
Sex Workers Say Porn on Google Drive Is Suddenly Disappearing - MilnerRoute
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kgwnp/porn-on-google-drive-error
======
quotemstr
C.S. Lewis once wrote:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with
the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven
yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness
stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of
states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who
have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed
with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

~~~
rajacombinator
A nice quote and it sounds true - certainly robber barons are preferable to
sjws - but doesn’t tell the whole story. The sjw tyrant he’s describing forms
the “useful idiot” phalanx of the ones pulling the strings. Those kind of
people (sjw types) simply aren’t clever enough to orchestrate the kind of long
term plots needed to take control. The ones in charge are fully aware of what
they’re doing, and they exhibit a cold calculating efficiency that seems
inhuman.

~~~
mung
He is not describing SJWs, which is a fairly modern concept and usually used
idiotically by people who don't have the brain power to understand issue X.
He's talking about those that might describe themselves as moral majority.
People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression. By
contrast, oppressors will happily force their morals on others (but not always
themselves) and tell you that it's for your own good. Usually backed by some
religious doctrine.

~~~
hueving
>usually used idiotically by people who don't have the brain power

Please don't sink to this level

>People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression

That might be your description but many also include the people going around
to open source projects to change the genders of code comments while
simultaneously accusing the project of being sexist at the same time. They
might be against oppression but their approach is so misguided it's
destructive.

~~~
praptak
The behavior you described is a) merely annoying and easy to curb and b) far
from omnipresent. OPs quote was about censorship enforced by state. I don't
see how this is even remotely same caliber.

------
gnicholas
Seeing this and simultaneously hearing about what YouTube is doing with
certain firearm-related content makes me wonder whether we’re on — or at least
near — a slippery slope.

I can certainly see limiting videos that are illegal (child porn) or that
describe things that are illegal throughout the US (converting semiautomatic
weapons into automatic).

But banning videos of adult pornography and showing legal firearm-related
content is a different beast. A private company surely has the right to decide
not to host such content, but consumers can likewise consider whether they
want to do business with (including giving unfettered access to email and
search queries) a company that proceeds down this slippery slope.

To be clear, I’m not saying we’ve slid down the slope at this point, just that
we appear to be perched on/near it.

~~~
scarface74
I am not pro gun by any stretch of the imagination, but when I heard YouTube
was banning firearm related content it made me real uneasy. I didn't have as
much of a problem with a crack down on hate speech.

I know a lot of people who I would consider gun enthusiasts that wouldn't hurt
anyone unless they weren't given a choice.

~~~
quotemstr
The same principle that justifies censoring "hate speech" also justifies
censoring firearms content, pornography, and anything else that the censorious
crowd considers "harmful".

You might not care about these things, but censorship will eventually hit
something you do care about. The impulse to improve society by controlling
people's thoughts is never satisfied.

Can you now see why some of us have been consistently opposed to censorship
generally, even when people were talking only about censoring the most
disreputable people? We need to commit to equal treatment of all legal speech.
The only alternative is suffocation.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Help me understand why you think the right to free speech means the right to
put anything you want on someone else's site?

Dan does a great job of moderation here, and if you break the rules
repeatedly, you'll get kicked out. I guess that's "censorship" if you squint,
but it's also YC protecting their private property and their rights to control
who does what here. I don't see how that's a problem?

~~~
rocqua
The issue is that youtube is not just 'someones site' just like facebook isn't
just 'someones social media'. These platforms are ubiquitous these days, they
are the de-facto place for content and thus become an important part of the
forum on which we discuss.

If that forum is censored with too broad a stroke, that actually harms
society. I think everyone can agree that too broad censorship is bad, and if
it hits large swathes of society, is really bad.

The difference between youtube and hacker-news is scale and near-monopoly.
There is also an important difference of human and machine censorship. Not a
difference of appeal, but a difference of unintended consequences. A human
censor will notice when certain rules have unintended and too broad of an
effect. There is a baseline of human oversight built in because there is a
human somewhere. Automated systems do not have this property, if they have
rules that seemed reasonable but aren't in practice, or aren't anymore, the
system won't notice.

------
grinsekatze
> “Do not publish sexually explicit or pornographic images or videos. Writing
> about adult topics is permitted as long as it is not accompanied by sexually
> explicit images or videos, or any material that promotes or depicts unlawful
> or inappropriate sexual acts with children or animals. Additionally, we do
> not allow content that drives traffic to commercial pornography.

> We do allow naturalistic and documentary depictions of nudity (such as an
> image of a breastfeeding infant), as well as depictions of nudity that serve
> a clear educational, scientific, or artistic purpose.”

I don’t understand the fuss being made. It is clearly stated that sexual
content is not allowed.

Just because sharing pornography isn’t illegal does not mean that it should be
allowed on every platform on which it is possible.

Instead of violating TOS of a service they could just use a service that
doesn’t prohibit pornography?

