Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content” • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#311

Post by kmeisthax » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

hash872 wrote: post #230

semitones wrote: post #39

The road to hell is paved with "good intentions". We desperately need to find a globally adoptable alternative to google and the services that it provides. Docs, Sheets, Drive, etc. are fantastic services in that they work really well on a massive scale. However, Google's increasing role as an arbiter of right vs wrong and a steward of information puts too much power into the hands of one corporation, whose best inte…

The issue is that we know from experience, after 20+ years of the modern Internet, that if you make a 'free speech' drive/repository place that's widely available, it will host the absolute worst of the human race. Then, let's say you personally were in charge of said Free Speech Drive- every day you'd get up and hear about people using it for (legal) jailbait photos, Islamic State recruiting, collaboration between e…

Another wrinkle in all of this is that you can use free speech as a form of censorship.

For example, if someone says something you don't like, you can intimidate them into shutting up by, say, threatening to reveal their personal information, such as their legal identity, address of residence, and so on. On certain corners of the Internet, merely dropping dox is good enough to get randos (who won't even be affiliated with you, so +1 to plausible deniability) to harass someone you want to shut up.

A more technical variant of this is DDoS attacks. Instead of trying to intimidate someone into shutting up with threats of stochastic terrorism; you shout over them by sending a bunch of traffic to their site until the server crashes or they run out of money.

So even if you're a hardcore free speech extremist, you still need to embrace some level of "censoring the censors" if you want the Internet to actually be usable.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#312

Post by read_if_gay_ » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:19 PM UTC

ixacto wrote: post #155

jonnycomputer wrote: post #22

What. The. Hell. I suppose limiting sharing might be justified. But limiting access and/or deleting own files is outrageous. For that matter, collections of misleading content can have legitimate purposes. Such as research. Now I'm seriously considering dropping my Drive subscription. Update: I got a lot of upvotes, but tbh I may have misunderstood the new policy, which does seem to (maybe?) only be limited to distri…

Does this apply to google workspace (paying)customers too? If so google is actually scanning what is supposed to be private information.

> If so google is actually scanning what is supposed to be private information.

Am I just too cynical or are you naive for thinking they aren't datamining absolutely anything they can get their hands on?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#313

Post by tablespoon » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

Jiro wrote: post #183

tablespoon wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guess it contradicts the official position of the current administration (not reality). So will my drive content be removed? Below is the actual policy. What term do you think your blog post violates? > Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users. This includes: > Misleading content related to civic and democratic processes: Content that is demonstrably false and could significantly undermi…

I can see how information that contradicts the CDC falls under "Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm." Of course, it wouldn't actually fall under anything since it's not misleading, but such things get interp…

Both interpretations seem like mighty big stretches to find this particular content as noncomplaiant with that policy. IMHO, if the policy gets stretched like that, then the issue isn't with the policy itself.

I mean, you could make similar stretches to hypothetically ban discussion of tax increases, because of the serious emotional harm that would cause to wealthy people fearing the loss of their money.

Honestly, the only issue with the actual text that I see is the reference to "emotional harm," given how subjective that is and how certain ideological propositions can be medicalized via that route. The rest of it is very reasonable, especially the paragraphs about civic processes and manipulated media.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#314

Post by barnesto » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

CyberRabbi wrote: post #233

duxup wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other truth is we're all outraged when these companies host some stuff that we don't like ... and get upset when they don't host the stuff we do like. Consumers aren't rational. Neither are their demands. I'm probably no more rational than anyone else, but I'm honest that I sure as hell don't want to give money to a service that is happy to host some violent folks content / garbage...

Do you support the right of others to host content you consider violent or garbage?

This is the problem, isn't it? You seem to be posting an easy question to answer. But it's not, is it? Who is Google to judge what anyone would "consider violent or garbage?"

I don't remember electing them to control this aspect of life. And where does it stop? What is the line? Who is actually defining these things?

When a small group of people control the definition of "wrong think" then we're gonna have a problem regardless of which side of the argument those people are on.

While your question is innocent enough, I get the feeling you already knew the answer.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#315

Post by read_if_gay_ » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

markzzerella wrote: post #71

josephcsible wrote: post #13

Their definition of misleading says it "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records". Because no government record has ever been wrong before, right?

