- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
Aspiring Author K. Renee was reportedly locked out of her own content on Google Docs after Google flagged it as “inappropriate.”
You must log in or # to comment.
Yet another reminder that “the cloud” is really just “someone else’s computer”. The end users of cloud based products are controlled by “someone else’s” rules and whims.
And by “someone else”, it normally boils down to gigantic corporations that would exploit everything about you to earn money
Guys, settle down. This is a clickbait title, google isn’t “censoring” anything and no part of the content of her silly hockey porn was deemed unacceptable by Google. What happened is that she had a ton of people accessing these documents and Google inaccurately flagged it as her spamming them at people unsolicited. That’s why she was locked from sharing them, because Google('s automated systems) assumed it was a bot account doing spam.
For YEARS my google calendar was spammed with “FUCK MY PUSSY @2PM (insert dangerous link here)” type shit but like a dozen people reading some amateur smut gets flagged immediately.
How on Earth were people editing your calendar without permission?
Google will add them automatically as tentative events. This is a “helpful” feature that no one could see being abused. Outlook does the same shit as well.
MAD PUSSY IN BIO FOLLOW ME ON JUSTHVAC.NET
thanks. as a lazy person who just wants content from the forum direct you are my savior.
thanks for saving me a click.
“Romance” is such a crap term! She was writing porn. Likely with minors. I’m involved with a lot of authors, some also write porn
open-door spice, and the only things that get Google bans (from what I’ve been told) are kiddie porn and extreme gore.While the dangers of handing your documents to Google can’t be overstated, don’t sympathise too much with this person.
EDIT: y’all know she was only blocked from sharing, right? She did not lose access to any of her work and no one has the right to demand a middle man for their content.
Scenario: Jack draws some heinous CP cartoon. He wants to share it with Alice. He asks Jill to hand it to Alice. Jill says “I am not handing this to anybody.” Should Jill be on blast for censoring Jack?
Scenario 2: Jack draws some middling soft-core porn. He wants to share it with Alice. He asks Jill to hand it to Alice. Jill says “I am not handing this to anybody.” Should Jill be on blast for censoring Jack?
Original Wired article says later in it that Google thought she was spamming. This is relayed through the author though and not Google directly.
And you’re right. She still had all her work, just couldn’t share it.
Also, I haven’t read the author’s content, but nothing I saw when I searched the name seems to indicate it was CP. Also, the fact that Google didn’t remove the content entirely indicates it wasn’t illegal content.
"Google never specified which of her 222,000 words was inappropriate. There were no highlighted sections, no indicators of what had rendered her documents unshareable. Had one of her readers flagged the content without discussing it with her first? "
So much of her work could have broken the T&Cs that she can’t identify what it could be without highlights.
Original Wired article says later in it that Google thought she was spamming
Different author, but if that’s the case (and it seems this author shares files to over 80 people in one go) then it’s a spam filter issue? Again, non story.
The headline is a complete lie.
Ah. I can’t pull the original article back up due to a pay wall but I did read it quickly so is possible it was a different author.
You can bypass paywalls by archiving the article. Try archive.is
Brother, people should be allowed to entertain and write down horrific thoughts, especially in a private context, and it not be censored. Policing thought crimes is orders of magnitude more horrific than whatever vile shit someone can put on a page.
I think we read different articles:
This person was not allowed to SHARE the things written. That’s not a thought crime.
That’s why the classic image of censorship is duct tape over your… brain.
deleted by creator
How do you tell people that you are now using shitty AI to evaluate the content of documents on your site without telling people you are using shitty AI to evaluate the content of documents on your site.
They should switch to LibreOffice then, with Syncthing if they need to sync it across multiple computers.
After months and months of hrm-ing and haw-ing I think about to pull the trigger but Is this the right link
Ik it seems silly but I thought I’d ask
This link seems to be correct indeed, if anything, their code is on that domain: https://git.libreoffice.org/
Thanks for verifying cus I definitely have my parents tech anxiety of Am I dOwNlOaDiNg A vIrUs
Not necessarily a bad feeling to have, I upload everything I downloaded to https://www.virustotal.com/ before opening them if I can.
I’m assuming that’s a virus checker. But tysm for that it’ll make my life so much easier
I like this idea, except sometimes I need to access my notes on mobile. Can we open Libre files on mobile? Haven’t tried that.
Collabora office can open open document format files, yes
Glad I switched to proton drive.
Couldn’t she just copy the text to a text file or .odt file and perhaps email it (or better yet, physically copy it with a USB drive) if she can’t direct share it?
That might be her working copy. Google docs is fine for text editing. Of course she could work offline or use other platforms, but that’s kinda besides the point of the article.
Not AI? No longer profitable.
Remind me in five years.
Hmm I wonder if my novel started years ago and never finished past the first scene is still on hiveword…
You will own nothing and you will be grateful.
What did she purchase or pay for?
I think you’re missing the point here, which is that you don’t even own the content you’ve created yourself when you use one of the corporate platforms.
In what way has Google taken ownership rights?
Google has restricted what people can do with their content, i.e. their ownership rights.
That’s not how that works, and if you can point out what law says that speech may be posted on any platform regardless of terms of service I’d love to see that. Is it your position that if Twitter or a lemmy mod blocks content that this is an infringement of my rights?
No, my position is that you shouldn’t use these platforms or at least not make yourself dependent on them.
Then you should have stated that rather than your inaccurate and off topic comment. I didn’t even disagree that free Google is a stupid platform to use as a professional.
Google is forbidding the author from the right to make copies of their own work (aka copy-right)
No they aren’t. They have access, they can copy into whatever they desire.