~~~
Consultant32452
Burning books is not illegal, but we are rightfully appalled when someone
publicly burns books. This is book burning.

~~~
JshWright
Are you appalled if someone says "hey, I'm gonna burn any books in this box",
then people put books in that box? This content is explicitly against Google's
published ToS.

~~~
ThoAppelsin
I would be appalled as soon as someone says "I'm gonna burn any books in this
box", whether any people puts books in that box or not. It is a promise for an
appalling act.

~~~
OrganicMSG
You may not like to look too closely at the book industry then. It is full of
such boxes.

------
sp332
I'm a little surprised that porn is against Google Drive's ToS, but I'm very
surprised that they actively have algorithms seeking it out to delete it.
Usually service providers don't go looking for trouble and will only review
content once there's a complaint.

~~~
tsomctl
I'm surprised they're doing this, because it could open them up to legal
liability. If they have the technology to do this, then arguably they have the
technology to detect child abuse or other crimes and would be liable for
hosting it. If they didn't have this technology, then if they are accused of
hosting illegal stuff, they can just shrug and say there's nothing they can
do. Or, like you said, remove individual items after a complaint.

~~~
IAmEveryone
This is a myth.

Section 230 of the Commucations Deceny Act of 1996 "allows ISPs and other
service providers to restrict customers' actions without fear of being found
legally liable for the actions that are allowed."

"The act was passed in part in reaction to a 1995 decision which suggested
that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer
content thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other
torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance
service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without
themselves becoming publishers"

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act)

~~~
ISL
Section 230 appears to be changing.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/59...](https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-
legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change)

[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2018/03/23/596460672...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2018/03/23/596460672/craigslist-shuts-down-personals-section-after-
congress-passes-bill-on-traffickin)

~~~
IAmEveryone
Yes and no: SESTA/FOSTA make business liable for certain criminal content on
their platforms. But the Section 230 shield wasn't about liability in general,
but rather about protecting you from an _increase_ in liability as a result of
moderation.

To use an analogy: Sec 230 is like a "Good Samaritan" law that protects people
who try to help accident victims from liability for their actions. This is
obviously good public policy, because many people are scared of being sued if
they make any mistakes (or even if they don't), even though the evidence
points overwhelmingly to a net positive effect of such attempts of help.

Backpage used Section 230 like a guy punching someone in the face and then
claiming they were trying to protect them from the mosquito sitting on their
nose.

The new law assigns liability if you are grossly negligent in allowing certain
content to flourish on your platform.

But, the important point is: this liability is independent of any moderation
platforms may or may not engage in. The attempt to moderate some content still
does not increase your liability.

------
tl
I’m 12 / 15 GB on the free plan and considering upgrading to paid. If Google
is now “intelligently” flagging content, I want to store my personal content
elsewhere, regardless of its nature.

Who’s not being stupid here? Apple? Should I go back to my Synology?

~~~
jlarocco
IMO, this will always be a problem with "cloud" services now.

No company is going to host illegal content if it makes them liable, and they
can't use the "we can't check everything" excuse anymore because the
technology now exists to check everything. Implementing it, or buying it from
somebody, will just be a cost of doing business for hosting companies.

~~~
reificator
> _the technology now exists to check everything_

But we're certainly not at the point where it's even approaching the accuracy
of a human being.

False positives and false negatives abound. When that means the service I pay
for as a backup starts deleting my innocent content because it thought it was
porn, that's when I leave that tool and never come back.

~~~
jlarocco
> But we're certainly not at the point where it's even approaching the
> accuracy of a human being.

You say that like it's an end of the world show stopping bug. There's no
reason a company can't have a process for handling those mistakes.

> False positives and false negatives abound. When that means the service I
> pay for as a backup starts deleting my innocent content because it thought
> it was porn, that's when I leave that tool and never come back.

And go where? If everybody has to filter content then they'll all have those
issues.

