Aspiring Author K. Renee was reportedly locked out of her own content on Google Docs after Google flagged it as “inappropriate.”

  • thehatfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Yet another reminder that “the cloud” is really just “someone else’s computer”. The end users of cloud based products are controlled by “someone else’s” rules and whims.

    • Techognito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      6 months ago

      And by “someone else”, it normally boils down to gigantic corporations that would exploit everything about you to earn money

  • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Guys, settle down. This is a clickbait title, google isn’t “censoring” anything and no part of the content of her silly hockey porn was deemed unacceptable by Google. What happened is that she had a ton of people accessing these documents and Google inaccurately flagged it as her spamming them at people unsolicited. That’s why she was locked from sharing them, because Google('s automated systems) assumed it was a bot account doing spam.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Google is going puritan now? It’s a lot more concerning to me that companies are scanning all of your personal documents than the fact that someone wrote some potential indecent content.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        We’re going to end up with a digital world in which corporate AIs are the arbiters of acceptable and nothing will exist without their approval. They have successfully seized control of the internet and even people’s personal devices. It’s terrible.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      They’ve always been strict at blocking potentially offensive text. Ever kept trying to compose a helpful, constructive YouTube comment reply that doesn’t disappear when you refresh? The AI there is really draconian. Once, someone wanted details of a rather wholesome story I had shared in a top level comment. Replying with the follow-up always failed despite no obvious trigger words. I resorted to editing the parent comment but then struggled to get a “see edit” reply through. At least 10 attempts at expressing “look at the root comment for updates” failed, eventually I managed to get a reply through with nothing but “🔝”. It got removed after I tried to edit it to a clearer expression so I just posted another “🔝” reply and hoped for the best.

  • astreus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    “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?

    • fadedmaster
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • astreus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        "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.

        Original Wired article says later in it that Google thought she was spamming

        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.

        • fadedmaster
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

    • OrlandoDeCabron [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Brother, people should be allowed to entertain and write down horrific thoughts, especially in a private context, and it not be censored. Policing thought crimes is orders of magnitude more horrific than whatever vile shit someone can put on a page.

      • astreus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think we read different articles:

        This person was not allowed to SHARE the things written. That’s not a thought crime.

        • mindbleach
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          That’s why the classic image of censorship is duct tape over your… brain.

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    How do you tell people that you are now using shitty AI to evaluate the content of documents on your site without telling people you are using shitty AI to evaluate the content of documents on your site.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    They should switch to LibreOffice then, with Syncthing if they need to sync it across multiple computers.

  • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Couldn’t she just copy the text to a text file or .odt file and perhaps email it (or better yet, physically copy it with a USB drive) if she can’t direct share it?

    • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      That might be her working copy. Google docs is fine for text editing. Of course she could work offline or use other platforms, but that’s kinda besides the point of the article.

  • PhreakyByNature@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Hmm I wonder if my novel started years ago and never finished past the first scene is still on hiveword…