https://www.wired.com/story/what-happens-when-a-romance-author-gets-locked-out-of-google-docs/
In the year of 2024, someone should be able to reasonably expect that they can mind their own business without a company digging through their private files (or that shared with a small select group). It's likely that legislation might be passed to curb this practice, and already has been in some jurisdictions. That said, just because someone could theoretically look through someone's files doesn't mean they should.
When it comes to moderation practices, it is very inappropriate for #Google to attempt to moderate "sexual content" here, and it feels like something which could easily trip people over. It is inherently user hostile and there isn't a good reason for it.
The article covers both this specific case (and a few other cases more generally and briefly), the following passage is not about this case:
"To a banhammer, every query looks like a nail: depictions of rape disappeared, but so did posts by rape survivors."
There are problems with this passage. For instance, this person focuses on one specific case "posts by rape survivors", and fails to unpack the more implication of pieces of fiction (with dark themes) being censored, which is an obvious incursion on freedom of expression. By failing to engage with the main problem at hand, it is also easier for concerns of censorship to be ignored entirely.
https://qoto.org/@olives/112362450620045294 This is a large part of why I will just point people to my new porn science piece directly.
I'm not saying someone can't cover that case "posts by rape survivors". In fact, it's a fairly important case. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't cover it exclusively.
In a way, this reminds me of someone writing a piece to argue that "ageplay" shouldn't be censored. Instead of making an argument that it isn't a form of abuse, and someone shouldn't be discriminated against because of the actions of a few criminals (guilt by association), they relied entirely on an argument that it wasn't inherently sexual. This isn't an inaccurate argument, in a number of cases it is not, it also misses the point.
