Not that it changes anything, but why nobody is saying, or asking, what was it flagged for? I find it suspicious the reason for the ban was not given in the story.
The obvious implication is copyrighted" content flagging, considering the account was banned after uploading a manga. Google drive used to be a source for links to Linux ISOs, so it’s unsurprising that they’re cracking down on it in the dumbest and laziest way possible.
That’s the implications the narrative tries to create by saying the content is “his own”, and yet never spells it out, which is why it seems like a red herring to me.
Like, if it was his own CSAM, it doesn’t make it any better he is the author.
No, why? I came up with an extreme example to illustrate my point: It’s suspicious that they didn’t say the reason for the ban, because if it’s a bad reason they would have said what it is.
I don’t imply any reason, especially the example I have given.
I don’t think so, and I also don’t agree with AI moderation nuking someone’s cloud backups…
But also I wouldn’t find it surprising if it was marked as CSAM when the artist’s cover art can look like this (NSFW). The material inside is probably much more explicit.
Took a quick peek and it’s uhh, definitely porn. Hot take: doesn’t matter to me. There’s people out there using Gmail to facilitate the torture and murder of real literal children. Why are we focusing on drawings instead of the people doing actual harm?
Oh, I agree. For Google to act like a paragon of justice on this front, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the actual harm they facilitate is a joke. I guess as long as it’s not relevant to training their AI image recognition, it doesn’t call for the same level of moderation.
If Google didn’t give a reason, then it would be poor journalism to speculate. Providing enough context for the reader to come to their own conclusions isn’t a red herring, it is the correct way to report on it.
What journalism? This is the banned author posting on Twitter, they are the primary source, and could have said anything, including that Google didn’t give a reason, if they didn’t.
This question was exactly why I came to the comments. However even if he was doing something immoral like drawing child porn (I don’t care about anyone’s personal opinion on this subject so please spare me) unless doing so is illegal where he is (which it should be) he should be turned over to the police for pedophile crimes not having all his stuff deleted. Deleting child porn only makes the problem worse because offenders won’t be facing punishment, they essentially just get the filth wiped off their dirty faces and get back at it
There’s no context that makes it ok to just delete someone else’s stuff but I’m still curious about the content and if this person was just a pedophile
the artist does draw nasty shit and chances are he uploaded that to his drive, but does that really matter? the issue is still there even with this context, google scans your private files you upload to gdrive and the ai without any human input can just destroy your (or if not your, an average person’s) whole life by permanently banning your google account along with all linked services like gmail or sign in with google stuff
No, which is why I started my comment by saying it doesn’t matter.
AI moderation is bad regardless. Now that we have that settled, and have established Google is the bad guy here, I am interested what he was banned for.
Not that it changes anything, but why nobody is saying, or asking, what was it flagged for? I find it suspicious the reason for the ban was not given in the story.
The obvious implication is copyrighted" content flagging, considering the account was banned after uploading a manga. Google drive used to be a source for links to Linux ISOs, so it’s unsurprising that they’re cracking down on it in the dumbest and laziest way possible.
copyrighted*
That’s the implications the narrative tries to create by saying the content is “his own”, and yet never spells it out, which is why it seems like a red herring to me.
Like, if it was his own CSAM, it doesn’t make it any better he is the author.
Are you one of those people who thinks all japan is pedo or something
No, why? I came up with an extreme example to illustrate my point: It’s suspicious that they didn’t say the reason for the ban, because if it’s a bad reason they would have said what it is.
I don’t imply any reason, especially the example I have given.
I don’t think so, and I also don’t agree with AI moderation nuking someone’s cloud backups…
But also I wouldn’t find it surprising if it was marked as CSAM when the artist’s cover art can look like this (NSFW). The material inside is probably much more explicit.
It certainly caters to a… specific audience.
EDIT: Link fixed. Thanks for mentioning.
Broken link. No idea which cover art you were referencing, but here’s a couple: Not explicit, but still NSFW
Took a quick peek and it’s uhh, definitely porn. Hot take: doesn’t matter to me. There’s people out there using Gmail to facilitate the torture and murder of real literal children. Why are we focusing on drawings instead of the people doing actual harm?
Oh, I agree. For Google to act like a paragon of justice on this front, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the actual harm they facilitate is a joke. I guess as long as it’s not relevant to training their AI image recognition, it doesn’t call for the same level of moderation.
If Google didn’t give a reason, then it would be poor journalism to speculate. Providing enough context for the reader to come to their own conclusions isn’t a red herring, it is the correct way to report on it.
What journalism? This is the banned author posting on Twitter, they are the primary source, and could have said anything, including that Google didn’t give a reason, if they didn’t.
This question was exactly why I came to the comments. However even if he was doing something immoral like drawing child porn (I don’t care about anyone’s personal opinion on this subject so please spare me) unless doing so is illegal where he is (which it should be) he should be turned over to the police for pedophile crimes not having all his stuff deleted. Deleting child porn only makes the problem worse because offenders won’t be facing punishment, they essentially just get the filth wiped off their dirty faces and get back at it
There’s no context that makes it ok to just delete someone else’s stuff but I’m still curious about the content and if this person was just a pedophile
the artist does draw nasty shit and chances are he uploaded that to his drive, but does that really matter? the issue is still there even with this context, google scans your private files you upload to gdrive and the ai without any human input can just destroy your (or if not your, an average person’s) whole life by permanently banning your google account along with all linked services like gmail or sign in with google stuff
No, which is why I started my comment by saying it doesn’t matter.
AI moderation is bad regardless. Now that we have that settled, and have established Google is the bad guy here, I am interested what he was banned for.
What kind of nasty are we talking about?
That’s always been the deal. Google gives you free email and disk space, but they used everything you have for AI training and targeting advertising.
Maybe Google didn’t give a reason.