidating and holds me back, a bit.

I'll second this. I'm pretty techno-savvy if I do say so myself but I haven't the slightest when it comes to self-hosting and security concerns also prevent me from doing it.

Re: Google Drive may restrict files identified as violating ToS

#150

Post by aluminum96 »

umvi wrote: post #124
RIMR wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Use of these consumer-grade cloud services comes with pitfalls. I see no utility in pretending that alternatives don't exist though, because they're pretty abundant.

> That "dumb" infrastructure still exists. You can host your own file server, either on your own hardware, or in the cloud. Can you though? I would consider AWS "in the cloud" yet they will give you the boot if they disagree with you morally[0]. Same with Cloudflare[1]. So it seems even infrastructure-level cloud offerings are prone to moral arbitration. Hosting on your own hardware is the only option, but even then.…

> they will give you the boot if they disagree with you morally

I don't think this is accurate. They pretty much only ban you if you're exposing them to legal liability.

Post reply on HN