Onneksi Trump tekee jotain oikein ja alkaa laittamaan näitä teknologiajättejä kuriin. Meno on aika dystooppista kun globaalit megakorporaatiot pääsevät kontrolloimaan tiedonkulkua ja päättämään "oikeat" mielipiteet.
Sepä se. Sananvapautta ei ole, jos sanan levittäminen on muutaman megakorporaation vastuulla jotka kaikki tekevät samanlaista manipuointia sisällölleen. Trump ei tosin ollut tuon aloitteenpanijana, vaan homma perustuu sikäläisen korkeimman oikeuden ennakkopäätöksiin ja linjanvetoihin, mutta Trump saa sekä kiitokset että vihat niskaansa puhumalla siitä julkisesti ja allekirjoittamalla presidentinkansilan vetoomuksen tuolle linjaukselle.
I am not sure I understand the laws and terms of service so well, but wouldn't it be a violation of the TOS and of the law if I held pirated material on my cloud storage and shared it freely with the public? Is that partly what's going on here? Would that also apply to copy written material I had legitimately bought?
I suspect it has more to do with the scale. If I'm sharing some songs or a video with a few friends it doesn't really elicit a response, but if a video which would potentially garner scores of thousands of views is being openly shared, then I would imagine that it would become an issue.
Plandemic has already had thousands of views even before they shut it down. It would continue to get millions more if Google didn't enforce their TOS, which I suspect has a lot of lawyers backing that up. If you have a legal copy of Plandemic, and you aren't trying to share it, I suspect that they wouldn't have any reason to delete your copy from the cloud, and I rather doubt that they would.
That’s very possible.
I just know that Western Digital tried to block/delete all copyrighted materials on one of their hard drive/ cloud backup services years ago and there was a firestorm of a response and they dropped it.
Note that any DRM content is subject to the same technical limitations. The DRM access can be switched off remotely.
In general I view this story as a positive. I don't support Google in this act but it means that whatever they were doing was not working. They are innovating to match a dynamic threat. Even if that innovation undercuts their public trust.
Our job is not to win every battle, but to put our adversaries into dilemmas where they only have bad options. If you have a strategy that you suspect will not accomplish its end goal, but to stop it the state will have to undermine its own stated values, then that is a strategy worth pursuing.
I gotta be honest, and maybe this is conspiratorial, but I feel like Plandemic is planned opposition. There are a lot of holes in it, her story is kind of strange, and the media started covering it immediately even though there's been all sorts of other scandalous stuff blowing the covid propaganda wide open.
I could be wrong, and I haven't looked deep into it, but my understanding is that it doesn't really dwell on just how faulty and problematic the PCR testing has been, and based on what I've learned that should be the big focus of anybody skeptical of the covid propaganda - the PCR tests are not at all surefire proof of the presence of a viral contagion, and it would appear they have an enormous false positive rate. Somebody please correct me on this if I'm wrong, I'm mostly just taking Monica Perez's word for it, as Monica Perez (and her show The Propaganda Report with cohost Brad Binkley) has been right on the money when it comes to covid, and they were covering event 201 and suggesting that it was the precursor to a massive propaganda campaign before covid was even a topic in the media, and sure enough they turned out to be 100% correct on that one (and many other things, frankly - she is absolutely my favorite radical libertarian doing daily political news).
And Monica's sense is that Mikovits and her story and this whole Plandemic thing are a way for the real culprits behind much of this tyranny to have some manner of control over their opposition. That's not uncommon at all when it comes to propaganda, we've seen it many times in the past, and even in event 201 the "conspiracy theorists" and how to deal with them is a prominent part of their simulation.
I tend to trust Monica Perez's instincts on stuff like this.
That said obviously I think censorship is terrible and should be called out, but many many many other covid related things are being censored right now, including testimony and research from all sorts of relevant scientists, medical practitioners, researchers, etc. But Plandemic, how to "debunk" Plandemic, censorship of Plandemic - this is what's being talked about in the mainstream press. It's kind of like the Edward Snowden thing, or that Miami Herald writer that "broke" the Epstein story - limited and controlled release of information to manage that which the segment of the population that is always going to be skeptical of our rulers believes and spreads around.
this is bullshit, it looks more like they were using drive to share the video then linking it from youtube videos to distribute it.
They didn't comb through private videos and delete it, they deleted the file because it was being publicly distributed via drive
In an article reporting on the takedown, The Washington Post’s Silicon Valley Correspondent Elizabeth Dwoskin complains that after the coronavirus documentary Plandemic was censored on social media, some YouTube clips were telling users how to access “banned footage” from the documentary via Google Drive.
She then notes that after The Washington Post contacted Google, Google Drive took down a file featuring the trailer for the Plandemic documentary.
It’s the same with the “other document” that gets mentioned in OPs other comments - once you are publicly sharing something it is no longer a “private” document.
At no point does this point to any private documents being removed or viewed - just publicly shared ones, which everyone knows is a different leave of scrutiny.
To be fair, in this instance Google Drive is used as a vehicle for spreading disinformation (by sharing access to a personal file). The article describes the conspiracist drivel of "Plandemic" repeatedly as a "documentary" (it is not, it's an assembly of lies and half-truths covered in conspiracist bullshit), which to me reeks of bias.
Also, while I agree that Google shouldn't remove a file from a user's personal drive except where such a file obviously breaks the law, in this case, there's at least probable cause that this is in fact the case.
Thirdly, don't use any online storage service as your sole repository for any file. Ever.
Fourthly, nobody should be using a free google service and expecting to have privacy within it. Well, nobody who has any connection with reality at least. But then, we are talking about conspiracy nuts here.
> Fourthly, nobody should be using a free google service and expecting to have privacy within it.
What if they are paying for more storage? Does the same sentiment apply?
> To be fair, in this instance Google Drive is used as a vehicle for spreading disinformation (by sharing access to a personal file).
I see a lot of people defending the actions of Google with this message and it's honestly scary AF. Not only is Google omnipresent (seriously, look at how hard one has to try to avoid Google and it is literally impossible other than going completely off grid), the issue is that there is not a thing illegal about conspiracy theories, not one bit. Regardless of a TOS issue, this is a serious breach of freedom of speech. If we make concessions only on the things that we happen to not like or agree with (meaning, it is OK in this instance because what they removed one feels is a good thing), we are giving them way too much power. Rights are absolute in the constitutional context, and we should all fight clear injustices against them, even if we don't like the speech being suppressed because one day something you do believe can simply be deemed "questionable" and removed as well.
This whole incident has nothing to do with the content removed and everything to do with the fact that a company so large that it infects aspects of every internet connected person on the planet in some way or another and who is the top player by a long shot in the flow and CONTROL of information who is now decided what truth and facts are. That is why this is scary AF and even scarier that so many are being the literal definition of sheep and essentially giving Google a pass and defending them simply because the content was indeed questionable.
Your link only says that the document was blocked from access for violating Google Docs' terms of service, not that anyone at Google was even aware of it, let alone that they understood and disliked the researcher's conclusions.
Seems equally (or more) likely that the raw content of the document (not its meaning) or the manner in which it was shared triggered some automated tool that blocked access.
I never thought this sub was full of conspiracy believers! I get the problem with Google, but if the information could harm people and violates terms and conditions, I can understand Google actions just like child pornography or revenge porn, etc.