Yes, but we can't expect people to read ToS (much less keep up with ToS changes) for all the software they use. That would be madness - books and volumes worth of legalese just to get basic work done. Not to mention that some of ToS legalese is too open to interpretation. Each of us probably depends on some bit of software with ToS we'd find objectionable, in certain interpretations at least.
Regarding Google Drive, I think that the expectation of privacy comes from the name and the way it is marketed and appears to the user. You wouldn't expect a hard drive, or a flash drive, or some other drive to police what content is on it. That is not in the function description of a storage device - networked or not. Perhaps that expectation is now changing, but I think a lot of people still have it.
All in all, I don't think that we can blame the users for haphazardly agreeing to ToS. They (probably) need the software, the software is marketed as if it serves simple function while in practice it does quite a bit more, and its ToS can be modified or interpreted as product owners wish. There's not too much users can do but not use it. But what about those users who need it for work, or aren't knowledgeable enough to use other office suites, or self-hosted/NAS backups, or X, Y, Z? It feels as if cloud storage providers are offering an ultimatum to them - either comply with our views or be deprived of what you need.
It's weird how many people confuse "storing" with "sharing" because it seems to support their pre-determined narrative. I.e., to my best knowledge, you an store the file in GDrive, but you can't use GDrive to share it to others.
you can't share it even with yourself unless you don't use exactly same account which uploaded it
kind of ridiculous or share it with wife, sure they block me from sharing it, it's not like I can show it to her in person in same household, phew, they stopped hate speech...
Proof that you don't own the files on your G Drive. It always been Google's hard drive. Not yours and they can delete anything they want and can define what 'hate speech' is, no matter how sloppy the term is.
Next time, use an encrypted zip with a passphrase rather than the actual video interview.
I think it could be reasonable to restrict public access to files with hate speech on a service. Many countries have laws against "distribution" of it.
But journalists and researchers do need to be able to store and share it between themselves to be able to report on it.
You can store the video you just can't share it. If we don't like this then we can pass laws to make Google free of any risk for broadcasting such content, and then we'd have anime back on YouTube.
One time GMail didn't allow me to send a ZIP file to myself "because the contents might be harmful". I changed the extension to ".itsazip" and it sent fine. Hooray!
