Re:Google takes down profile pic because someone was flippin...
by tripzilch on Wednesday December 28, 2011 @08:53AM
(#3399735)
Why do people always conveniently forget the other side of this equation?
Yes, Google+ belongs to Google, so yes they can censor it however they want.
But also: Google+'s users are individuals and they can disagree with these terms, they can complain about these terms, in fact they can do whatever they want: they can write Google about it, they can leave for another social network, they can build their own (but there's no law that says they have to), they can re-upload their photo as many times until they get banned, they can slightly tweak the photo until it's barely acceptable skating the boundaries until the ridiculousness of the rule becomes apparent, they can blog about their complaints, they can link that blog on HN and finally they can flip the bird to people that slavishly whine "obey or build your own site" because that is how you affect change, regardless of whatever "terms" the owner specifies.
Those "terms", incidentally, don't mean a thing. They're only meaningful because Google enforces them. Conversely, if Google enforces something that is not part of their terms, you're just as "powerless" as when it is. So, basically, you're just counting on Google doing what's "right". In this sense it's "right" for Google to enforce only rules mentioned in their terms. But in that same sense, because there's no such thing as "kinda sort of right", those terms should also be reasonable, where "reasonable" is something that is agreed upon between Google and its users. If their terms aren't reasonable, they might as well just do with a blanket "Terms: Google does whatever it wants." (and nothing else).
Yes, Google+ belongs to Google, so yes they can censor it however they want.
But also: Google+'s users are individuals and they can disagree with these terms, they can complain about these terms, in fact they can do whatever they want: they can write Google about it, they can leave for another social network, they can build their own (but there's no law that says they have to), they can re-upload their photo as many times until they get banned, they can slightly tweak the photo until it's barely acceptable skating the boundaries until the ridiculousness of the rule becomes apparent, they can blog about their complaints, they can link that blog on HN and finally they can flip the bird to people that slavishly whine "obey or build your own site" because that is how you affect change, regardless of whatever "terms" the owner specifies.
Those "terms", incidentally, don't mean a thing. They're only meaningful because Google enforces them. Conversely, if Google enforces something that is not part of their terms, you're just as "powerless" as when it is. So, basically, you're just counting on Google doing what's "right". In this sense it's "right" for Google to enforce only rules mentioned in their terms. But in that same sense, because there's no such thing as "kinda sort of right", those terms should also be reasonable, where "reasonable" is something that is agreed upon between Google and its users. If their terms aren't reasonable, they might as well just do with a blanket "Terms: Google does whatever it wants." (and nothing else).