8 ms·

> A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually > all of their products. This statement has no relevance to the conversation -- it doesn't magical

> 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.
- madmax96 10y ago
  > Actually it kind of does -- saying one thing and doing > another is a deceptive business practice, and deceiving > consumers is generally frowned upon False advertisement isn't the question here -- nice strawman. Google specifically states they make no guarantees, so they're not "saying one thing and doing another." They're saying one thing and doing that thing. The parent mentioned that Google encouraged technological entitlement -- that may or may not be true, that would be a tough thing to have a reasonable conversation about -- not that Google is making blatantly false claims about its services.
  - DougMerritt 10y ago
    It's rather unfair to accuse the other person of creating a strawman. Google was quoted above as calling the service "A safe place for all your files", and deletion is clearly not "safe", and there have been court decisions saying that fine print caveats cannot completely negate the clear English part of the advertising. Of course, there have been court decisions saying the opposite, too, but that's sufficient for the OP's point to be better than "strawman" material even if, hypothetically, their argument turns out to be incorrect.
    - zardeh 10y ago
      >Google was quoted above as calling the service "A safe place for all your files", and deletion is clearly not "safe" Then most files aren't safe. A file on your computer isn't safe.
      - DougMerritt 10y ago
        There is nothing that is perfectly safe, nor perfectly smooth, nor perfectly white, nor perfectly anything. That doesn't mean that words mean nothing, just because absolutes generally don't exist. In this case, a "reasonable person" (which is often the litmus test that courts use) might well think that "A safe place for all your files" means that Google will take reasonable precautions to keep your files safe, within reason, given current technology and economics and practices. Unilaterally deleting things without notice and without recourse absolutely does not fit that sort of reasonable definition, although it may well be legal nonetheless for various reasons. And regardless of all that, there still is no reason to accuse the OP of a strawman argument, which is kind of rude unless there is a truly strong reason for it -- that's the primary thing I'm arguing, not about philosophical absolutes nor even legality.
resu_nimda 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. It's true that no obligation is created under our current legal structure, but I think the statement still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that is true, and we definitely would all be better off if people took the accountability and personal responsibility to avoid getting into these situations. But really, what does that argument achieve? It absolves the centralized powerful entity of any responsibility, shifting it to a decentralized collection of individuals that lack cohesive power to effect change. In terms of pure efficacy, I don't think that style of reasoning is going to move the needle on actually getting the desired result out of the system. In other words, would it be easier to educate all of those people on proper usage of online services, or to maybe change some legal language somewhere so that these services have some responsibility to their users? I think we can try to encourage personal responsibility in people, and simultaneously acknowledge that it would also be good if the services that hold power and influence were more accountable to their users, because that's just going to be better for everyone collectively.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  It's true that a lot of those subprime loans were legal - however, they were moved off the originators books in a fraudulent manner. If no one would have bought the loans from the originator then they most likely would have never offered them to people with little means to repay.
- madmax96 10y ago
  > It's true that no obligation is created under our > current legal structure, but I think the statement > still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people > that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage > crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people > who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that > is true, and we definitely would all be better off if > people took the accountability and personal > responsibility to avoid getting into these situations. I know what you're getting at here, but it's not really right to compare a policy that resulted in the loss a blog with a set of ethically questionable banking practices that objectively caused one of the worst recessions we've ever seen, resulting in literal death, poverty, and all-around regress. There's also this key component: the average user is not Google's customer -- they never pay a penny for the services they receive. I think that you and I both agree that consumer protection laws are a good thing; if you pay for access to Google's data storage services then it should be illegal if they suddenly revoke that access. That is an obvious case of breach-of-contract. Outside the context of a customer-business relation, this amounts to the government ordering Google to supply a service at no charge. Note that certain things (I believe in the states water) have to be given freely to people who request it, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that access to data that you knowingly stored some place with questionable data persistence guarantees is as fundamental as access to water. You may disagree. In the end, I suggest educating consumers about the generally sketchy cloud data persistence guarantees is easier and wiser than requiring companies to offer free services. You and I both probably agree that the cloud is a significantly easier approach to organizing, storing, and using data than traditional approaches. Since it has become so ubiquitous, its users should know the dangers. This avoids setting a somewhat strong precedent that such a protection law would make. After a quick Google (heh, the irony!) there doesn't seem like there's an easy way to backup cloud data. This seems like it might actually be a good personal project for me...

