It's not entirely clear to me, but did Google delete the file from the user's personal, private drive, or did they delete public access to the file?
Because the former is unacceptable, but the latter is not as big a deal at all.
Because the former is unacceptable, but the latter is not as big a deal at all.
Article 50 doesn't make a distinction between the two, if that's what you're thinking of.
There will always be some content that just has to be banned.
No moderation will ever get the rules & the line exactly right, but they can be close enough to reasonable.
The consequences matter. Losing private access to a file is quite bad, but Google deciding they don't want to help you publicly share something is a bit different. (note that in this case it's unclear which of those things it was)
No there won't; there will be content that special interest groups want banned, and must be prevented from getting banned. Eg child molesters wanting video evidence of their crimes banned.
Cutting off someone who is abusing your free tier isn't censorship.
Without that test, you really can't conclusively say whether it is QoS enforcement or politically motivated.
Turns out, they don't want people using Google Drive as a video streaming service.