4 ms·
Google can do a much better job of making clear what is out of scope. When I first saw this headline I was also surprised and outraged. Looking more closely, t
by avivo 5y ago
Google can do a much better job of making clear what is out of scope. When I first saw this headline I was also surprised and outraged.
Looking more closely, this is just about distribution, probably in terms of "content hosting". It doesn't target individuals or families storing whatever they want for themselves.
This made more sense in that context.
For example, if I create a fake video urging people to vote illegally, or at the wrong time, and I am sharing it through Google Drive with many many people seeing it, Google wants a policy prevent that sharing.
Otherwise either it's hands are tied or it's just doing arbitrary things. Which is far more authoritarian.
If a document is shared and accessed by thousands of people, it makes plausible sense that Google might not want to essentially be a hosting service if that content is leading to real-world harm.
...but this has not been made explicit enough for such a sensitive issue, with real speech and free expression concerns. (and there are real concerns as always about who decides what is misinformation)
- WalterBright 5y ago> if that content is leading to real-world harm The truth can also lead to real-world harm.
- wolverine876 5y agoWe can't make any distinction at all?
- tomcam 5y agoSerious here, not trying to be combative. How about sticking to what's legal under the First Amendment of the Constitution?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- invalidusernam3 5y agoCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances What has that got to do with the private company Google?
- dogleash 5y agoParent poster: > How about we take the bounds for speech the government can restrict and use those to set the bounds for speech corporations restrict. You: > Those bounds only apply to the government. Everyone reading: facepalm
- rscoots 5y ago>For example, if I create a fake video urging people to vote illegally, or at the wrong time Just so you know, this is a federal crime so Google is legally required to remove such content. So that specific example doesn't really apply.