Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
"Romance" is such a crap term! She was writing porn. Likely with minors. I'm involved with a lot of authors, some also write porn ~~open-door spice~~, and the only things that get Google bans (from what I've been told) are kiddie porn and extreme gore.
While the dangers of handing your documents to Google can't be overstated, don't sympathise too much with this person.
EDIT: y'all know she was only blocked from sharing, right? She did not lose access to any of her work and no one has the right to demand a middle man for their content.
Scenario: Jack draws some heinous CP cartoon. He wants to share it with Alice. He asks Jill to hand it to Alice. Jill says "I am not handing this to anybody." Should Jill be on blast for censoring Jack?
Scenario 2: Jack draws some middling soft-core porn. He wants to share it with Alice. He asks Jill to hand it to Alice. Jill says "I am not handing this to anybody." Should Jill be on blast for censoring Jack?
Original Wired article says later in it that Google thought she was spamming. This is relayed through the author though and not Google directly.
And you're right. She still had all her work, just couldn't share it.
Also, I haven't read the author's content, but nothing I saw when I searched the name seems to indicate it was CP. Also, the fact that Google didn't remove the content entirely indicates it wasn't illegal content.
"Google never specified which of her 222,000 words was inappropriate. There were no highlighted sections, no indicators of what had rendered her documents unshareable. Had one of her readers flagged the content without discussing it with her first? "
So much of her work could have broken the T&Cs that she can't identify what it could be without highlights.
Different author, but if that's the case (and it seems this author shares files to over 80 people in one go) then it's a spam filter issue? Again, non story.
The headline is a complete lie.
Ah. I can't pull the original article back up due to a pay wall but I did read it quickly so is possible it was a different author.
You can bypass paywalls by archiving the article. Try archive.is