Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files • Hacker News Board

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#171

Post by throwaway65521 » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:05 AM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #94

njharman wrote: post #67

Censoring is a losing battle. Because it attacks a symptom. The cure for ignorance is not trying to hide missinformation (that just empowers the spreaders, gives it credence (they wouldn't bother suppressing it if it weren't true), or drives it into dark places you can no longer detect how much of a problem it is). The cure is to educate people and teach them critical thinking (both of which are expensive and honestl…

What's to be done, then, before we reach sufficient education and critical thinking skills? I mean, that's kind of a boil-the-ocean solution, as you observe. When Trump suggested that ingesting bleach could cure COVID-19, 30 people in NY state were hospitalized the next day for drinking bleach. Saying "we should all be sufficiently educated and critical thinkers that misinformation is harmless" is effectively no solu…

My answer is to add sterilization to the penalty for committing a felony.

This will never happen, though.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#172

Post by apostacy » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:07 AM UTC

grumple wrote: post #91

013a wrote: post #5

This is crossing a very bad line, and is absolutely unacceptable. My company of about 50 people on G-Suite will be canceling our subscription and moving to Office 365 within the next three months. We had discussed it in the past due to their history of flagrant disregard for the security and privacy standards we require, but this has galvanized the conversation and we're prioritizing it on the near-term now. I'm sure…

You gotta fight! For your right! To misssssleeeeead. It might be more prudent to be careful about accepting what you read at first glance; why would google allow someone to stream data (against policy for the product), let alone when that content violates their policies on their content streaming networks? Do you think they should leave up public to other content that violates their policies, just because it's tied t…

It needs to be said though, that these "misinformation" policies are nonsense.

If they had these policies in January, I would have been banned for disagreeing with the WHO and saying that this pandemic was serious.

Independent journalists were warning us about this since November, despite the best efforts of the Chinese government and American tech companies.

But it would have been fake news, until it turned out to be true. They want to be able to decide whatever the truth is in the moment, and silence anyone who disagrees.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#173

Post by apostacy » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

mike503 wrote: post #87

Eduard wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, they could support freedom of speech by not limiting access. They do block access, therefore suppressing freedom of speech. Arguing with "they're just saving resources" is ridiculous, especially when considering Google's wealth.

Also, freedom of speech is not guaranteed on a privately owned platform... not sure why anyone expects that.

Their legal immunity as a neutral platform isn't guaranteed under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

These private platforms want to be free of the consequences of their actions. They want to pretend to be neutral platforms, like a telephone carrier, but pick who gets to say what on their networks like a publisher.

Their censorship goes well beyond complying with the law, or even protecting users from harassment.

So, if they want to pretend to be completely private, then they should be treated that way.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#174

Post by apostacy » Sat, May 23, 2020, 12:12 AM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #124

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> freedom from consequences of speech Obviously? Freedom of speech that doesn't protect you from consequences, ex. prison time, is an utterly worthless "freedom".

I think this is a (willful) misunderstanding of what "consequences" means in the context of the freedom of expression. "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time. Everybody wants those conseque…

> "Consequences," colloquially understood, are interpersonal repercussions in one's public and private life. They're a necessary part of the freedom of expression: such a freedom wouldn't be very useful if exercising it had no consequences. They don't include prison time.

Context matters. Whenever I have heard someone saying that there will be "consequences" for your speech, it is usually a threat.

If someone threatens you with targeted harassment for your speech, they are a criminal. Someone coercing you and trying to induce you into silence is not a legitimate consequence of speech. It sounds like you are excusing online hate mobs.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#175

Post by smichel17 » Sat, May 23, 2020, 1:16 AM UTC

knorker wrote: post #155

Wow, so you're saying a free of charge Google Drive way to share files isn't without restrictions? I'm shocked! I really thought this misinformation video people found a loophole to not have to pay for what bandwidth actually costs. I really thought that Google had offered a free CDN for everyone, limitless, when they (and Amazon, and Microsoft, and Akamai) charge huge amounts for this as a cloud service. Yeah, that…

> I really thought this misinformation video people found a loophole to not have to pay for what bandwidth actually costs. I really thought that Google had offered a free CDN for everyone, limitless, when they (and Amazon, and Microsoft, and Akamai) charge huge amounts for this as a cloud service.

> Yeah, that was sarcasm.

Maybe so, but I came across a streaming site (of questionable legality) that did exactly this. Loaded an iframe with what looked like a random domain (always two first names, like "PedroMaria.xyz"). Then the iframe made a bunch of XHRs to load chunks of movie data from Google Drive. It was really quite fascinating.

Aside, this is one of my favorite things about using uMatrix with aggressive defaults -- as you unbreak sites, you learn a lot about what services are commonly used to build websites.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#176

Post by mistermann » Sat, May 23, 2020, 1:16 AM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #120

Barrin92 wrote: post #61

does anyone know who the people behind the reclaimthenet.org domain are? The headline seems intentionally misleading and the entire article is biased, as seems to be the case for most of the site, almost exlcusively focussing on censorship of fringe figures out of conspiracy and far-right political circles. There is no reference to organisations, writers or editors anywhere on this site if I'm not missing anything.

> The headline seems intentionally misleading How so? > and the entire article is biased As are most articles on the topic, from either side. More importantly: is what they say not essentially true? What matters more: who's "side" someone is on, or what is true?

Questions too tough?

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#177

Post by phyzome » Sat, May 23, 2020, 1:17 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #54

I don't see any evidence that Google applied a misinformation policy here. It could be that they simply don't want to pay for the bandwidth to serve video without any ads in it. It is a big file and a lot of people want it. That can get super expensive. I don't know how big this file is, but let's say it's a 4GB DVD image. That ties up 1Gbps for 32 seconds, which means that with a 1Gbps link to your server, you can s…

« I don't know how big this file is, but let's say it's a 4GB DVD image. »

It says they were sharing a trailer, so I'd suggest all your numbers should be scaled down by a factor of at least 100.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#178

Post by djflutt3rshy » Sat, May 23, 2020, 1:25 AM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #61

does anyone know who the people behind the reclaimthenet.org domain are? The headline seems intentionally misleading and the entire article is biased, as seems to be the case for most of the site, almost exlcusively focussing on censorship of fringe figures out of conspiracy and far-right political circles. There is no reference to organisations, writers or editors anywhere on this site if I'm not missing anything.

https://twitter.com/search?q=until%3A2019-01-01%20to%3A%40Re...

Looks like they've gone by @AlphMedia and @PLRExpress in the past.

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#179

Post by hootbootscoot » Sat, May 23, 2020, 1:35 AM UTC

Good. A private entity (corp) exercises it's right to free speech.

Google is under no obligation to provide services for anyone it deems troublesome.

Would you question a bartender or bar staff for refusing entry to a problematic client?

Re: Google is now applying its coronavirus misinformation policies to personal files

#180

Post by hootbootscoot » Sat, May 23, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

centimeter wrote: post #92

jeffbee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it turns out the the web is not, in fact, a giant virtual seastead unbothered by the norms and rules of society. If you distribute information via computer networks it will be subject to scrutiny to see if it is malware, copyrighted by someone else, exploitative, seditious, etc.

It's disingenuous to conflate Alphabet Corporation's political strategies with "the norms and rules of society".

It's disingenuous to conflate a private entities exercising their rights to "refuse a problematic client service" with infringement of the constitutionally protected free speech by a governmental entity.