I think any individual company should be able to decide they don’t want to be associated with that.
Yes, and everybody should be able to decide not to give that company any data because they are not trustworthy. “A company should be legally able to do X” and “A company that does X deserves trust” are two very different claims.
As for the specifics of this policy, how do you see it as prohibiting journalistic use for documenting lies by governments? It looks to me like the exceptions at the end cover that.
There’s a list of uses that are allowed and journalistic use is not among them. Which also makes sense as journalists are the kind of people who are usually in the best position to spread misinformation.
This is about content distribution
The term content distribution has a legal meaning and “sharing” isn’t the legal meaning. Any use of Google Docs includes content distribution in the legal sense. If the legal sense isn’t meant the policy should be worded differently. Besides there a question of “content staying on our platforms” and not “we will stop your ability to share objectionable content.
Yes, and everybody should be able to decide not to give that company any data because they are not trustworthy. “A company should be legally able to do X” and “A company that does X deserves trust” are two very different claims.
There’s a list of uses that are allowed and journalistic use is not among them. Which also makes sense as journalists are the kind of people who are usually in the best position to spread misinformation.
The term content distribution has a legal meaning and “sharing” isn’t the legal meaning. Any use of Google Docs includes content distribution in the legal sense. If the legal sense isn’t meant the policy should be worded differently. Besides there a question of “content staying on our platforms” and not “we will stop your ability to share objectionable content.