5 ms·

The data resided on Google's servers -- their property. Read the terms and conditions you agree to, Google doesn't owe you anything. > If it was art that b

The data resided on Google's servers -- their property. Read the terms and conditions you agree to, Google doesn't owe you anything. > If it was art that borders on distasteful to some > then google is deciding taste and public values with > private algorithms. But that's well within their right to do. If you don't like it, there's an easy solution: don't use Google. This behavior is well-known (remember Google Reader?) and expected out of Google. If you have any data on any cloud storage facility, you probably have no guarantee of its long-term persistence. You should regularly backup all your data that you value. You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon for < $120, which is more than enough for most people to backup their valued data. > I'm not sure what the right thing is here. To require > any publishing platform to retain works they decide > violates their TOS seems like a big burden. But we > live in a world where publishing seemingly requires > the cooperation the private sector. If not google, at > very least a hosting company of some kind. If we want > the allow social norms to change we can't stifle > everything that falls outside of the norm. Agreed. But, there are alternatives to using a hosting company and there are ways outside of the internet to distribute information. Just because you have a right to publish does not imply that you have a right to be published, nor should it. The author was no customer of Google so the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality. Hosting isn't free, and Google was providing a gratis service to a user. For all we know, a government put pressure on Google to remove the blog -- do we really expect Google to spend money on a legal team to resist such a request? People either don't value the ability to express distasteful opinions, or they are completely unaware of these practices in modern technology companies.

kennywinker 10y ago
> the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually all of their products. > You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon The first words you see when you visit https://www.google.com/drive/ https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for all your files". > there are alternatives to using a hosting company Like what? Deeply technical p2p hosting solutions that are completely inaccessible to all but the most adept readers and publishers? > there are ways outside of the internet to distribute information Sure, but as we move most of our communication to the internet, this kind of thing becomes more and more problematic.
- bronson 10y ago
  The first word you see when you visit "Honest Al's Used Car Lot" is "Honest". Doesn't mean anyone should just trust it.
- madmax96 10y ago
  > A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually > all of their products. This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. > The first words you see when you visit > https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for > all your files". And clearly in the terms of service (the only thing that actually matters,) it says: > Google may also stop providing Services to you, or > add or create new limits to our Services at any time. [1] Safety is subjective, that's how they can get away with this. The terms of service go on to say: > WHEN PERMITTED BY LAW, GOOGLE, AND GOOGLE’S SUPPLIERS > AND DISTRIBUTORS, WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOST > PROFITS, REVENUES, OR DATA, FINANCIAL LOSSES OR > INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR > PUNITIVE DAMAGES. [1] That pretty much seals the deal. The user provides affirmative consent to all of this. > Like what? Deeply technical p2p hosting solutions > that are completely inaccessible to all but the most > adept readers and publishers? Self hosting is a thing. Again, none of this is Google's problem. > Sure, but as we move most of our communication to > the internet, this kind of thing becomes more and > more problematic. Using any service (online or offline) is inherently risky. Users are deciding to take that risk and then whining when the risk does not pay off. You remain free to distribute information however you like. I'm not saying these aren't problems -- I'm saying these aren't Google's problems. They're running a business, not a technology charity. If you don't like it, don't use Google products and encourage others not to. It's simple cause and effect: Google treats us badly, we stop using Google. Google is free to operate however they like and I'm free to stop using their services. [1] https://www.google.com/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/policies/terms/ EDIT: s/risking/risky/
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    *This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does." Actually it kind of does -- saying one thing and doing another is a deceptive business practice, and deceiving consumers is generally frowned upon.

kennywinker 10y ago

> the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually all of their products. > You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon The first words you see when you visit https://www.google.com/drive/ https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for all your files". > there are alternatives to using a hosting company Like what? Deeply technical p2p hosting solutions that are completely inaccessible to all but the most adept readers and publishers? > there are ways outside of the internet to distribute information Sure, but as we move most of our communication to the internet, this kind of thing becomes more and more problematic.

bronson 10y ago
The first word you see when you visit "Honest Al's Used Car Lot" is "Honest". Doesn't mean anyone should just trust it.
madmax96 10y ago
> A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually > all of their products. This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does. > The first words you see when you visit > https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for > all your files". And clearly in the terms of service (the only thing that actually matters,) it says: > Google may also stop providing Services to you, or > add or create new limits to our Services at any time. [1] Safety is subjective, that's how they can get away with this. The terms of service go on to say: > WHEN PERMITTED BY LAW, GOOGLE, AND GOOGLE’S SUPPLIERS > AND DISTRIBUTORS, WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOST > PROFITS, REVENUES, OR DATA, FINANCIAL LOSSES OR > INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR > PUNITIVE DAMAGES. [1] That pretty much seals the deal. The user provides affirmative consent to all of this. > Like what? Deeply technical p2p hosting solutions > that are completely inaccessible to all but the most > adept readers and publishers? Self hosting is a thing. Again, none of this is Google's problem. > Sure, but as we move most of our communication to > the internet, this kind of thing becomes more and > more problematic. Using any service (online or offline) is inherently risky. Users are deciding to take that risk and then whining when the risk does not pay off. You remain free to distribute information however you like. I'm not saying these aren't problems -- I'm saying these aren't Google's problems. They're running a business, not a technology charity. If you don't like it, don't use Google products and encourage others not to. It's simple cause and effect: Google treats us badly, we stop using Google. Google is free to operate however they like and I'm free to stop using their services. [1] https://www.google.com/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/policies/terms/ EDIT: s/risking/risky/
- nitrogen 10y ago
  *This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magically produce any obligation for Google to act differently than it does." Actually it kind of does -- saying one thing and doing another is a deceptive business practice, and deceiving consumers is generally frowned upon.