4 ms·

Interesting... so I wrote a wrote an article on gun violence https://austingwalters.com/firearms-by-the-numbers/ https://austingwalters.com/firearms-by-the-num

Interesting... so I wrote a wrote an article on gun violence https://austingwalters.com/firearms-by-the-numbers/ https://austingwalters.com/firearms-by-the-numbers/ Guess it contradicts the official position of the current administration (not reality). So will my drive content be removed? Similarly, I have been monitoring the CDC change the covid19 deaths rate over time. https://austingwalters.com/changes-in-the-cdc-counts-of-deaths-by-state-and-select-causes/ https://austingwalters.com/changes-in-the-cdc-counts-of-deat... It appears the CDC had been inaccurately portraying the deaths rate(s) (I assume unintentionally). Particularly, it appears there's a significant number of unexplained deaths. That could be "misleading?" because I regularly collaborate with and we update the data. "misleading" does not mean not inaccurate. Often the context matters and how is Google going to take this into account? We have multiple theories and discuss them, find more information and put it together.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Guess it contradicts the official position of the current administration (not reality). So will my drive content be removed? Below is the actual policy. What term do you think your blog post violates? > Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users. This includes: > Misleading content related to civic and democratic processes: Content that is demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in civic or democratic processes. This includes information about public voting procedures, political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace, election results, or census participation that contradicts official government records. It also includes incorrect claims that a political figure or government official has died, been involved in an accident, or is suffering from a sudden serious illness. > Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm. > Manipulated media: Media that has been technically manipulated or doctored in a way that misleads users and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm. > Misleading content may be allowed in an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context, but please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand this context. In some cases, no amount of context will allow this content to remain on our platforms.
- Jiro 5y ago
  I can see how information that contradicts the CDC falls under "Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm." Of course, it wouldn't actually fall under anything since it's not misleading, but such things get interpreted by social media censorship boards as misleading. Also, the gun violence one may fall under "serious public health harm". There have been plenty of attempts to control guns using public health claims. https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/gun-violence https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/gun-violence
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    Both interpretations seem like mighty big stretches to find this particular content as noncomplaiant with that policy. IMHO, if the policy gets stretched like that, then the issue isn't with the policy itself. I mean, you could make similar stretches to hypothetically ban discussion of tax increases, because of the serious emotional harm that would cause to wealthy people fearing the loss of their money. Honestly, the only issue with the actual text that I see is the reference to "emotional harm," given how subjective that is and how certain ideological propositions can be medicalized via that route. The rest of it is very reasonable, especially the paragraphs about civic processes and manipulated media.
    - Jiro 5y ago
      Numerous prominent organizations have called gun control a public health issue including the Biden administration (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initial-actions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... , the Center for Disease Control (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm... ), and the American Medical Association (https://www.ama-assn.org/topics/gun-violence https://www.ama-assn.org/topics/gun-violence ). It's not a stretch because it's already being done. The reason that it seems absurd that Google would ban discussion of tax increases as a public health issue is that there aren't anti-tax groups who are already (as in right now independently of Google) calling tax increases a public health issue. Calling gun control a public health issue may be absurd, but it's an absurdity which is in active use in the real world. If the Biden administration put out a press release stating that taxes were a public health issue, there might be more reason to worry that Google would use "public health" to censor "misinformation" about taxes.

tablespoon 5y ago

> Guess it contradicts the official position of the current administration (not reality). So will my drive content be removed? Below is the actual policy. What term do you think your blog post violates? > Do not distribute content that deceives, misleads, or confuses users. This includes: > Misleading content related to civic and democratic processes: Content that is demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in civic or democratic processes. This includes information about public voting procedures, political candidate eligibility based on age / birthplace, election results, or census participation that contradicts official government records. It also includes incorrect claims that a political figure or government official has died, been involved in an accident, or is suffering from a sudden serious illness. > Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm. > Manipulated media: Media that has been technically manipulated or doctored in a way that misleads users and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm. > Misleading content may be allowed in an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context, but please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand this context. In some cases, no amount of context will allow this content to remain on our platforms.

Jiro 5y ago
I can see how information that contradicts the CDC falls under "Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm." Of course, it wouldn't actually fall under anything since it's not misleading, but such things get interpreted by social media censorship boards as misleading. Also, the gun violence one may fall under "serious public health harm". There have been plenty of attempts to control guns using public health claims. https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/gun-violence https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/gun-violence
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tablespoon 5y ago
  Both interpretations seem like mighty big stretches to find this particular content as noncomplaiant with that policy. IMHO, if the policy gets stretched like that, then the issue isn't with the policy itself. I mean, you could make similar stretches to hypothetically ban discussion of tax increases, because of the serious emotional harm that would cause to wealthy people fearing the loss of their money. Honestly, the only issue with the actual text that I see is the reference to "emotional harm," given how subjective that is and how certain ideological propositions can be medicalized via that route. The rest of it is very reasonable, especially the paragraphs about civic processes and manipulated media.
  - Jiro 5y ago
    Numerous prominent organizations have called gun control a public health issue including the Biden administration (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initial-actions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... , the Center for Disease Control (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm... ), and the American Medical Association (https://www.ama-assn.org/topics/gun-violence https://www.ama-assn.org/topics/gun-violence ). It's not a stretch because it's already being done. The reason that it seems absurd that Google would ban discussion of tax increases as a public health issue is that there aren't anti-tax groups who are already (as in right now independently of Google) calling tax increases a public health issue. Calling gun control a public health issue may be absurd, but it's an absurdity which is in active use in the real world. If the Biden administration put out a press release stating that taxes were a public health issue, there might be more reason to worry that Google would use "public health" to censor "misinformation" about taxes.