9 ms·

What. The. Hell. I suppose limiting sharing might be justified. But limiting access and/or deleting own files is outrageous. For that matter, collections of m

What. The. Hell. I suppose limiting sharing might be justified. But limiting access and/or deleting own files is outrageous. For that matter, collections of misleading content can have legitimate purposes. Such as research. Now I'm seriously considering dropping my Drive subscription. Update: I got a lot of upvotes, but tbh I may have misunderstood the new policy, which does seem to (maybe?) only be limited to distribution of misleading content. I do think Google has a legitimate interest in regulating use of it's services as means of distributing information. I'm not sure where the line is, though. For example, if I sent an email to a friend in which I said something that isn't true, I think I would rightly be upset if Google refused to deliver the email. OTOH, if I was sending this to large numbers of people regularly, as part of some kind of misinformation operation, then maybe blocking me would be a legitimate. Complicated.

bootaccount 5y ago
why consider it when you can do it? Behavior can only change when there's a massive drop in MAU and revenue, then the product team will consider backtracking
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Because it would be a major inconvenience for me, that's why. Update: I'm getting a lot of criticism here. If your aim is to try to get me to actually make the switch, then the approach you are taking is counter-productive. Instead, I guess you are doing what most people do when faced with something they disapprove of: they do the thing that is easiest and most satisfying, which is to criticize or punish the other person, and to pat themselves on the back for being better. But criticizing people just isn't an effective way to change people's minds or behavior. What would work in this case? Showing them a path forward. In this case, I presented a real problem, that it would be a major inconvenience to switch. That is the truth. I don't live in some idealized fantasy world, where I can take actions for free.
  - kratom_sandwich 5y ago
    Refreshingly honest
  - errantmind 5y ago
    If you care about privacy and freedom of expression, you have to live it, not just complain on HN.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - seneca 5y ago
    Bang on. I think one of the best things we can do as engineers is help build alternatives to these authoritarian companies' tools, and to strive to make the on ramp as easy as possible. As it stands right now, it is a lot of effort to use Libre tools when compared to the poison pill corporate ones. The second best things we can do is support projects and be vigilant against the creep of corporate interests into FOSS.
  - bootaccount 5y ago
    ah, so you're just talking the talk, without preparing to walk the walk... things don't improve because you just wrote a comment on HN, it has to materially impact the business for them to notice the disagreement with the policy. Most people are like you though, too lazy to do anything and they'll subject themselves to whatever big G says is good for them.
    - ASalazarMX 5y ago
      Beware of extremist/polarizing arguments like this one, they're mostly manipulative. You can voice your disagreement, and still use the platform as long as they don't cross the line. That doesn't mean you haven't prepared a plan for degoogling your life and accept the inconveniences.
  - nazgulsenpai 5y ago
    I dropped Google Drive late last year and it wasn't too bad. Setup another service, made a directory junction from GoogleDrive folder to new folder, profit.
jfengel 5y ago
Many of the components of the abuse page talk about "distribution", but the one about hate speech is simply "Do not engage in hate speech". The way I read that, they could conceivably boot you just for having a private diary of racist rants. I don't know if they intend it that way; it's also possible that they'd interpret "speech" as meaning "speech where somebody else can hear you". But if you were looking for more reason to drop your Drive subscription, that might be it.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  The Terms of Service are written broadly and that's on purpose so that Google can take the liberty of interpreting things however they please. Ultimately, it comes down to the culture of the team that deals with content scanning and take-down requests. I'm willing to bet money that it is staffed by Progressive Bay-Area folks and the implications should be self evident.
- polynomial 5y ago
  Even more problematic is the difficulty current algorithms have in distinguishing "engaging" in a certain class of speech acts from studying said class. This requires a subtlety of parsing humans are (sometimes) capable of, but machines still struggle with.
- Uhhrrr 5y ago
  Also, what if the content wasn't racist when you wrote it?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ixacto 5y ago
Does this apply to google workspace (paying)customers too? If so google is actually scanning what is supposed to be private information.
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  I looked closely but I cannot find anything that says that paying customers are excluded. So I would assume it is included. It makes sense, though, to enforce one single policy: otherwise, just becoming a paying customer would be a loophole to circumvent phishing etc policies. I guess the crux here is when, exactly, they start scanning the content. Is that perhaps the moment the content is first shared? It doesn’t seem to be documented.
- read_if_gay_ 5y ago
  > If so google is actually scanning what is supposed to be private information. Am I just too cynical or are you naive for thinking they aren't datamining absolutely anything they can get their hands on?
  - DaniloDias 5y ago
    Logs are only useful if they are monitored. This individual seems to look at events that happen that don’t align with their prejudices and assumes that the signal is an aberration. Nihilists get burned. You have to hold people accountable for the consequences of their action rather than their intention.
  - kevincox 5y ago
