6 ms·

Contrary to some of the other comments, I highly doubt there's any political agenda at play here. More likely, this user inadvertently tripped some automated al

Contrary to some of the other comments, I highly doubt there's any political agenda at play here. More likely, this user inadvertently tripped some automated algorithm somewhere, and then failed the automated appeals process. That said, it's their service and their rules. Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals.

falcolas 9y ago
Given the importance of email and other online services - should multinational corporations be allowed to be capricious about who they provide service to, and how those users are cut off from their digital lifeline?
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  Yes, because it's their computers.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Well, it's also "their" power lines, water mains, sewer, and phone lines. We as a society don't let people be cut off from those services for their politics or their religion. And when people are cut off from aforementioned utilities, it's done with notice, and with the ability to have service restored when payment resumes.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      There are other email providers.
      - falcolas 9y ago
        The Daily Stormer has, for all its problems, shown how "just use another provider" is not a dependable solution.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Well, it's also "their" power lines, water mains, sewer, and phone lines Monopoly utilities are different than services for which their are widespread alternatives, and Google's account-required services are neither monopolies nor regulated utilities.
      - falcolas 9y ago
        The existence of alternatives does not negate a monopoly argument. Netscape, Opera, and other browsers existed when Microsoft was slapped down for IE. Google captures somewhere around 60% of the email market share - a dominant position from which they need to be careful about what actions they take. As noted in response to a sibling comment, the presence of alternative providers has proven to not to be a reliable remedy for some opinions. No, they are not currently regulated utilities. However, I believe that if they aren't careful, they may find themselves forced into that role.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The existence of alternatives does not negate a monopoly argument. It's suggestive evidence. But no actual “monopoly argument” has been made to negate. > Netscape, Opera, and other browsers existed when Microsoft was slapped down for IE. Sure, but IE wasn't the monopoly they got slapped down for, it was the thing they got slapped down for trying to drive with their PC operating system monopoly. So the existence and market strength f competing browsers isn't even related to the market in which the monopoly at issue existed.
        falcolas 9y ago
        > So the existence and market strength f competing browsers isn't even related to the market in which the monopoly at issue existed. It was directly related, because it threatened Microsoft's OS monopoly by providing platform independent content. And so, Microsoft directly attacked Netscape and others. "Judge Jackson finds that Microsoft was especially concerned about technologies, such as Netscape’s Navigator browser, that could support platform-independent computing and thereby erode Microsoft’s position. In response to the Netscape threat, Microsoft undertook a broad array of anticompetitive practices to increase the market share of its Internet Explorer."[0] But you're right, it's not the alternatives that really matter - it's using the power associated with being a monopoly to negatively impact consumers. Google has an effective monopoly in many areas (including email), and as such practices which were OK when they were smaller are no longer going to be considered OK. [0] http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop7.4microsoftmonopolyfacts.html http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop7.4microsoftmonopolyf...
  - yorwba 9y ago
    That's the simple answer. However, there is a trade-off between the rights of a property owner and service provider to determine how their property is used and whom they provide service to, and the rights of the public not to be arbitrarily excluded from using that property or service. That trade-off is not always made absolutely in favor of the property owner. For example, there are privately owned public spaces : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space The complex question is whether Google's servers should be considered more like private property that provides a public service and has to allow access to anyone or like the private property that is your personal computer, where you can grant and revoke access as you please and nobody has a say in that.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      It might be complicated for you, but it's simple for me. Google can do what it wants with its stuff and you don't get to tell it what to do with its computers. They don't have a monopoly on any essential services.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      There seem to be three different premises being used for the argument that Google, et al., shouldn't be able to send service the way they do (or, in some cases like this one, are alleged with no clear evidence to do): (1) the services, despite not legally being anything like privately owned public open spaces, should have an interest seized by the state and be converted into the digital analog of such spaces. (2) despite in many cases having many robustly competing providers, the services should be subjected to utility-style regulation. (3) political position ought to be a protected class for public accommodation discrimination, and all the acts at issue should be considered within the scope of prohibited political position discrimination under such law.
  - chroem- 9y ago
