Comment by permo-w | Hacker News Reader

Comment by permo-w | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

similarly, a few days ago I was working on a project with a couple of people and I had our meeting notes in a Google Doc. I went to share the doc with the people and was told that it wouldn't be possible due to "inappropriate content". after a quick scan of the text I realised that it was because the notes contained the word "imagery" - in relation to a logo. once removed, the problem went away, but it's disgusting to me that not only has Google given themselves the right to scan your documents for information, not only have they appointed themselves as moral arbiters of your work, they haven't even done it very fucking well. I'm guessing their filters have some kind of reference to "pornographic imagery" or something similar, and this has somehow meant that just the word "imagery" flags up as inappropriate

luckily I found the issue quite quickly, and the meeting wasn't held up, but how likely is it now that there's a flag against my account? what if it happens again? this just makes me want to use any alternative possible to Google's ecosystem

One time a few years back I searched google for the title of a thread on /r/boardgames about a board game called Ethnos. I was instantly unable to use any google services on either of my google accounts that were both signed in. I signed out of my accounts to try again and I got 1 google search to go through before I started receiving the same cryptic message, using anonymous mode didn't help either. I switched over to my phone and I was blocked there as well. I then logged into my work SSO that goes through a work domain google account and that worked for a few minutes before also getting blocked.

I couldn't find a way to contest or ask about the issue so I reached out to a contact at google who sent me a link where I found out that the issue wasn't made in error and will not be rescinded. My work account and all google services blocked forever! Un/Fortunately it was a Friday before a week off of vacation for me and my access was restored a week later right before I returned to work. I know it's a very much first world problem but that week of vacation was the most anxious I've ever felt in my life. My contact told me that it was likely set off by their automatic "human trafficking" detection.

Every few months since then I'll wake up and get one of the same messages and I'll freak out for a little before it fixes itself an hour or so later. I don't like having my account tagged in this way.

And yet you still use Google products? You sound like an abused spouse.

For work, the choice has been made for me.

I have no idea what ethnos has to do with human trafficking, but could see searching for it to learn what it is. Having a single keyword disable all related accounts for a week could be devastating. I have so much account recovery that goes through Gmail that it would take months to unwind.

I've been moving away from Google services since the Snowden leaks. I've seldom used Google search in the past 10 years, and switched my primary email provider away from Gmail. I'm experimenting with LineageOS instead of Android with Google Play.

Sounds like you should do likewise.

How did you figure that out from a quick scan? The word imagery is innocuous

trial and error of course

it was just my first guess, based on my hypothesis about a "pornographic imagery" filter. it's entirely possible that that wasn't at all what triggered the flag. perhaps removing any word would have reset the scan

> not only has Google given themselves the right to scan your documents

You agreed to it: "We may review content to determine whether it is illegal or violates our Program Policies, and we may remove or refuse to display content that we reasonably believe violates our policies or the law." https://www.google.com/drive/terms-of-service/?hl=en

Their list of policy violations is quite long: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505#zippy=

yes that's why I phrased it as "given themselves the right". they don't need to put that in their content policy

mysterydip’s point is that you gave google the right to do that to your document.

Can you disagree with that and still use the product? So tell me how they didn't give themselves the power? If there was a true choice, then yes, the customer decided to give them that power.

You could argue that you could have not used the product in the first place, but for me (not the person you're replying to), the TOS was very different in 2006. I cannot simply just move to a different service. There was no true choice.

Further, if it is a corporate account, the user needs to make a living thus must choose to use the product or tell their employer they need to quit. There is no true choice.

I love this Brazil-world (the film) we have created for ourselves.

"Satyrical dystopia now documentary with life-pro tips"

I highly recommend watching this: https://www.southparkstudios.com/video-clips/mqk1s7/south-pa...

Or more recently, the Black Mirror episode Joan is Awful

>> not only has Google given themselves the right to scan your documents

> You agreed to it:

I highly doubt that: "clicking agree" and "agreeing" are two entirely separate things.

Literally no one has the time or ability to read, let alone agree, with the things they're forced to click through* in order to live in the modern world.

Therefore, Google gave themselves the right as the GP claimed.

* either literally by clicking through, or by opening up a box an using a product, or by having something like that silently and unilaterally amended, etc.

I’m surprised that in 2023 click through agreements are still valid.

It’s amusing to start a new console game and have to agree to a 30 page wall of text. Wait, let me have my lawyer review this before I sit down to play single-player CoD (choose your own game from a mega-studio).

The white collar priests of silicon valley will save us from our sins

> the right to scan your documents

Don't they have legal liability here? There is stuff that they can actually get into actual legal trouble for facilitating the sharing and hosting of.

That’s what all the section 230 hubbub was about a few years ago.

230.c.1: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

As long as they are “dumb pipes” they have no liability. When companies started to “moderate” content that was unaligned with a particular political persuasion, the other side claimed they were no longer dumb, but now editors.

AFAICT, any content filtering that is done is to avoid civil suits and provide the appearance of being helpful to society (or at least not fostering the criminal underworld).

If it is text, am I not allowed to use Google Docs to write my erotic Harry Potter fan fiction?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com