6 ms·

Ahh Hell No! I mean - Who gets to define 'misleading and/or confusing'? Google? A court case? If they (Google) want to impose restrictions such as "Do not dis

by Pick-A-Hill2019 5y ago

Ahh Hell No! I mean - Who gets to define 'misleading and/or confusing'? Google? A court case? If they (Google) want to impose restrictions such as "Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users" - Might I suggest that they apply those very same standards to their own behavior. * But who can watch the watchmen? * I am grateful that I have a symmetric ftth connection. Information (correct or incorrect) needs to be free - as in Free to be expressed; Free to be ridiculed; Free to be disseminated; Free to be discussed; Free to be exposed to the light of day. It is for the people themselves to decide what they do or do not believe. Do I want Google to decide what is or is not misleading or confusing? Eh??? Say Whhaaatttt!!! Ever read a contracts terms and conditions? They can be as confusing AF… so uhhmm Yep – Let’s Ban ‘em! Woot! Google, Eat Your Own Dogfood.

s3r3nity 5y ago
> Who gets to define 'misleading and/or confusing'? Google? A court case? They claim that anything "misleading" is "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records." This is a wildly Orwellian way to dictate "truth" : it's whatever the government body says is true. (1984 _literally_ has a "Ministry of Truth") Authorities can be wrong, and can _themselves_ be incentivized to mislead. Why place the center on them vs. individual responsibility? Helping people understand, weigh, and index information and sources is an important problem - but solving it in this way is _absolutely not_ the right way to do it. EDIT: spelling & grammar
- fulafel 5y ago
  That's not correct, the text with more context is: > This includes information about public voting procedures, political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace, election results, or census participation that contradicts official government records. There is no wider applicability of "government records" specified.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    So, why is the government considered infallible precisely on those topics, if it is tacitly understood that it can actually make mistakes elsewhere? Also, the formulation feels strangely US-centric, even though people use Google Drive all over the world and the formulation does not explicitly say which governments are considered as infallible in their census records. With no qualification, "government" can well be government of Iraq, Hongkong or Belarus.
shadowgovt 5y ago
I think Google would agree with you. If you're going to share information that (in Google's perception) is wildly misleading, they'd prefer you do it off a domain that doesn't have "Google" in its path. And all of us are free to do that.
- Pick-A-Hill2019 5y ago
  That is a very valid point and I'm sorry you are seeing downvotes on your comment (so have an upvote from me). The "My Server, My Rules" point of view is absolutely 100% valid ( and also why I commented about asymmetrical ftth). But, What I am also saying is this - At what point did the Google that was the 'Do No Evil' version pivot in to a position such as they are currently taking? When did the ethos of 'Let's do good things for good reasons for the good of humanity' pivot to what is potentially a Section 230 nightmare? To repeat my question - Who judges (and adjudicates) what is or is not misleading or confusing?
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    I think Google (and the rest of FAANG) is wrestling with the uncomfortable possibilty that they are pawns in several nation-states' disinfo campaigns and they suspect their previous lack of intervention and professional having-no-opinion on questions of fact made everything worse. It's possible that "Don't be evil" means "exercise control over the things you create." Frankenstein's monster wasn't created evil... It learned cruelty after its creator abdicated responsibility for it and it was exposed nakedly to a cruel world.
floren 5y ago
> I am grateful that I have a symmetric ftth connection. Information (correct or incorrect) needs to be free - as in Free to be expressed; Free to be ridiculed; Free to be disseminated; Free to be discussed; Free to be exposed to the light of day. You have a symmetric FTTH connection for now. Host something somebody considers too offensive and they'll get your connection pulled. We don't hear about this because essentially nobody hosts their own stuff at home, but all it would take is identifying the ASN of your IP address and making a sufficiently loud noise on Twitter.
- Pick-A-Hill2019 5y ago
  You are absolutely right. If I ran un-encrypted file sharing or torrented something that matched a hash somewhere in some system, yes, absolutely my connection would be shut-off. While I could debate the rights and wrongs of that I take the cowards approach and just shuffle random bits of bytes backwards and forwards.

s3r3nity 5y ago

> Who gets to define 'misleading and/or confusing'? Google? A court case? They claim that anything "misleading" is "includes information [...] that contradicts official government records." This is a wildly Orwellian way to dictate "truth" : it's whatever the government body says is true. (1984 _literally_ has a "Ministry of Truth") Authorities can be wrong, and can _themselves_ be incentivized to mislead. Why place the center on them vs. individual responsibility? Helping people understand, weigh, and index information and sources is an important problem - but solving it in this way is _absolutely not_ the right way to do it. EDIT: spelling & grammar

fulafel 5y ago
That's not correct, the text with more context is: > This includes information about public voting procedures, political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace, election results, or census participation that contradicts official government records. There is no wider applicability of "government records" specified.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  So, why is the government considered infallible precisely on those topics, if it is tacitly understood that it can actually make mistakes elsewhere? Also, the formulation feels strangely US-centric, even though people use Google Drive all over the world and the formulation does not explicitly say which governments are considered as infallible in their census records. With no qualification, "government" can well be government of Iraq, Hongkong or Belarus.

shadowgovt 5y ago

I think Google would agree with you. If you're going to share information that (in Google's perception) is wildly misleading, they'd prefer you do it off a domain that doesn't have "Google" in its path. And all of us are free to do that.

Pick-A-Hill2019 5y ago
That is a very valid point and I'm sorry you are seeing downvotes on your comment (so have an upvote from me). The "My Server, My Rules" point of view is absolutely 100% valid ( and also why I commented about asymmetrical ftth). But, What I am also saying is this - At what point did the Google that was the 'Do No Evil' version pivot in to a position such as they are currently taking? When did the ethos of 'Let's do good things for good reasons for the good of humanity' pivot to what is potentially a Section 230 nightmare? To repeat my question - Who judges (and adjudicates) what is or is not misleading or confusing?
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I think Google (and the rest of FAANG) is wrestling with the uncomfortable possibilty that they are pawns in several nation-states' disinfo campaigns and they suspect their previous lack of intervention and professional having-no-opinion on questions of fact made everything worse. It's possible that "Don't be evil" means "exercise control over the things you create." Frankenstein's monster wasn't created evil... It learned cruelty after its creator abdicated responsibility for it and it was exposed nakedly to a cruel world.

floren 5y ago

> I am grateful that I have a symmetric ftth connection. Information (correct or incorrect) needs to be free - as in Free to be expressed; Free to be ridiculed; Free to be disseminated; Free to be discussed; Free to be exposed to the light of day. You have a symmetric FTTH connection for now. Host something somebody considers too offensive and they'll get your connection pulled. We don't hear about this because essentially nobody hosts their own stuff at home, but all it would take is identifying the ASN of your IP address and making a sufficiently loud noise on Twitter.

Pick-A-Hill2019 5y ago
You are absolutely right. If I ran un-encrypted file sharing or torrented something that matched a hash somewhere in some system, yes, absolutely my connection would be shut-off. While I could debate the rights and wrongs of that I take the cowards approach and just shuffle random bits of bytes backwards and forwards.