------
akvadrako
I never thought cloud storage providers would actually do this - they are at
least supposed to pretend they are respecting your privacy. Yet even Apple
says this:

 _> Apple reserves the right at all times to determine whether Content is
appropriate and in compliance with this Agreement, and may pre-screen, move,
refuse, modify and/or remove Content at any time_ [1]

I'm definitely in the market for a good e2e encrypted cloud storage solution.

[1] [https://www.apple.com/uk/legal/internet-
services/icloud/en/t...](https://www.apple.com/uk/legal/internet-
services/icloud/en/terms.html)

~~~
pingiun
> I'm definitely in the market for a good e2e encrypted cloud storage
> solution.

mega.co.nz may be kind of what you're looking for

~~~
akvadrako
Thanks for the link. It looks pretty good - open source clients, all major
platforms, affordable.

------
ZWoz
Article mentions reason, but very briefly: FOSTA and SESTA. Google don't like
officially mention it, some other sites, like craigslist[1] are more open.

\---

[1]
[https://www.craigslist.org/about/FOSTA](https://www.craigslist.org/about/FOSTA)

------
antoncohen
Dropbox would probably be a reasonable alternative to Google Drive. The TOS
and Acceptable Use Policy seem reasonable and short. Regarding adult content
they say:

"publish or share materials that are unlawfully pornographic or indecent, or
that contain extreme acts of violence;"

[https://www.dropbox.com/terms#acceptable_use](https://www.dropbox.com/terms#acceptable_use)

S3 would seem to be safe too, though it isn't as user friendly as Dropbox. I
don't see any terms specific to adult content served from S3.

[https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/](https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/)

------
pmarreck
Just use MEGA (mega.co.nz). It's 50gb free and end-to-end encrypted, so even
MEGA can't see your stuff. Upload your file, right click on it, copy link with
key, paste link to whoever.

~~~
yani
What if the story with megaupload repeats

~~~
pmarreck
i'm sorry?

~~~
grzm
I believe your parent is referring to this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case)

~~~
pmarreck
but that was "megaupload". This is "MEGA". A new service.

~~~
grzm
Right. You comment "i'm sorry?" can mean a lot of things, one of which is that
you're not aware of what megaupload was, which is why I added my comment.
Granted, you may have intended something else, but there wasn't much to work
with and my intent was only to aid in possible miscommunication.

I believe they're worried that the same thing that happened to megaupload will
happen to Mega, particularly as Mega is a relaunch of megaupload. I don't know
details, but are there reasons to believe that _can 't_ happen? For example,
differences in how Mega is structured legally or their TOS or limitations on
uploads? I don't think it's an unreasonable concern, but like I said, it's not
something I know a lot about. If you know more about it, please do share.

~~~
pmarreck
Ah, I see. I misread what s/he said for some reason.

I think that end to end encryption would go a long way towards mitigating any
guilt on your part as the "mere" data host. I don't think Megaupload had that
at all.

------
tyingq
_“I 'm still stressing about finding a way around this"_

Uh, find a non US file sharing site?

There are many, but, for example:
[https://yandex.com/support/disk/](https://yandex.com/support/disk/)

~~~
gambiting
Or share files zipped with a password.

~~~
Terr_
Silly idea: Use some trivial transformation on the files, call it "DRM" and if
Google tries to decipher them anyway they are in violation of the DMCA.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Are we still talking about using Google to host content that's against their
ToS? Suing them in such circumstances seems unlikely to end well for you.

------
rcMgD2BwE72F
I've been using [Syncthing]([https://syncthing.net/](https://syncthing.net/))
as a replacement for Google Drive. It isn't a cloud storage service (it's a
FOSS P2P synchronizing solution) but after a few changes of habits, I find it
just perfect. I use it to sync many folders between my Android phone, my
Android TV and multiple Mac (work and perso). I have folders for Music ($ cd
~/Music;youtube-dl <url>), for Movies (idem, with from phone or laptop to be
sent directly to Kodi on my Android TV!), for my passwords (in KeepassXC
databases), for my notes and todo files (with todotxt-cli and todo.txt apps on
Android), etc.

