3 ms·
It's not entirely clear to me, but did Google delete the file from the user's personal, private drive, or did they delete public access to the file? Because th
by addicted44 6y ago
It's not entirely clear to me, but did Google delete the file from the user's personal, private drive, or did they delete public access to the file?
Because the former is unacceptable, but the latter is not as big a deal at all.
- dvt 6y agoHow is (what is basically) a unilaterally executed "gag order" not a big deal?
- jrockway 6y agoDo any cloud providers provide free unlimited outbound transfer? Because that's what a public file on Google Drive is. Cutting off someone who is abusing your free tier isn't censorship.
- salawat 6y agoIt has not been proven Google does that for all 4GB files. Verboten content or not. Without that test, you really can't conclusively say whether it is QoS enforcement or politically motivated.
- innocenat 6y agoIt's common and consistent with what I have seen when Google Drive were used to shared copyrighted content.
- AaronFriel 6y agoGoogle does it with files much smaller than 4GB, and I've personally experienced recordings of lectures my student org produced being blocked after tens of views from non @university.edu accounts. Turns out, they don't want people using Google Drive as a video streaming service.
- virmundi 6y agoThe trouble is where do they draw the line. Say I share a pamphlet about how Jesus reclaims humanity from the corruption of sin. If Google thinks all Christians are superstitious bumpkins, does that give them the right to remove my public share?
- tinus_hn 6y agoThey have the right to stop hosting whatever they are hosting for any reason or no reason at all. What makes you think they can be forced to host your files?
- virmundi 6y agoThe implicit idea that they are not a publisher. Now they are. They should lose their protections.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoGiven the number of conservatives in congress, it's surprising that they won't sponsor some legislation like this. But they seem to be more interested in protecting business interests.
- joshuamorton 6y agoWhat protections do you believe platforms have that publishers do not? Article 50 doesn't make a distinction between the two, if that's what you're thinking of.
- jfoster 6y agoThe line will be drawn arbitrarily and inconsistently, which might not be as bad as it sounds. There will always be some content that just has to be banned. No moderation will ever get the rules & the line exactly right, but they can be close enough to reasonable. The consequences matter. Losing private access to a file is quite bad, but Google deciding they don't want to help you publicly share something is a bit different. (note that in this case it's unclear which of those things it was)