    This is the same argument that was used to wrongfully deny service to gay couples. You are turning a blind eye because corporations are attacking an ideology we disagree with. I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      They aren't attacking any ideology I disagree with as far as I'm aware. It's their computers and they can do what they want with them.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > This is the same argument that was used to wrongfully deny service to gay couples. It is the argument that is still lawfully used to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the country; only a minority of states have public accommodation laws under which sexual orientation is a protected class. The balance between the state interests involvee in public accommodation laws and the free speech and free association rights they limit is a source of endless debate. The fact that the public in some part of the country has decided that one axis has circumstances which warrant such a limitation is not enough to make the case that everyone must accept that the limitation is universally justified for some other axis. > I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others. Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition.
      - alphapapa 9y ago
        > It is the argument that is still lawfully used to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the country; only a minority of states have public accommodation laws under which sexual orientation is a protected class. > Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition. That argument seems in direct opposition to the argument that, e.g. Christian bakers and photographers should be required to provide services for gay weddings. If Google may not be mandated to relay political views that they disagree with, how can photographers be mandated to do so? Do multi-national megacorporations have more rights than individuals? Or is one political view simply wrong, and therefore acceptable to discriminate against?
- ucaetano 9y ago
  What do you propose?
  - aaomidi 9y ago
    Use your own email, at least if gsuite takes it down you can host it elsewhere.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    That Google reigns in the automated bans and automated appeals process, and provide time to do backups of their data and find an alternative solution. Ideally, if their goal is to reduce fraud and spam, they would offer people banned from their free email service a paid account under a different domain, or something similar. The longer that Google fails to take action, the more likely it is that the government will. ISPs and other major online services are looking more and more like common carriers from the point of view of the government officials. They already have an acronym which is used to refer to them - GAFA - a major warning sign. And like an elephant stepping on a mouse, the mouse won't be the only one affected when the government rouses itself.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      So if Google blocks someone for using Gmail to share child porn, they should give the user a chance to download the content?
      - falcolas 9y ago
        There is a fairly clear line between bans for illegal content, and bans for unpopular content. The two are nowhere near equivalent. Not to mention, the user information on the account has likely already been handed off to law enforcement, at which point a grace period is of no practical consequence.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > There is a fairly clear line between bans for illegal content, and bans for unpopular content. Not really, as Google has no special power to decide “illegal”. Unless you mean, a line between band directed specifically by the state (where a government orders specific accounts banned) and those decided by the service provider. > Not to mention, the user information on the account has likely already been handed off to law enforcement, at which point a grace period is of no practical consequence. If law enforcement disagreed with the service provider, there is a significant difference.
emmab 9y ago
> Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals. But people recommend to me not rolling out my own email domain and/or service to manage my account recovery emails for various websites as it's much more likely to get hacked. What do you use for that?
marcosdumay 9y ago
Automated algorithms have agendas too, and very unreliable ones. That does not make them better, but worse.
- gaius 9y ago
  Automated algorithms have agendas too, and very unreliable ones. No, they are perfectly reliable. They exactly mirror the agenda of whoever curated the training set.
alexanderstears 9y ago
>That said, it's their service and their rules. Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals. I 100% agree. Their service, their rules. However, these platforms have carved out special rules for themselves on the basis of neutrality - look at the DMCA Safe Harbor provision. They've portrayed themselves as neutral platforms that accommodate everyone who can follow the terms of service. However, they seem to either apply the TOS more rigorously to some groups than others - that's completely antithetical to the idea of a neutrality. In addition to saying "their service their rules" we should say "their service, their accountability". Strip them of the immunity they enjoy as platform providers and hold them accountable for all the content on their platforms - they curate the content, obviously everything that isn't banned or under review is content they support. Also, through the disparate impact standards this probably merits some equal accommodation scrutiny. I don't have all the information in front of me, but it looks like Google's censorship for American users seems to catch more socially conservative users than socially liberal users - that probably has a desperate impact across a few protected classes (age and religion come to mind). Now, I'm not saying that Google is guilty of refusing service to some protected classes. But I think their behavior merits some investigation to make sure that they're fulfilling their equal accommodation obligations like other American corporations.
hellbanner 9y ago
Do you think there's a possibility of political agenda? For examples of Google censorship that, IMO have political agendas: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14975338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14975338 and Google's "AI" censoring war crime evidence from Youtube: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14998429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14998429 Youtube "AI" censoring US Army destroying Nuremburg swatzika: https://boingboing.net/2017/08/14/film-of-u-s-army-destroying-n.html https://boingboing.net/2017/08/14/film-of-u-s-army-destroyin...

falcolas 9y ago

Given the importance of email and other online services - should multinational corporations be allowed to be capricious about who they provide service to, and how those users are cut off from their digital lifeline?