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.

madmax96 10y ago
> Actually it kind of does -- saying one thing and doing > another is a deceptive business practice, and deceiving > consumers is generally frowned upon False advertisement isn't the question here -- nice strawman. Google specifically states they make no guarantees, so they're not "saying one thing and doing another." They're saying one thing and doing that thing. The parent mentioned that Google encouraged technological entitlement -- that may or may not be true, that would be a tough thing to have a reasonable conversation about -- not that Google is making blatantly false claims about its services.
- DougMerritt 10y ago
  It's rather unfair to accuse the other person of creating a strawman. Google was quoted above as calling the service "A safe place for all your files", and deletion is clearly not "safe", and there have been court decisions saying that fine print caveats cannot completely negate the clear English part of the advertising. Of course, there have been court decisions saying the opposite, too, but that's sufficient for the OP's point to be better than "strawman" material even if, hypothetically, their argument turns out to be incorrect.
  - zardeh 10y ago
    >Google was quoted above as calling the service "A safe place for all your files", and deletion is clearly not "safe" Then most files aren't safe. A file on your computer isn't safe.
    - DougMerritt 10y ago
      There is nothing that is perfectly safe, nor perfectly smooth, nor perfectly white, nor perfectly anything. That doesn't mean that words mean nothing, just because absolutes generally don't exist. In this case, a "reasonable person" (which is often the litmus test that courts use) might well think that "A safe place for all your files" means that Google will take reasonable precautions to keep your files safe, within reason, given current technology and economics and practices. Unilaterally deleting things without notice and without recourse absolutely does not fit that sort of reasonable definition, although it may well be legal nonetheless for various reasons. And regardless of all that, there still is no reason to accuse the OP of a strawman argument, which is kind of rude unless there is a truly strong reason for it -- that's the primary thing I'm arguing, not about philosophical absolutes nor even legality.

resu_nimda 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. It's true that no obligation is created under our current legal structure, but I think the statement still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that is true, and we definitely would all be better off if people took the accountability and personal responsibility to avoid getting into these situations. But really, what does that argument achieve? It absolves the centralized powerful entity of any responsibility, shifting it to a decentralized collection of individuals that lack cohesive power to effect change. In terms of pure efficacy, I don't think that style of reasoning is going to move the needle on actually getting the desired result out of the system. In other words, would it be easier to educate all of those people on proper usage of online services, or to maybe change some legal language somewhere so that these services have some responsibility to their users? I think we can try to encourage personal responsibility in people, and simultaneously acknowledge that it would also be good if the services that hold power and influence were more accountable to their users, because that's just going to be better for everyone collectively.

infinite8s 10y ago
It's true that a lot of those subprime loans were legal - however, they were moved off the originators books in a fraudulent manner. If no one would have bought the loans from the originator then they most likely would have never offered them to people with little means to repay.
madmax96 10y ago
> It's true that no obligation is created under our > current legal structure, but I think the statement > still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people > that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage > crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people > who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that > is true, and we definitely would all be better off if > people took the accountability and personal > responsibility to avoid getting into these situations. I know what you're getting at here, but it's not really right to compare a policy that resulted in the loss a blog with a set of ethically questionable banking practices that objectively caused one of the worst recessions we've ever seen, resulting in literal death, poverty, and all-around regress. There's also this key component: the average user is not Google's customer -- they never pay a penny for the services they receive. I think that you and I both agree that consumer protection laws are a good thing; if you pay for access to Google's data storage services then it should be illegal if they suddenly revoke that access. That is an obvious case of breach-of-contract. Outside the context of a customer-business relation, this amounts to the government ordering Google to supply a service at no charge. Note that certain things (I believe in the states water) have to be given freely to people who request it, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that access to data that you knowingly stored some place with questionable data persistence guarantees is as fundamental as access to water. You may disagree. In the end, I suggest educating consumers about the generally sketchy cloud data persistence guarantees is easier and wiser than requiring companies to offer free services. You and I both probably agree that the cloud is a significantly easier approach to organizing, storing, and using data than traditional approaches. Since it has become so ubiquitous, its users should know the dangers. This avoids setting a somewhat strong precedent that such a protection law would make. After a quick Google (heh, the irony!) there doesn't seem like there's an easy way to backup cloud data. This seems like it might actually be a good personal project for me...