Early on Fauci was telling everyone how useless masks were [1]. I have a couple people in my social circle that were banned from fb for saying he was wrong early on about masks being ineffective. And several others were banned later for pointing out fauci's earlier stance and calling it all propaganda. You are not allowed to think for yourself. Pick up that can. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE-XVfZCX-o

Lab leak hypothesis.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#316

Post by krapp » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #274

krapp wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's because this is turning a platform into an publisher. The "platform vs. publisher" dichotomy that crops up in these conversations is propaganda. Exercising editorial control over content does not create a distinction between one or the other, or convert one into the other. The distinction doesn't exist as a matter of law, legal right or obligation. Every web site and service, from tiny phpbb forums to FAANG sil…

I would recommend you read the actual law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the PUBLISHER or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." So yes. In the actual law, there is something called a publisher, and the law is distinguishing the website from being something as opposed to a publisher. So yes,…

My claim was not that publishers didn't exist, but that the commonly presented distinction between platform and publisher - that a "platform" cannot moderate content beyond strict legality, or else they must be be considered a "publisher," lose Section 230 protection and take full legal responsibility for all content on their site - does not exist. Google's editorial policies "turning them from a platform into a publisher" is not a thing that actually happens.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#317

Post by defaultname » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

cpr wrote: post #81

Negitivefrags wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s amazing to see an authoritarian regime establish itself in real time in front of our eyes. It’s so easy to look at the past and think “How did people let this happen?”. And yet here we are. I hope stopping the anti-vaxers and election fraud people is worth it.

Especially as the news about the election fraud slowly rolls out across multiple states...

Did I accidentally stumble into The_Donald? The bizarre, fact-free comments that dominate this discussion are simply gross for HN.

How in the world was this comment flagged, beyond the brigading of the most ignorant of deplorables. There is zero information about "election fraud" coming out, much less from multiple states, but this is the tact these horrendous cretins use to ply their disinformation noise. But did you see all of the news coming out about how the "MAGA" crew are actually lizard people with sub-50 IQs? It's true, you'll see. It's true! The Cyber Biologists did a "study" and they pointed out that in a picture the insurrectionists reflected light just so, clearly demonstrating that they must be lizard people.

It is embarrassing to see this on HN. The US is turning into a laughing stock.

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#318

Post by robertlagrant » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #109

semitones wrote: post #39

The road to hell is paved with "good intentions". We desperately need to find a globally adoptable alternative to google and the services that it provides. Docs, Sheets, Drive, etc. are fantastic services in that they work really well on a massive scale. However, Google's increasing role as an arbiter of right vs wrong and a steward of information puts too much power into the hands of one corporation, whose best inte…

"We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on a globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority, to have truly free-flowing information." Google's job is to take away the motivation to do this work. Alernatively, if it looks like someone is doing it, hire or acquire them.

Can't I get Google Workspace right now which isn't ad-supported?

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#319

Post by hxjemzbskwkxb » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #242

tablespoon wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guess it contradicts the official position of the current administration (not reality). So will my drive content be removed? Below is the actual policy. What term do you think your blog post violates? > Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users. This includes: > Misleading content related to civic and democratic processes: Content that is demonstrably false and could significantly undermi…

According to the current administration gun violence is a public health crisis: https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/public... I present arguments that could be considered "misleading" based on the administrations official position. Personally, I'd like to actually fix the issues, to do so, we need to discuss the issues. With that, I wrote something we can use as a framework to discuss the issues. --…

Sorry but your content is misleading. Take for example the following quote, from Amnesty International, which cite in your article:

> governments [with] poor regulation of the possession and use of guns lead to violence and that they must tackle this now through strict controls on guns and effective interventions in communities suffering high levels of gun violence.

From this say the following:

> The key statement is:

Guns lead to violence

The statement above implies a couple of things:

1. Gun volume and violence are correlated

2. As the number of guns increase, violence increases

—————

This is a blatant distortion of what that quote from Amnesty is saying.

That are clearly saying that _poor regulation of the possession and use of guns_ leads to violence.

You are quite obviously engaging in bad faith arguments.

edit: formatting

Re: Google Drive bans distribution of “misleading content”

#320

Post by notquitehuman » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

vimy wrote: post #185

mancerayder wrote: post #105

I read regular stories on HN about employee activism on certain types of popular issues around gender and race, involving petitions and publicity. Spotify, Apple, Google. Yet nothing about the march towards totalitarianism and information control - always with good intentions and to our benefit - promulgated with stories such as this. Not a peep from our young Silicon Valley activists. Do we still teach history at sc…

Because the activists want tech companies to censor and control information.

Not all or even most. Tech platform censorship is just ranked lower on their list of issues/grievances. How do you think activists should be spending their time?