6 ms·

You gotta fight! For your right! To misssssleeeeead. It might be more prudent to be careful about accepting what you read at first glance; why would google all

You gotta fight! For your right! To misssssleeeeead. It might be more prudent to be careful about accepting what you read at first glance; why would google allow someone to stream data (against policy for the product), let alone when that content violates their policies on their content streaming networks? Do you think they should leave up public to other content that violates their policies, just because it's tied to a private account?

JackFr 6y ago
If you’re only in favor of free speech that doesn’t mislead, you’re not in favor of free speech.
- jrockway 6y ago
  No true Scotsman, eh?
- deepl_derber 6y ago
  This has nothing to do with 'free speech' though. edit: apparently I'm rate-limited from making new posts, but JackFr's response to me below is completely fair. Sorry for not reading more thoroughly!
  - JackFr 6y ago
    That’s true. I was responding to the first sentence, which really wasn’t the whole point of the parent though.
- grumple 6y ago
  I'm not in favor of unlimited free speech. I'm in favor of limiting speech that is intended to harm, knowingly mislead, or spread hate.
  - ufmace 6y ago
    And who decides what speech meets that standard? Have you read the other posts in this thread? The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices has changed multiple times during the course of this pandemic. It's profoundly disturbing how enthusiastic some people are to start censoring anything that goes against the official narrative.
    - grumple 6y ago
      > The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices has changed multiple times during the course of this pandemic. Has it? It's remained stable as far as I can tell; maintain distance from others, minimize interactions with others. There has been some evolution in disease treatment, but it has been a rather measured evolution. > It's profoundly disturbing how enthusiastic some people are to start censoring anything that goes against the official narrative. This is a bit unfair. I'm in favor of censoring speech that demonstrably causes harm. This is done in many nations where they are arguably more free than the US despite our age-old slogan from the early 1800s which implies we're unique in having demoratic freedoms (namely European nations). There does not seem to be a significant propaganda effect or unwarranted censorship in those nations - in fact, quite the opposite, as they appear to be better educated and better informed than Americans. Perhaps in the past, America's version of free speech guaranteed liberty; but now it's just as often used (if not more, in our media) to cause harm - anti-vax, hate speech of all sorts, anti-mask, advocating taking hydroxychloroquine without supportive medical evidence or examination, general misleading of the American public.
apostacy 6y ago
It needs to be said though, that these "misinformation" policies are nonsense. If they had these policies in January, I would have been banned for disagreeing with the WHO and saying that this pandemic was serious. Independent journalists were warning us about this since November, despite the best efforts of the Chinese government and American tech companies. But it would have been fake news, until it turned out to be true. They want to be able to decide whatever the truth is in the moment, and silence anyone who disagrees.
- 34679 6y ago
  There was also that incredible stretch from the CDC where they tried to convince the public that face masks are ineffective at slowing the spread of infection. Now they have done a complete 180 and recommend everyone wear one in public. The science of facemasks has been well understood for many decades and the CDC's understanding of their efficacy did not evolve over the last 2 months, their disinformation campaign did. It's obvious to me that they simply wanted to preserve as much PPE as possible for those on the front lines who needed it most. But they could've just said that, instead of eroding their own credibility with lies. It's no wonder the pandemic response has become divided along political lines when people can't trust their government to give them facts.
013a 6y ago
Our issue with Google stems in the sense that they have very hazy delineation between their consumer and enterprise products. This kind of behavior is acceptable in a personal product, and appears to be where this policy was applied in this case. When it comes to the Enterprise deployments we provide to our employees, we are not willing to accept the risk that some files may disappear, without warning or chance to internally remediate, because a user decided to share it too widely or decided to share something against some arcane terms of service. We pay too much for this kind of invisible impact to our business. Its our role in this customer-provider relationship to remediate this. If we didn't remediate it in a timely manner, they would have every right to suspend service. but we've seen no evidence that we would even be provided this warning.

JackFr 6y ago

If you’re only in favor of free speech that doesn’t mislead, you’re not in favor of free speech.

jrockway 6y ago
No true Scotsman, eh?
deepl_derber 6y ago
This has nothing to do with 'free speech' though. edit: apparently I'm rate-limited from making new posts, but JackFr's response to me below is completely fair. Sorry for not reading more thoroughly!
- JackFr 6y ago
  That’s true. I was responding to the first sentence, which really wasn’t the whole point of the parent though.
grumple 6y ago
I'm not in favor of unlimited free speech. I'm in favor of limiting speech that is intended to harm, knowingly mislead, or spread hate.
- ufmace 6y ago
  And who decides what speech meets that standard? Have you read the other posts in this thread? The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices has changed multiple times during the course of this pandemic. It's profoundly disturbing how enthusiastic some people are to start censoring anything that goes against the official narrative.
  - grumple 6y ago
    > The "official" position on a variety of facts and best-practices has changed multiple times during the course of this pandemic. Has it? It's remained stable as far as I can tell; maintain distance from others, minimize interactions with others. There has been some evolution in disease treatment, but it has been a rather measured evolution. > It's profoundly disturbing how enthusiastic some people are to start censoring anything that goes against the official narrative. This is a bit unfair. I'm in favor of censoring speech that demonstrably causes harm. This is done in many nations where they are arguably more free than the US despite our age-old slogan from the early 1800s which implies we're unique in having demoratic freedoms (namely European nations). There does not seem to be a significant propaganda effect or unwarranted censorship in those nations - in fact, quite the opposite, as they appear to be better educated and better informed than Americans. Perhaps in the past, America's version of free speech guaranteed liberty; but now it's just as often used (if not more, in our media) to cause harm - anti-vax, hate speech of all sorts, anti-mask, advocating taking hydroxychloroquine without supportive medical evidence or examination, general misleading of the American public.

apostacy 6y ago

It needs to be said though, that these "misinformation" policies are nonsense. If they had these policies in January, I would have been banned for disagreeing with the WHO and saying that this pandemic was serious. Independent journalists were warning us about this since November, despite the best efforts of the Chinese government and American tech companies. But it would have been fake news, until it turned out to be true. They want to be able to decide whatever the truth is in the moment, and silence anyone who disagrees.

34679 6y ago
There was also that incredible stretch from the CDC where they tried to convince the public that face masks are ineffective at slowing the spread of infection. Now they have done a complete 180 and recommend everyone wear one in public. The science of facemasks has been well understood for many decades and the CDC's understanding of their efficacy did not evolve over the last 2 months, their disinformation campaign did. It's obvious to me that they simply wanted to preserve as much PPE as possible for those on the front lines who needed it most. But they could've just said that, instead of eroding their own credibility with lies. It's no wonder the pandemic response has become divided along political lines when people can't trust their government to give them facts.

013a 6y ago

Our issue with Google stems in the sense that they have very hazy delineation between their consumer and enterprise products. This kind of behavior is acceptable in a personal product, and appears to be where this policy was applied in this case. When it comes to the Enterprise deployments we provide to our employees, we are not willing to accept the risk that some files may disappear, without warning or chance to internally remediate, because a user decided to share it too widely or decided to share something against some arcane terms of service. We pay too much for this kind of invisible impact to our business. Its our role in this customer-provider relationship to remediate this. If we didn't remediate it in a timely manner, they would have every right to suspend service. but we've seen no evidence that we would even be provided this warning.