6 ms·

On the other hand, they could support freedom of speech by not limiting access. They do block access, therefore suppressing freedom of speech. Arguing with "t

by Eduard 6y ago

On the other hand, they could support freedom of speech by not limiting access. They do block access, therefore suppressing freedom of speech. Arguing with "they're just saving resources" is ridiculous, especially when considering Google's wealth.

jrockway 6y ago
You have moved the goalposts dramatically. What started as "random files in Google Drive are being scanned for conspiracy theories and deleted", which would be incredibly worrying, is now "Google should give me tens of thousands of dollars worth of free stuff", which is not all that worrying.
- Natsu 6y ago
  How is it 'free stuff' when many people pay for Google Drive?
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    You pay for some things not everything. It's like when you go to the gym you have access to everything but if you take all the dumbbells and assemble them in the squat rack and start curling 5 lbs, you're gonna get kicked out.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      Can you point me to where it says resource limits were ever an issue here, though? That seems... questionable.
mike503 6y ago
Also, freedom of speech is not guaranteed on a privately owned platform... not sure why anyone expects that.
- chroem- 6y ago
  Windows 10 is a free subscription, and users don't necessarily own a license of their operating system. Under this precedent, what is to stop Microsoft from deleting problematic files off of users' computers? After all, it's a privately owned platform.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    It's not clear that the file itself was removed, only that sharing it was disabled. So no file was deleted. You own the storage space you use when using windows on your personal device.
  - jrockway 6y ago
    Windows 10 routinely deletes problematic files from peoples computers; it's called "Windows Defender". Most users are happy to let Microsoft delete malware. The reason that propaganda videos aren't detected as malware because none of these companies give a damn about what you're using your computer or your private storage for. It is a ton of extra work for them to run some censorship side business to specifically annoy conspiracy theorists. The reason that YouTube deletes propaganda videos is because nobody will advertise on them. They cost money to store and serve to viewers, but will never generate revenue. Some are so bad that they drive advertisers away from other videos. All this "censorship" is at the behest of advertisers, or fear of backlash from advertisers. The thing with YouTube is that its greatest power is its greatest weakness. They let anyone in the world serve 4k or 8k videos to an infinite number of users. They find advertisers for your videos and automatically run their ads on your videos, so that you can get cash money from producing them. And, there is a recommendation engine so that viewers can discover your video and channel. With those advantages, come disadvantages -- the service as a whole is called YouTube, and so a bad video on your channel reflects poorly on other channels and the service as a whole. So they have guidelines to protect their success, at the cost of not making all the advantages available to you. That is why there are "guidelines". I am sure if you buy a Google Cloud account and pay for the transfer and storage of your content, and find your own advertisers to fund it, you can host as many conspiracy theory videos as you want and nobody will stop you. But I think you'll find that you make negative money on this proposition. (Also, I personally paid $200 for Windows 10, so I'm not sure how people are getting it for free.)
SllX 6y ago
One way businesses get wealthy is by not letting people act like parasites on what are ultimately finite resources no matter how vast they may seem. Google makes a business case for making a certain percentage of their resources available without charge to users of their other services, but that isn’t a promise to provide unlimited storage and bandwidth. Now we don’t really know fully what happened here. Certainly you could make guesses and if you’re cynical enough, make a convincing case that what they engaged in here was censorship because of the content. If you check your worst impulses and apply Occam’s Razor though, you’ll probably think that the removal or at least access limitation was an economic decision, one that Google engages in all the time when users abuse the terms of their shared file hosting, and one which every service provider of shared file hosting you or I have ever heard of has had to make at some point if they’ve ever seen any real use.

by Eduard 6y ago

jrockway 6y ago

You have moved the goalposts dramatically. What started as "random files in Google Drive are being scanned for conspiracy theories and deleted", which would be incredibly worrying, is now "Google should give me tens of thousands of dollars worth of free stuff", which is not all that worrying.

Natsu 6y ago
How is it 'free stuff' when many people pay for Google Drive?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  You pay for some things not everything. It's like when you go to the gym you have access to everything but if you take all the dumbbells and assemble them in the squat rack and start curling 5 lbs, you're gonna get kicked out.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    Can you point me to where it says resource limits were ever an issue here, though? That seems... questionable.

mike503 6y ago

Also, freedom of speech is not guaranteed on a privately owned platform... not sure why anyone expects that.

chroem- 6y ago
Windows 10 is a free subscription, and users don't necessarily own a license of their operating system. Under this precedent, what is to stop Microsoft from deleting problematic files off of users' computers? After all, it's a privately owned platform.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  It's not clear that the file itself was removed, only that sharing it was disabled. So no file was deleted. You own the storage space you use when using windows on your personal device.
- jrockway 6y ago
  Windows 10 routinely deletes problematic files from peoples computers; it's called "Windows Defender". Most users are happy to let Microsoft delete malware. The reason that propaganda videos aren't detected as malware because none of these companies give a damn about what you're using your computer or your private storage for. It is a ton of extra work for them to run some censorship side business to specifically annoy conspiracy theorists. The reason that YouTube deletes propaganda videos is because nobody will advertise on them. They cost money to store and serve to viewers, but will never generate revenue. Some are so bad that they drive advertisers away from other videos. All this "censorship" is at the behest of advertisers, or fear of backlash from advertisers. The thing with YouTube is that its greatest power is its greatest weakness. They let anyone in the world serve 4k or 8k videos to an infinite number of users. They find advertisers for your videos and automatically run their ads on your videos, so that you can get cash money from producing them. And, there is a recommendation engine so that viewers can discover your video and channel. With those advantages, come disadvantages -- the service as a whole is called YouTube, and so a bad video on your channel reflects poorly on other channels and the service as a whole. So they have guidelines to protect their success, at the cost of not making all the advantages available to you. That is why there are "guidelines". I am sure if you buy a Google Cloud account and pay for the transfer and storage of your content, and find your own advertisers to fund it, you can host as many conspiracy theory videos as you want and nobody will stop you. But I think you'll find that you make negative money on this proposition. (Also, I personally paid $200 for Windows 10, so I'm not sure how people are getting it for free.)

SllX 6y ago

One way businesses get wealthy is by not letting people act like parasites on what are ultimately finite resources no matter how vast they may seem. Google makes a business case for making a certain percentage of their resources available without charge to users of their other services, but that isn’t a promise to provide unlimited storage and bandwidth. Now we don’t really know fully what happened here. Certainly you could make guesses and if you’re cynical enough, make a convincing case that what they engaged in here was censorship because of the content. If you check your worst impulses and apply Occam’s Razor though, you’ll probably think that the removal or at least access limitation was an economic decision, one that Google engages in all the time when users abuse the terms of their shared file hosting, and one which every service provider of shared file hosting you or I have ever heard of has had to make at some point if they’ve ever seen any real use.