This is such an irrelevant, derailing, and ultimately toxic viewpoint.

Google obtained this position by being trusted to not engage in censorship. So while yes, they can change their stance (burning off goodwill until they become irrelevant), it's a facile analysis.

> This is such an irrelevant, derailing, and ultimately toxic viewpoint.

Toxic is a matter of opinion. Pointing out the hypocrisy is relevant, insofar as it's relevant in every other forum between one actor accusing another of being a bad actor. How you take something to be derailing, when it's relevant, is beyond me.

A facile analysis, most definitely.

It's derailing because rather than address the concerns under discussion, it discards them by punting to a different level of abstraction. It's toxic because it has become so damn prolific, probably because on the surface it seems edgy.

I'd often make a similar point to argue against this centralized communication technology being adopted in the first place. But now that it has become society's main form of communication, pushing this point on its own does little but condone censorship.

There's a paid version of Google Drive, which does create an obligation.

Not if your content violates their Terms.