> Google's increasing role as an arbiter of right vs wrong
The problem is that (I doubt) Google is really doing this out of some misguided attempt at "protecting" people but rather as a reaction to what they perceive to be what the people want. When America was a very religious (Christian) country, media distributors stayed away from anything that appeared "blasphemous". They didn't necessarily do it because there was a law against it (there were some odd laws here and there, but the media didn't start actually challenging them until religion really fell out of favor), but because they were afraid of consumer reactions. Google (and every other tech company) is doing essentially the same thing here: speaking ill on certain topics is modern-day heresy and they just don't want to be attached to it because they do ultimately fear the consumer.
Even if you found a globally adoptable alternative to google, the same people who pushed Google to ban distribution of "misleading content" would start looking for ways to ban your globally adoptable alternative - at the network level if necessary (look what happened to Parler before they agreed to follow the unwritten rules). At the end of the day, we won't have truly free speech because far too few of us really want truly free speech.
>speaking ill on certain topics is modern-day heresy
The AUP would be more transparent if it simply banned "modern-day heresy". Folks would then be tagged as tech-heretics, and many would wear that badge with honor.
Calling questionable, unproven, unpopular or ambiguous information "misleading"-- it's a doublespeak. Worse, having my cloud drive spontaneously dumping or blocking my data because some algorithm or faceless reviewer disagrees with the content-- that's totally unacceptable as a consumer proposition. Is my Android phone next simply because I'm posting an HN comment Google might disagree with? Seriously, it's completely unworkable from a consumer position for Google to arrogate to themselves that power.
That's not how heresy works. People don't point fingers at you and hiss "heretic!", instead they judge you and think you're a terrible human being who does terrible things so they shouldn't help or associate with you. You can't "simply ban" heresy.
If you're genuinely interested in convincing people across the aisle to stop trying to ban stuff like this, simply yelling that it's "totally unacceptable as a consumer proposition" and "completely unworkable" and "doublespeak" is barely an argument. Evidently, many consumers are accepting it and will continue to accept it.
> That's not how heresy works. People don't point fingers at you and hiss "heretic!"
I mean...yes that's exactly what they did. Excommunication, run out of town, branded, marked, labeled in public, put in stocks, jailed, killed, yelled at, or just straight ostracized. These are all tactics that have been used in the past to label and punish heretical beliefs. They could absolutely still be used and, if you look at "cancel culture" in the right/wrong light, that's exactly what's still happening.
My point is not that people don't ostracize heretics, it's that "heretics" aren't a real category that people identify explicitly. Heresy is not a thing, people don't think "you were a heretic" as the reason they're ostracizing you (look, maybe 12th century peasants did, that's beside my point, we're talking about modern politics). People who want to ban these things don't think of this as "banning heresy", they think of it as "banning a bunch of terrible things to benefit society". If you're just going to dismiss these people's perspective as banning "heresy", you're just talking past them. You're not earnestly engaging them in argument.
In a sense that may be true, but how is that different from a bar owner asking people to leave if they are causing a disturbance by being confrontational with other patrons? The bar owner doesn't want a fight that can damage property. He doesn't want people to avoid the bar because someone is picking fights, when most of his clientele just want to kick back and socialize with their friends.
Maybe the bar owner isn't trying to "protect" the rest of his customers, he's just trying to maintain a profitable business. Protecting his pockets.
You could apply the same logic to dang, who helps keep HN a pleasant place by doing the same things the bar owner is doing. Yes I imagine he is paid a salary, by the management of YCombinator who see HN as one part of their strategy to make a profit, and therefore his motives are equally cynical.
Ok. Honestly, you can probably reduce all human behavior to such simplistic motives if you want. What I see as someone being kind, you might see as a purely Darwinian strategy to get their genes in future generations.
I'm not all that sure that is a helpful perspective, at least not most of the time.
> America was a very religious (Christian) country
America is still a very religious country. It's not as bad as it used to be but it's still pretty bad.
Don't forget that these companies are global. Your example is still happening with pictures of Muhammad. Many companies refuse to host or show them for fear of offending Islamic extremists.
Oh Thank You. That is an interesting take I haven't thought about.
For those us not from US, it this "as a reaction to what they perceive to be what the people want."
really represent the majority as in your example when America was very religious?
Because it seems to me, ( and I know zip about US ) this action only please half and anger another half?
Given the amount of information Google has about its users I feel certain that they know exactly what percentage will be angered by this and what percentage will either applaud it or just not care.
It's not only right wingers but left wing organizations like the Atlantic Council. They assist multiple companies in determining which content is deemed permissible.
The problem is that (I doubt) Google is really doing this out of some misguided attempt at "protecting" people but rather as a reaction to what they perceive to be what the people want. When America was a very religious (Christian) country, media distributors stayed away from anything that appeared "blasphemous". They didn't necessarily do it because there was a law against it (there were some odd laws here and there, but the media didn't start actually challenging them until religion really fell out of favor), but because they were afraid of consumer reactions. Google (and every other tech company) is doing essentially the same thing here: speaking ill on certain topics is modern-day heresy and they just don't want to be attached to it because they do ultimately fear the consumer.
Even if you found a globally adoptable alternative to google, the same people who pushed Google to ban distribution of "misleading content" would start looking for ways to ban your globally adoptable alternative - at the network level if necessary (look what happened to Parler before they agreed to follow the unwritten rules). At the end of the day, we won't have truly free speech because far too few of us really want truly free speech.