Maybe they should shout a bit louder about the “this is not fit for any particular purpose “. Not buried as some legalese boilerplate in the EULA but on the signup page in big letters.
Yeah. And there should be many comparable alternative businesses that do sell communication devices that don't opaquely Zucc legal albeit questionable content. The people who play apologetics for this and think this sort of service is in any way comparable to pizza have every right to keep hanging out in their auto-modded environment eating their thin crust diavolo, swiping their oily fingers all over their device's controls, as long as there's a reasonable habitat for the rest of us.
Have you already forgotten about Covid 19? Most of my doctor appointments have been remote for the past 3 years, had to take pics of an injury. So, honestly, have you forgotten?
I work for a non-profit medical group, and we have pediatricians in our group.
Starting in March 2020, due to, well, you know, all of our doctors started doing consultations via video chat and picture-enabled text messaging. This service continues to this day, particularly for our most vulnerable patients (which included, until very recently, children under five who could not be vaccinated against the novel coronavirus).
Children come down with a lot of things that look strange to parents, especially new parents who have never had a child before. Especially parents who are staying home with their children to avoid a new (that's where the "novel" part of "novel coronavirus" comes from) disease that they don't want to give to themselves or their kids.
What you've advocated for is a world where parents can't communicate with doctors except by showing up in person. This is something we demonstrably do not want for a whole host of reasons. For a period of almost a year, unless you were basically bleeding from an artery or your arm was hanging by a thread, you could not see a doctor in person, at least not through our group.
It should be common sense that we are intelligent, thinking beings with the ability to discern right from wrong and that those are not binary choices. There are myriad reasons why someone might take a photo of a naked child that are free of malicious intent and, legally, are perfectly valid. Medical assistance is just one of them.
I never said that I advocate for making the production / transmission of certain types of photos illegal.
Personally, I advocate for freedom of speech, but I recognize that there exists laws currently that restrict it in America. I say that it is common sense because that is the one thing you aren't allowed to post on the internet. Everything else you can get away with.
I do agree. In this case I think it should be common enough knowledge that the doctor should have known that it wasn't reasonable to ask someone to use this email provider (or frankly any provider) for this purpose.
But Google needs to make a bigger deal of the fact that their services shouldn't be relied on for any particular purpose. (I feel the same way about banking apps too)