    Their policies for Workspace accounts has tight restrictions on what they are allowed to use your data for. So they shouldn't be "datamining absolutely anything that they can get their hands on".
    - ixacto 5y ago
      The referenced FAQ doesn’t say that google workspace paid accounts are exempt from this policy…
commandlinefan 5y ago
> I do think Google has a legitimate interest in regulating use of it's services as means of distributing information If so... do you think that your ISP also has a legitimate interest in regulating use of it's services as means of distributing information?
- Craighead 5y ago
  Of course... Have you not heard of copyright notices leading to termination of services?
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  I think ISPs should be public utilities, so, no.
  - mshanowitz 5y ago
    Perhaps the basic functions of the internet that Google provides like mail and basic document storage should be treated as public utilities as well
    - cma 5y ago
      If that caused free speech restrictions to outlaw email service spam filters it would be like a utility hooking sewer into the fresh water supply.
dfdz 5y ago
A recent high profile example is the lab leak "conspiracy theory". Facebook block discussion of the possibility that Covid-19 started from a lab leak, but now scientists are seriously considering the issue. Imagine if Google had this policy last year, and a scientist posted a Google Slides presentation about the merits of the lab theory (and imagine it was banned under the misleading "health" information umbrella) .... Disclaimer: I use dropbox (mostly since they have supported linux since when I started using the service, and when I started using the service, the syncing was much better than google drive) But now I have another reason!
- Latty 5y ago
  There is a distinction between discussing a theory, and presenting it as the truth with no evidence. Not a distinction I imagine automated moderation systems are going to manage well, of course, but it exists.
  - pageandrew 5y ago
    This distinction never mattered. Any discussion of the theory besides refuting it as "debunked" was banned on Facebook.
  - seanclayton 5y ago
    Google will gladly distribute public PDFs that say the elimination of Jews "must necessarily be a bloody process," presented as truth with no evidence. Why do they get to be the arbiter of what information deserves presentation as truth with no evidence, when they allow Mein Kampf to be presented as such? This is all assuming that setting a file to public in Google Drive is considered "presenting it as the truth with no evidence."
    - golemiprague 5y ago
      You are downvoted but this is exactly what happening in the Arabic sphere of discussion and nobody really cares because Google, like most of the discussion here, is very America centric. This is not even about truth but rather about calls for murder which are against the law in many countries. In some way though, I am happy that this "diversity of thought" exists because that's the only thing that can stop companies like Google from becoming the arbiter of truth. It is just sad that a lot of those countries are also ok with calls for murder and violence.
Alex3917 5y ago
> I suppose limiting sharing might be justified. But limiting access and/or deleting own files is outrageous. It's definitely not just a hypothetical risk either. In the last month, Facebook blocked me from distributing my blog post on Django best practices because they claim it violates their community standards. It's literally a post about how to structure API code, but now they're claiming that it's advocating for genocide or something and there's apparently no one to appeal to or any way to reverse this. For reference: https://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2021/06/django-for-startup-founders-a-better-software-architecture-for-saas-startups-and-consumer-apps.html https://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2021/06/django-for... https://developers.facebook.com/tools/debug/?q=https%3A%2F%2Falexkrupp.typepad.com%2Fsensemaking%2F2021%2F06%2Fdjango-for-startup-founders-a-better-software-architecture-for-saas-startups-and-consumer-apps.html https://developers.facebook.com/tools/debug/?q=https%3A%2F%2...
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  That's crazy. Twice in the last week a comment of mine got blocked on Facebook for violating policies. In the first case, I posted a link to an EPA website and a screenshot of a graph posted on it, showing a reduction in smog in the last 10 years compared to 1987. In the second, I pasted a screenshot of something from the CDC's COVID Tracking site and a link to a British research paper on the efficacy of the vaccines wrt the delta variant. In the second case, my link was broken somehow, which might have contributed to the problem somehow? They never went back up.
kgrimes2 5y ago
Chiming in on your update. It's my understanding as well that it's only related to distribution of content. There's nothing keeping you from storing misinformation on your personal Drive, but if you're linking to it from Facebook and using it to, say, sway a political election, cutting off others' access to it makes some sense.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
The headline is misleading. This makes it sound like anything that's misleading is banned which is false. They are banning very specific things that are veritably false like spreading fake election rules, spreading false election dates, etc. These things have happened: >The Trump campaign has sent Facebook advertisements to tens of thousands of voters in swing states, erroneously telling them it was election day after the social media group’s ad blockers failed to detect messages that violated its rules on misinformation Is the election date a matter of opinion? I don't think that lying about what day is election day is protected speech- its malicious and attacks the very foundation of Democracy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hatware 5y ago
> I think I would rightly be upset if Google refused to deliver the email I hope you would be more than upset at that point. That would be terrifying.

