>  the fact that so many people are upset is indicative of the growing technological entitlement mentality

    > You can get a 3 Terabyte backup drive today on Amazon

    > there are alternatives to using a hosting company

    > there are ways outside of the internet to distribute information

    >  A mentality Google fosters constantly with virtually 
    > all of their products.

    > The first words you see when you visit 
    > https://www.google.com/drive/ is "A safe place for 
    > all your files".

    > Google may also stop providing Services to you, or 
    > add or create new limits to our Services at any time. [1]

    > WHEN PERMITTED BY LAW, GOOGLE, AND GOOGLE’S SUPPLIERS 
    > AND DISTRIBUTORS, WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOST 
    > PROFITS, REVENUES, OR DATA, FINANCIAL LOSSES OR 
    > INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR 
    > PUNITIVE DAMAGES. [1]

    > Like what? Deeply technical p2p hosting solutions 
    > that are completely inaccessible to all but the most 
    > adept readers and publishers?

    > Sure, but as we move most of our communication to 
    > the internet, this kind of thing becomes more and 
    > more problematic. 

I'm not saying these aren't problems -- I'm saying these aren't Google's problems. They're running a business, not a technology charity. If you don't like it, don't use Google products and encourage others not to. It's simple cause and effect: Google treats us badly, we stop using Google. Google is free to operate however they like and I'm free to stop using their services.

[1] https://www.google.com/policies/terms/

EDIT: s/risking/risky/

It's true that no obligation is created under our current legal structure, but I think the statement still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that is true, and we definitely would all be better off if people took the accountability and personal responsibility to avoid getting into these situations.

But really, what does that argument achieve? It absolves the centralized powerful entity of any responsibility, shifting it to a decentralized collection of individuals that lack cohesive power to effect change. In terms of pure efficacy, I don't think that style of reasoning is going to move the needle on actually getting the desired result out of the system. In other words, would it be easier to educate all of those people on proper usage of online services, or to maybe change some legal language somewhere so that these services have some responsibility to their users?

I think we can try to encourage personal responsibility in people, and simultaneously acknowledge that it would also be good if the services that hold power and influence were more accountable to their users, because that's just going to be better for everyone collectively.

    > It's true that no obligation is created under our 
    > current legal structure, but I think the statement 
    > still has relevance. Your stance reminds of me people 
    > that said, in the wake of the subprime mortgage 
    > crisis, "well those loans were legal and the people 
    > who defaulted were free not to take them." Yes, that 
    > is true, and we definitely would all be better off if 
    > people took the accountability and personal 
    > responsibility to avoid getting into these situations.

There's also this key component: the average user is not Google's customer -- they never pay a penny for the services they receive. I think that you and I both agree that consumer protection laws are a good thing; if you pay for access to Google's data storage services then it should be illegal if they suddenly revoke that access. That is an obvious case of breach-of-contract.

Outside the context of a customer-business relation, this amounts to the government ordering Google to supply a service at no charge. Note that certain things (I believe in the states water) have to be given freely to people who request it, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that access to data that you knowingly stored some place with questionable data persistence guarantees is as fundamental as access to water. You may disagree.

In the end, I suggest educating consumers about the generally sketchy cloud data persistence guarantees is easier and wiser than requiring companies to offer free services. You and I both probably agree that the cloud is a significantly easier approach to organizing, storing, and using data than traditional approaches. Since it has become so ubiquitous, its users should know the dangers. This avoids setting a somewhat strong precedent that such a protection law would make.

After a quick Google (heh, the irony!) there doesn't seem like there's an easy way to backup cloud data. This seems like it might actually be a good personal project for me...

Personally I would like to see society move in this direction. The data persistence guarantees should not be questionable, they should be legally enforced. I'm pretty sure we could come up with some terms that aren't realistically that onerous to Google (and other providers), but give users some assurances.

We're treading new ground with the concept of digital goods that are extremely cheap to manufacture, distribute, and store, and this idea that ubiquitously useful services can be provided to everyone for free by extracting value from the data generated by their usage. In the pre-digital era, the government "ordering Google to supply a service at no charge" would probably be an untenable precedent, but today that could happen with almost negligible impact to their business, because it already operates like that.