Except for a few Google Sheets (only for work), I'm now completely Drive free
:)

The only services for which I don't have an alternative yet are:

\- Search (I'm currently testing Qwant and now using Wikipedia/Widata more and
more), but I'd be OK with Google if I only used it for Web searching

\- Gmail. I'm not at-ease with ProtonMail (yet) and not at ease with self-
hosting

\- Contacts and Calendar. I'm considering setting up an OwnCloud instance but
haven't yet chosen a trustful hosting company.

~~~
Jare
Syncthing is great, I've been using it at home for several years. My only
trouble is I don't have any of my computers always on and I'm too lazy to root
my NAS, so there's a chance of conflicts, but a little discipline takes care
of it.

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
Me neither (re always-on computers) but since I always have my phone with me,
all my computers get automatically synced as I move near them.

Syncthing is set to only turn on on some preset Wifi networks, to which these
computers/boxes are connected.

So when I arrive at work, my Work and Music folders get synced in seconds. And
when I come back home, Music and Todo files (and others) get synced with my
personal computers via my phone.

I also have the Photos/Camera folder of my Android phone synced in "send only"
to my TV and Macbook. I just don't need cloud services or backups anymore.
It's always synced (with a trash settings so deleted files are kept for some
time, in case of any mistake). All my devices are synced together, via my
phone or just P2P. And if I lose my phone, I will probably not care.

I'm really surprise Syncthing is not super popular already, at least among
tech friendly people.

It works so well and has very little effect on my devices batteries (they are
only set to sync when I'm on known Wifi networks, which means that I have a
power plug nearby anyway).

~~~
Jare
I had not considered using the phone as the always-on link. I will have to
check what this means for storage since I only have a lowly 16GB handset, but
at least for the important bits it should work. Some great ideas there, thank
you!

------
throwaway84742
Interesting question: how does Google figure out if it’s porn or not? Do they
have people reviewing my personal data?

I work in computer vision, and while you can detect porn automatically, there
are always false positives. Ie someone takes a pic or video of their kids
taking a bath, and the algorithm may mistake it for child porn. If it’s fully
automatic, it could delete a priceless video, but if it’s not, some dude in a
cubicle somewhere could be jacking off to the video of your kids taking a
bath.

~~~
zokier
I suspect there is manual review. But I also suspect that the threshold for
triggering that would be pretty high, and a single positive detection would
not yet be enough. Sure, false positives happen, but I imagine that repeated
false positives would be diminishingly rare.

~~~
dahdum
So Google will look at any nude or _sexy_ images someone stores as backup, in
order to make a determination to delete?

Walking a tight rope of PR disaster if they get too strict, and the news they
scan and manually check is just the kind of outrage the public is expecting.

------
dawnerd
So the problem here is sharing the files out of your drive account. It’s been
known for a while that once you share/create a link it gets reviewed by
whatever magic algorithms they have.

------
lucb1e
I've heard the same of Onedrive and even instant messaging in Skype. If it's
against the ToS and it's not end to end encrypted, it seems nobody minds
scanning it with bots and, if you're lucky, reviewing it with humans.

------
noobermin
This is likely connected the FOSTA and SESTA recently being passed by the
senate. Many sex worker rights groups have spoken out against these bills as
having a chilling effect on sex workers.

------
yepguy
Why can Google even see the plaintext of users' Google Drive? This is an
obvious architectural issue.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Can't sell ads targeted with data you can't read. Zero knowledge systems don't
work for ad companies.

------
ttflee
Richard Stallman's warning shall be taken seriously. There is no cloud but
others' computers.

------
karag
I wonder how many google employees are actively watching porn, 75% 55% 25% ?
it's anyway hypocrite to censure something as much as widely used by everyone
just for the sake of american puritanism

------
BadassFractal
Seems like a great opportunity for starting competitor services in places like
Switzerland, Malta etc. Charge a premium for it.

~~~
sampo
US Department of Justice can have a relatively long reach even against foreign
companies if they are perceived to break American law:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload)

~~~
jest3r1
If they are perceived to break American _copyright_ law

------
johnnymonster
Sounds like a great business opportunity to me. I’m sure someone like pornhub
or xvideos would love to charge 9.99 a month to store and allow private
video/file sharing.

------
tombrossman
Startup idea: Managed Nextcloud instances with (optionally) their integrated
AWS S3 backend storage. Nextcloud's sharing UX is dead simple and intuitive
using the web interface, with the option to password protect and/or expire the
sharing link.

The porn industry is often cited as being innovative / early adopters. As
nerds let's help them demonstrate why self-hosting and decentralized tech is
the way forward.

~~~
swiley
sftp (ssh) works out of the box with the GUI shell (nautilus?) on most
GNU/Linux distros. It just looks like a network drive.

webdav is the same but _ALL_ popular OSes support it, I really don't
understand why more people don't use that as it doesn't get any simpler. You
don't even need a browser.

EDIT: the reply here is dead (?) I don't agree with it (really at all, IMO
google drive has one of the worst most confusing UIs ever, that seems to be an
intensely objective thing) but some others might and I don't find it
offensive:

>I couldn't use webdav without going to find out how to use webdav.

>I can figure out google drive in a minute. So can she. So can her paying
customers.

