[alacode]

I'm no great defender of Google but point some fallacies the article pushes:

"regarding a woman losing her entire Google account after one of her 7 year old sons, messing around with a camera and uploading the videos to YouTube, published a video of himself naked. For obvious reasons, that’s a problem"

  If a 7 year old found a parent's gun, walked into the street and shot a neighbor to death accidentally; the parent is also still responsible and accountable.

"he had obtained and published some leaked video footage from Fox News." and "he was able to access the footage by using publicly accessible URLs to obtain the content."

  https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/website-permissions/websites/

  "As a general rule, it is wise to operate under the assumption that all works are protected by either copyright or trademark law unless conclusive information indicates otherwise. A work is not in the public domain simply because it has been posted on the Internet (a popular fallacy) or because it lacks a copyright notice (another myth). For information on these and other public domain issues, see the section, “The Public Domain.”"

  Related, search for "OpenAI lawsuits over copyrighted materials it uses to train ChatGPT".

[Almondsetat]

The fallacy you push is that the legal process in case your child shoots someone is the same as the private and inscrutable process that Google follows to ban people, which it isn't

[pvg]

That's not how HN works but you can read about it here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html