4 ms·
> Who gets to define 'misleading and/or confusing'? Google? A court case? They claim that anything "misleading" is "includes information [...] that contradicts
by 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 agoThat'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 agoSo, 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.