Eh, either that specialist doesn't understand how cloud storage works or the author isn't doing a good job of explaining it. Because it sounds like the specialist figured out how deletions work on your home computer's hard disk and tried to shove that into some info they searched for on the internet about distributed storage or sharding. What was described is absolutely not how that data is stored in the cloud. The question of "when is my data actually deleted" is completely valid but the explanation is a mashed together pile of dog shit.
Google likely stores small clips of the full video stream (which they did explain) but in object storage. These clips are probably used for training AI and deleted after some period of time according to a retention policy that might soft delete the data first before removing it permanently. And maybe they do replicate the data to keep it safe, but also maybe not since it's just for training. Since the customer didn't have a plan that included storage, there's no reason for them to persist the data after they've trained with it. It's just a waste of storage space costing them money at that point.
They could also store the clips in block storage but all those little pieces on the filesystem would be in the same data center, maybe region, but definitely not all across the world for a single file.
And I guarantee you there was no forensic analysis on any storage devices for this. The reason it took so long to retrieve was probably from back and forth with the feds and deliberation within Google's legal and management teams. Then once that was sorted, some poor prick probably had to manually dig through some services to find the file and grab it.
TL;DR: Google does hold onto your data longer than most people think but that "expert" doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. Bureaucracy and manual processes likely drug out the process, not forensic analysis.
I can at least entertain the idea that people "back the blue" to make their communities safer. But isn't this the exact fucking thing that they're supposed to protect the community from? Fuck this piece of shit and every one of those pig fucking cowards.
For conservatives, who are a type of classical liberal, the private property question is explicitly paramount, and all considerations of human rights, etc., are maybe given lip service and informal recognition. But materially it is deprioritized and in our era getting wiped out, such as "neo-liberalism."
See, this is why I think classical liberalism gets a bad name. Conservatives only like to claim they promote classical liberal ideas because it sounds like a cool throwback. When confronted, they play the same authoritarian card they claimed to fight so hard against.
Eh, I feel that a lot of problems are simply blamed on corporations without understanding what the real problem is. I don't give a shit about the corporations, I just think it leaves a lot of problems unaddressed. For example, everyone loves to rail against Amazon for being a shitty company (which they are), but many of them continue to give Amazon money so they can get free 2 day shipping for some meaningless piece of landfill fodder. This allows them to lobby for harmful policies which in turn gives them more money and so on. If people made a reasonable effort to not give Amazon money unless they adjusted their moral compass, Amazon would be change immediately.
However I believe that what is in your heart, the desire for freedom and liberation
I feel the same way about your ideas too! The current system is bullshit and too few people have too much control of peoples' lives.
I think it's an ideology that has eventually come into existence because of human progress. Similarl to how monarchies have basically gone out of existence because of human progress.
There are definitely gaps in the implementation of liberalism, but those are largely exploited by objectively bad policies like corporatism and central planning.
And even though it does have gaps, it's an enormous jump forward. It's also important that those gaps are filled with forward thinking solutions and not past mistakes.
Gladly, liberalism: a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
"Can you use it in a sentence?"
Gladly: Liberalism emphasizes individual freedoms, democratic governance, and the protection of civil rights.
Gavin Newsom is such a fucking tool.