bootaccount 5y ago

why consider it when you can do it? Behavior can only change when there's a massive drop in MAU and revenue, then the product team will consider backtracking

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Because it would be a major inconvenience for me, that's why. Update: I'm getting a lot of criticism here. If your aim is to try to get me to actually make the switch, then the approach you are taking is counter-productive. Instead, I guess you are doing what most people do when faced with something they disapprove of: they do the thing that is easiest and most satisfying, which is to criticize or punish the other person, and to pat themselves on the back for being better. But criticizing people just isn't an effective way to change people's minds or behavior. What would work in this case? Showing them a path forward. In this case, I presented a real problem, that it would be a major inconvenience to switch. That is the truth. I don't live in some idealized fantasy world, where I can take actions for free.
- kratom_sandwich 5y ago
  Refreshingly honest
- errantmind 5y ago
  If you care about privacy and freedom of expression, you have to live it, not just complain on HN.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- seneca 5y ago
  Bang on. I think one of the best things we can do as engineers is help build alternatives to these authoritarian companies' tools, and to strive to make the on ramp as easy as possible. As it stands right now, it is a lot of effort to use Libre tools when compared to the poison pill corporate ones. The second best things we can do is support projects and be vigilant against the creep of corporate interests into FOSS.
- bootaccount 5y ago
  ah, so you're just talking the talk, without preparing to walk the walk... things don't improve because you just wrote a comment on HN, it has to materially impact the business for them to notice the disagreement with the policy. Most people are like you though, too lazy to do anything and they'll subject themselves to whatever big G says is good for them.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    Beware of extremist/polarizing arguments like this one, they're mostly manipulative. You can voice your disagreement, and still use the platform as long as they don't cross the line. That doesn't mean you haven't prepared a plan for degoogling your life and accept the inconveniences.
- nazgulsenpai 5y ago
  I dropped Google Drive late last year and it wasn't too bad. Setup another service, made a directory junction from GoogleDrive folder to new folder, profit.

jfengel 5y ago

Many of the components of the abuse page talk about "distribution", but the one about hate speech is simply "Do not engage in hate speech". The way I read that, they could conceivably boot you just for having a private diary of racist rants. I don't know if they intend it that way; it's also possible that they'd interpret "speech" as meaning "speech where somebody else can hear you". But if you were looking for more reason to drop your Drive subscription, that might be it.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
The Terms of Service are written broadly and that's on purpose so that Google can take the liberty of interpreting things however they please. Ultimately, it comes down to the culture of the team that deals with content scanning and take-down requests. I'm willing to bet money that it is staffed by Progressive Bay-Area folks and the implications should be self evident.
polynomial 5y ago
Even more problematic is the difficulty current algorithms have in distinguishing "engaging" in a certain class of speech acts from studying said class. This requires a subtlety of parsing humans are (sometimes) capable of, but machines still struggle with.
Uhhrrr 5y ago
Also, what if the content wasn't racist when you wrote it?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ixacto 5y ago

Does this apply to google workspace (paying)customers too? If so google is actually scanning what is supposed to be private information.

stingraycharles 5y ago
I looked closely but I cannot find anything that says that paying customers are excluded. So I would assume it is included. It makes sense, though, to enforce one single policy: otherwise, just becoming a paying customer would be a loophole to circumvent phishing etc policies. I guess the crux here is when, exactly, they start scanning the content. Is that perhaps the moment the content is first shared? It doesn’t seem to be documented.
read_if_gay_ 5y ago
> If so google is actually scanning what is supposed to be private information. Am I just too cynical or are you naive for thinking they aren't datamining absolutely anything they can get their hands on?
- DaniloDias 5y ago
  Logs are only useful if they are monitored. This individual seems to look at events that happen that don’t align with their prejudices and assumes that the signal is an aberration. Nihilists get burned. You have to hold people accountable for the consequences of their action rather than their intention.
- kevincox 5y ago
  Their policies for Workspace accounts has tight restrictions on what they are allowed to use your data for. So they shouldn't be "datamining absolutely anything that they can get their hands on".
  - ixacto 5y ago
    The referenced FAQ doesn’t say that google workspace paid accounts are exempt from this policy…

commandlinefan 5y ago

> I do think Google has a legitimate interest in regulating use of it's services as means of distributing information If so... do you think that your ISP also has a legitimate interest in regulating use of it's services as means of distributing information?

