• AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    While I hate Google, this seems like one of those much ados over nothing. They specifically mention ‘sex, gender, or sexual orientation’, which to most reasonable people would cover gender identity.

    • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      “Gender” means nothing without context. By a MAGAs definition of gender this policy doesn’t protect trans people, for example. We don’t know how this rule will be interpreted in practice. Even if you don’t consider the intent behind making this change, this is objectively a weaker guarantee of protection than what we had with “gender identity and expression”.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        This is not a legal contract, it’s a general guideline for users about what is or isn’t acceptable. The intent and spirit of the terms are clear, the only question is whether Google will enforce them not. If the enforcement is crappy, like what Facebook is famous for, it doesn’t matter a damn what exact terminology they use in the guidelines.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        No, but I think most of the people on Lemmy should know better than that.

        Looks at Hexbear, .ml, and to some extent Blahaj

        Oh, who am I kidding.