You and I both probably agree that the cloud is a significantly easier approach to organizing, storing, and using data than traditional approaches.

This is exactly why we should recognize it as a public utility and endeavor to reduce the inherent dangers, just like we go to great effort to make clean water available instead of teaching everyone how to test and treat it themselves.

I appreciate the discussion and your thoughtful and forthcoming attitude:) Makes the internet much more enjoyable to use when disagreements are carefully examined rather than the usual tendency in comment threads to degenerate into being just plain mean.

[1] https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout

Disclaimer: Alphabet employee, but not related to the takeout service.

I believe that argument at hand is that massive digital services providers, by power of the market forces, had become just as essential part of our infrastructure as banks. Their behaviour has played a huge role in establishing this position and setting this expectation.

So, the philosophical question is whether Google, AWS, Facebook, et.al. are now "too big to fail" to be subjects of regulation due to their critical role in ensuring preservation and accessibility of human knowledge. They are already being regulated by tons of parties, domestic and foreign, to keep some (lots?) information inaccessible.

https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout

You can download all your google data from there. I wish all cloud services provided such a feature.

Actually it kind of does -- saying one thing and doing another is a deceptive business practice, and deceiving consumers is generally frowned upon.

    > Actually it kind of does -- saying one thing and doing 
    > another is a deceptive business practice, and deceiving 
    > consumers is generally frowned upon

Google specifically states they make no guarantees, so they're not "saying one thing and doing another." They're saying one thing and doing that thing. The parent mentioned that Google encouraged technological entitlement -- that may or may not be true, that would be a tough thing to have a reasonable conversation about -- not that Google is making blatantly false claims about its services.

Google was quoted above as calling the service "A safe place for all your files", and deletion is clearly not "safe", and there have been court decisions saying that fine print caveats cannot completely negate the clear English part of the advertising.

Of course, there have been court decisions saying the opposite, too, but that's sufficient for the OP's point to be better than "strawman" material even if, hypothetically, their argument turns out to be incorrect.

Managing consumer expectations in a way that does not reflect reality is the same as false advertising, however.

Then most files aren't safe. A file on your computer isn't safe.

That doesn't mean that words mean nothing, just because absolutes generally don't exist.

In this case, a "reasonable person" (which is often the litmus test that courts use) might well think that "A safe place for all your files" means that Google will take reasonable precautions to keep your files safe, within reason, given current technology and economics and practices.

Unilaterally deleting things without notice and without recourse absolutely does not fit that sort of reasonable definition, although it may well be legal nonetheless for various reasons.

And regardless of all that, there still is no reason to accuse the OP of a strawman argument, which is kind of rude unless there is a truly strong reason for it -- that's the primary thing I'm arguing, not about philosophical absolutes nor even legality.

If it is a 1 in a million (or less) chance, then its safer than storing them on your own computer, which I think would fit the definition of safe. You're requiring that Google meet an extreme defintion of safety that is beyond what a reasonable person would expect (since a reasonable person woud likely not backup files, or back them up locally, both of which are less safe than google).

You're conflating control with safety. As in, you're committing the same fallacy that people who are afraid of flying on airplanes do. An airplane is safer than a vehicle. Drive is safer than a computer. People are afriad of airplanes not because it is more dangerous, but because they are sacrificing control.

>there still is no reason to accuse the OP of a strawman argument

I didn't. That was someone else, but I appreciate the downvote nonetheless.

You're too paranoid. I don't yet even have the ability to downvote people; my rating is too low.

> the same fallacy

Gee thanks. We're not just in disagreement, I'm the idiot who can't reason correctly.

I think your logic is unreasonable. I already said why; google isn't living up to what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would expect -- such a person wouldn't expect deletion with no recourse.

And if it happened to you, obviously you would change your attitude about what is and is not reasonable; no one wants their stuff deleted. So arguing about it seems possibly disingenuous, regardless of the fine details.

> You're requiring that Google meet an extreme defintion of safety that is beyond what a reasonable person would expect

Actively deleting files is included in the definition of "safety"? I think not.

However again, my main point isn't whether the above person is correct, it's that his point is reasonable enough that it is uncalled for to say he's arguing a strawman.

You're responsible for making backups or taking out whatever insurance you think is reasonable for your data.