3 ms·

> if the radio station has not gotten the consent of the caller to broadcast the call That’s weirdly irrelevant. > There isn't really any precedent to say tha

by zepto 5y ago

> if the radio station has not gotten the consent of the caller to broadcast the call That’s weirdly irrelevant. > There isn't really any precedent to say that Google's position here is wrong You don’t need a legal precedent to determine what is wrong. You are making the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent here. > the technology doesn't distinguish the use cases, and Google applies more or less the same policies to all of them. That’s the reason this is a problem. You have conceded that Google’s restrictions on what you can share affect all kinds of collaboration.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Can you provide a precedent for Google's position being wrong other than reasoning by analogy from other telecommunications infrastructure (which we already treat differently from Google Drive shared documents)? [Edit: your comment changed after I posted mine] Oh, if your primary concern is that Google reserves the right to get into private collaborations and modify access to those documents, that's something other than what I'm arguing. I'm personally ambivalent (their house and their rules... If you don't like the rules don't live in the house), but I can see why people would have more concern with that situation than the situation where they block wide-cast sharing via a view-only link.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Can you provide a precedent for Google's position being wrong You don’t need a legal precedent to determine what is wrong. You are making the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent here. > Oh, if your primary concern is that Google reserves the right to get into private collaborations and modify access to those documents, that's something other than what I'm arguing. They do, and ok. > I'm personally ambivalent (their house and their rules... If you don't like the rules don't live in the house) This is a sentiment that I generally agree with as life advice, but is a non-contribution to these kinds of discussion. > but I can see why people would have more concern with that situation than the situation where they block wide-cast sharing via a view-only link. There is no difference between a small scale collaboration and what you have chosen to label a ‘wide-cast’ link, other than how many people read the document.

by zepto 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

Can you provide a precedent for Google's position being wrong other than reasoning by analogy from other telecommunications infrastructure (which we already treat differently from Google Drive shared documents)? [Edit: your comment changed after I posted mine] Oh, if your primary concern is that Google reserves the right to get into private collaborations and modify access to those documents, that's something other than what I'm arguing. I'm personally ambivalent (their house and their rules... If you don't like the rules don't live in the house), but I can see why people would have more concern with that situation than the situation where they block wide-cast sharing via a view-only link.

zepto 5y ago
> Can you provide a precedent for Google's position being wrong You don’t need a legal precedent to determine what is wrong. You are making the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent here. > Oh, if your primary concern is that Google reserves the right to get into private collaborations and modify access to those documents, that's something other than what I'm arguing. They do, and ok. > I'm personally ambivalent (their house and their rules... If you don't like the rules don't live in the house) This is a sentiment that I generally agree with as life advice, but is a non-contribution to these kinds of discussion. > but I can see why people would have more concern with that situation than the situation where they block wide-cast sharing via a view-only link. There is no difference between a small scale collaboration and what you have chosen to label a ‘wide-cast’ link, other than how many people read the document.