SamReidHughes 9y ago
Yes, because it's their computers.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Well, it's also "their" power lines, water mains, sewer, and phone lines. We as a society don't let people be cut off from those services for their politics or their religion. And when people are cut off from aforementioned utilities, it's done with notice, and with the ability to have service restored when payment resumes.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    There are other email providers.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      The Daily Stormer has, for all its problems, shown how "just use another provider" is not a dependable solution.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Well, it's also "their" power lines, water mains, sewer, and phone lines Monopoly utilities are different than services for which their are widespread alternatives, and Google's account-required services are neither monopolies nor regulated utilities.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      The existence of alternatives does not negate a monopoly argument. Netscape, Opera, and other browsers existed when Microsoft was slapped down for IE. Google captures somewhere around 60% of the email market share - a dominant position from which they need to be careful about what actions they take. As noted in response to a sibling comment, the presence of alternative providers has proven to not to be a reliable remedy for some opinions. No, they are not currently regulated utilities. However, I believe that if they aren't careful, they may find themselves forced into that role.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The existence of alternatives does not negate a monopoly argument. It's suggestive evidence. But no actual “monopoly argument” has been made to negate. > Netscape, Opera, and other browsers existed when Microsoft was slapped down for IE. Sure, but IE wasn't the monopoly they got slapped down for, it was the thing they got slapped down for trying to drive with their PC operating system monopoly. So the existence and market strength f competing browsers isn't even related to the market in which the monopoly at issue existed.
        falcolas 9y ago
        > So the existence and market strength f competing browsers isn't even related to the market in which the monopoly at issue existed. It was directly related, because it threatened Microsoft's OS monopoly by providing platform independent content. And so, Microsoft directly attacked Netscape and others. "Judge Jackson finds that Microsoft was especially concerned about technologies, such as Netscape’s Navigator browser, that could support platform-independent computing and thereby erode Microsoft’s position. In response to the Netscape threat, Microsoft undertook a broad array of anticompetitive practices to increase the market share of its Internet Explorer."[0] But you're right, it's not the alternatives that really matter - it's using the power associated with being a monopoly to negatively impact consumers. Google has an effective monopoly in many areas (including email), and as such practices which were OK when they were smaller are no longer going to be considered OK. [0] http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop7.4microsoftmonopolyfacts.html http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop7.4microsoftmonopolyf...
- yorwba 9y ago
  That's the simple answer. However, there is a trade-off between the rights of a property owner and service provider to determine how their property is used and whom they provide service to, and the rights of the public not to be arbitrarily excluded from using that property or service. That trade-off is not always made absolutely in favor of the property owner. For example, there are privately owned public spaces : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_owned_public_space The complex question is whether Google's servers should be considered more like private property that provides a public service and has to allow access to anyone or like the private property that is your personal computer, where you can grant and revoke access as you please and nobody has a say in that.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    It might be complicated for you, but it's simple for me. Google can do what it wants with its stuff and you don't get to tell it what to do with its computers. They don't have a monopoly on any essential services.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    There seem to be three different premises being used for the argument that Google, et al., shouldn't be able to send service the way they do (or, in some cases like this one, are alleged with no clear evidence to do): (1) the services, despite not legally being anything like privately owned public open spaces, should have an interest seized by the state and be converted into the digital analog of such spaces. (2) despite in many cases having many robustly competing providers, the services should be subjected to utility-style regulation. (3) political position ought to be a protected class for public accommodation discrimination, and all the acts at issue should be considered within the scope of prohibited political position discrimination under such law.
- chroem- 9y ago
  This is the same argument that was used to wrongfully deny service to gay couples. You are turning a blind eye because corporations are attacking an ideology we disagree with. I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    They aren't attacking any ideology I disagree with as far as I'm aware. It's their computers and they can do what they want with them.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > This is the same argument that was used to wrongfully deny service to gay couples. It is the argument that is still lawfully used to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the country; only a minority of states have public accommodation laws under which sexual orientation is a protected class. The balance between the state interests involvee in public accommodation laws and the free speech and free association rights they limit is a source of endless debate. The fact that the public in some part of the country has decided that one axis has circumstances which warrant such a limitation is not enough to make the case that everyone must accept that the limitation is universally justified for some other axis. > I do not believe that some people should be treated more equally than others. Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition.
    - alphapapa 9y ago
      > It is the argument that is still lawfully used to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation in much of the country; only a minority of states have public accommodation laws under which sexual orientation is a protected class. > Which can be an argument for internet companies not having their free speech rights limited in order to mandate that they relay political views they disagree with as easily as it can be an argument for that imposition. That argument seems in direct opposition to the argument that, e.g. Christian bakers and photographers should be required to provide services for gay weddings. If Google may not be mandated to relay political views that they disagree with, how can photographers be mandated to do so? Do multi-national megacorporations have more rights than individuals? Or is one political view simply wrong, and therefore acceptable to discriminate against?
ucaetano 9y ago
What do you propose?
- aaomidi 9y ago
  Use your own email, at least if gsuite takes it down you can host it elsewhere.
- falcolas 9y ago
  That Google reigns in the automated bans and automated appeals process, and provide time to do backups of their data and find an alternative solution. Ideally, if their goal is to reduce fraud and spam, they would offer people banned from their free email service a paid account under a different domain, or something similar. The longer that Google fails to take action, the more likely it is that the government will. ISPs and other major online services are looking more and more like common carriers from the point of view of the government officials. They already have an acronym which is used to refer to them - GAFA - a major warning sign. And like an elephant stepping on a mouse, the mouse won't be the only one affected when the government rouses itself.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    So if Google blocks someone for using Gmail to share child porn, they should give the user a chance to download the content?
    - falcolas 9y ago
      There is a fairly clear line between bans for illegal content, and bans for unpopular content. The two are nowhere near equivalent. Not to mention, the user information on the account has likely already been handed off to law enforcement, at which point a grace period is of no practical consequence.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > There is a fairly clear line between bans for illegal content, and bans for unpopular content. Not really, as Google has no special power to decide “illegal”. Unless you mean, a line between band directed specifically by the state (where a government orders specific accounts banned) and those decided by the service provider. > Not to mention, the user information on the account has likely already been handed off to law enforcement, at which point a grace period is of no practical consequence. If law enforcement disagreed with the service provider, there is a significant difference.