~~~
AlexeyBrin
_I really don 't understand why more people don't use that as it doesn't get
any simpler. You don't even need a browser._

Most people lack the technical knowledge to install/configure the required
infrastructure on an external server.

~~~
swiley
I see what you're saying, and that would explain why they use google drive
instead, but I think you misunderstood me.

I meant the people who normally set up this sort of thing, who often opt for
more complex set ups (eg nextcloud.)

------
ars
How sure are we that this is really happening?

Last time someone accused Google of deleting stuff on their drive it turned
out not to be the case.

------
zokier
I feel bit less sympathetic for them considering that they are running a
business here and it is pretty explicitly and directly against Google Drive
ToS. It is not even that surprising that it is forbidden in ToS, so I would
say if you are in the porn business it is your due diligence to check this
sort of thing.

------
erikb
Why is it oppresive? Web storage is a service, not a human right. What do you
think people did before Google Drive? Apparently the location where school
children put their homeworks might not be the right storage location for porn.

Why not pay a storage service that is focussing on the adult industry?

------
gnicholas
I can see all the major cloud storage players doing the same. But there’s
always Firefox Send!

------
yani
They violated the use policy that they agreed when signing up. I do not
understand why this needs an article. Storing files on any drive that is not
permitted will result in the same if not termination of the contract.

------
d1ffuz0r
Usa looks more like Soviet union these days

------
thirdreplicator
That's what crypto currency-based distributed media systems are for. Examples:
STEEMIT, STORJ, TRX, etc. There is no central authority who has the power to
censor content as they please. I don't know which of those (or if there exists
one which) would be appropriate for porn, but there probably is one. If
anybody knows please let me know.

------
elorant
They could just torrent the files between themselves. Add a password too and
you're good to go.

~~~
swiley
I don't think torrent works behind a NAT? Which is probably worse if you're
not in the US/EU.

There's syncthing but then you're using volunteer's bandwidth. TOR+httpd is
the same.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
Torrents are fine behind NAT. Heck, I don't know anybody not behind a router
doing NAT (ex. 192.168/16 to public IP).

------
nvahalik
So if Google starts taking it's ToS seriously and starts removing items that
are flagged... how long until we start seeing people flagging items that they
don't like as "hate speech" (which is also included in the list[0] provided in
an another comment).

I mean, at least with porn there really isn't much of a question about whether
a piece of content is sexual or not. But hate speech? Depending on the person
you talk to, one piece of content that is totally acceptable to a wide group
of people might be considered "hate speech" by a some minority or other group
of people who take a hardline view against someone else. Who gets to decide
what is or is not hate speech? That is, who gets to determine which ideas are
or are not acceptable?

Does that not scare anyone else just as much (or more)?

[0]:
[https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505?hl=en](https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505?hl=en)

~~~
CaptSpify
> I mean, at least with porn there really isn't much of a question about
> whether a piece of content is sexual or not

I'm sorry, but there is a _huge_ historical precedent that says otherwise:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it)

------
2bitencryption
does this have to do with that controversial bill that was recently passed?

wondering what the long-term, far-reaching ramifications might be. could this
be a sample of things to come? (not to sound ominous or anything)

------
Myrmornis
If the TOS states clearly that such content is not allowed (which it seems it
does) then what’s the story?

------
kombucha2
So password protected rars with random filenames?

------
merb
A lot of people have so many theories about it. But maybe it's simple?

Google ran out of Storage! Deleting all porn on Google Drive will probably
redeem 50% of their storage. (or more)

------
golem14
Is it actually true? There could be lots of other possible reasons like
running out of quota or too large attachments...

------
bitxbitxbitcoin
SESTA-FOSTA strikes again...

------
mankash666
I don't think it's Google's fault really. Congress pushed a recent law that
holds infrastructure companies like Google responsible for crimes committed by
it's users. This is what you get in response - AI filtering out adult content
and Craig's list removing personals

------
jacksmith21006
Why not use something else then?

------
coupdetaco
I commented that "The memes are here to stay" on linkedin yesterday and it was
quietly disappeared.