Craighead 5y ago
Of course... Have you not heard of copyright notices leading to termination of services?
jonnycomputer 5y ago
I think ISPs should be public utilities, so, no.
- mshanowitz 5y ago
  Perhaps the basic functions of the internet that Google provides like mail and basic document storage should be treated as public utilities as well
  - cma 5y ago
    If that caused free speech restrictions to outlaw email service spam filters it would be like a utility hooking sewer into the fresh water supply.

dfdz 5y ago

A recent high profile example is the lab leak "conspiracy theory". Facebook block discussion of the possibility that Covid-19 started from a lab leak, but now scientists are seriously considering the issue. Imagine if Google had this policy last year, and a scientist posted a Google Slides presentation about the merits of the lab theory (and imagine it was banned under the misleading "health" information umbrella) .... Disclaimer: I use dropbox (mostly since they have supported linux since when I started using the service, and when I started using the service, the syncing was much better than google drive) But now I have another reason!

Latty 5y ago
There is a distinction between discussing a theory, and presenting it as the truth with no evidence. Not a distinction I imagine automated moderation systems are going to manage well, of course, but it exists.
- pageandrew 5y ago
  This distinction never mattered. Any discussion of the theory besides refuting it as "debunked" was banned on Facebook.
- seanclayton 5y ago
  Google will gladly distribute public PDFs that say the elimination of Jews "must necessarily be a bloody process," presented as truth with no evidence. Why do they get to be the arbiter of what information deserves presentation as truth with no evidence, when they allow Mein Kampf to be presented as such? This is all assuming that setting a file to public in Google Drive is considered "presenting it as the truth with no evidence."
  - golemiprague 5y ago
    You are downvoted but this is exactly what happening in the Arabic sphere of discussion and nobody really cares because Google, like most of the discussion here, is very America centric. This is not even about truth but rather about calls for murder which are against the law in many countries. In some way though, I am happy that this "diversity of thought" exists because that's the only thing that can stop companies like Google from becoming the arbiter of truth. It is just sad that a lot of those countries are also ok with calls for murder and violence.

Alex3917 5y ago

> I suppose limiting sharing might be justified. But limiting access and/or deleting own files is outrageous. It's definitely not just a hypothetical risk either. In the last month, Facebook blocked me from distributing my blog post on Django best practices because they claim it violates their community standards. It's literally a post about how to structure API code, but now they're claiming that it's advocating for genocide or something and there's apparently no one to appeal to or any way to reverse this. For reference: https://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2021/06/django-for-startup-founders-a-better-software-architecture-for-saas-startups-and-consumer-apps.html https://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2021/06/django-for... https://developers.facebook.com/tools/debug/?q=https%3A%2F%2Falexkrupp.typepad.com%2Fsensemaking%2F2021%2F06%2Fdjango-for-startup-founders-a-better-software-architecture-for-saas-startups-and-consumer-apps.html https://developers.facebook.com/tools/debug/?q=https%3A%2F%2...

jonnycomputer 5y ago
That's crazy. Twice in the last week a comment of mine got blocked on Facebook for violating policies. In the first case, I posted a link to an EPA website and a screenshot of a graph posted on it, showing a reduction in smog in the last 10 years compared to 1987. In the second, I pasted a screenshot of something from the CDC's COVID Tracking site and a link to a British research paper on the efficacy of the vaccines wrt the delta variant. In the second case, my link was broken somehow, which might have contributed to the problem somehow? They never went back up.

kgrimes2 5y ago

Chiming in on your update. It's my understanding as well that it's only related to distribution of content. There's nothing keeping you from storing misinformation on your personal Drive, but if you're linking to it from Facebook and using it to, say, sway a political election, cutting off others' access to it makes some sense.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

The headline is misleading. This makes it sound like anything that's misleading is banned which is false. They are banning very specific things that are veritably false like spreading fake election rules, spreading false election dates, etc. These things have happened: >The Trump campaign has sent Facebook advertisements to tens of thousands of voters in swing states, erroneously telling them it was election day after the social media group’s ad blockers failed to detect messages that violated its rules on misinformation Is the election date a matter of opinion? I don't think that lying about what day is election day is protected speech- its malicious and attacks the very foundation of Democracy.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hatware 5y ago

> I think I would rightly be upset if Google refused to deliver the email I hope you would be more than upset at that point. That would be terrifying.