emmab 9y ago

> Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals. But people recommend to me not rolling out my own email domain and/or service to manage my account recovery emails for various websites as it's much more likely to get hacked. What do you use for that?

marcosdumay 9y ago

Automated algorithms have agendas too, and very unreliable ones. That does not make them better, but worse.

gaius 9y ago
Automated algorithms have agendas too, and very unreliable ones. No, they are perfectly reliable. They exactly mirror the agenda of whoever curated the training set.

alexanderstears 9y ago

>That said, it's their service and their rules. Don't host data you care about on free services run by capricious multinationals. I 100% agree. Their service, their rules. However, these platforms have carved out special rules for themselves on the basis of neutrality - look at the DMCA Safe Harbor provision. They've portrayed themselves as neutral platforms that accommodate everyone who can follow the terms of service. However, they seem to either apply the TOS more rigorously to some groups than others - that's completely antithetical to the idea of a neutrality. In addition to saying "their service their rules" we should say "their service, their accountability". Strip them of the immunity they enjoy as platform providers and hold them accountable for all the content on their platforms - they curate the content, obviously everything that isn't banned or under review is content they support. Also, through the disparate impact standards this probably merits some equal accommodation scrutiny. I don't have all the information in front of me, but it looks like Google's censorship for American users seems to catch more socially conservative users than socially liberal users - that probably has a desperate impact across a few protected classes (age and religion come to mind). Now, I'm not saying that Google is guilty of refusing service to some protected classes. But I think their behavior merits some investigation to make sure that they're fulfilling their equal accommodation obligations like other American corporations.

hellbanner 9y ago

Do you think there's a possibility of political agenda? For examples of Google censorship that, IMO have political agendas: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14975338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14975338 and Google's "AI" censoring war crime evidence from Youtube: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14998429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14998429 Youtube "AI" censoring US Army destroying Nuremburg swatzika: https://boingboing.net/2017/08/14/film-of-u-s-army-destroying-n.html https://boingboing.net/2017/08/14/film-of-u-s-army-destroyin...