Ethical (?) misuse of Google maps

[CaptainHook]

Google maps have been misused recently by Reporters without borders. They launched a campaign called Billboards beyond borders in which they uploaded fake pictures in Google maps. These pictures showed quotations of journalists that were persecuted for them on billboards on high frequented places in their home countries. Obviously they were removed short after. I can't help myself thinking it is a good initiative (although technically it is a case of terrorism by misinformation). They only did in virtual environment what is not possible to achieve in reality. How do you judge them, @Flash, @GeorgesHR, @ErmesT, @NadyaPN, @Csaba, @BruceDM, @KlaudiyaG?

[PaulPavlinovich]

They are calling it censorship, I think it is what is is - a misuse of a platform that is careful to avoid politics, religion and other divisive topics to keep their mapping platform free for all.

Quote from the billboards without borders website 

"We find it ironic that a campaign on free speech has been silenced so quickly.

But we have officially received information that the campaign has been shut down because it violates Google Map’s policies. That¹s the thing about censorship, it doesn’t call itself censorship, or may even not be intended as one. But the consequences remain the same, important voices for free speech have been silenced in the places where they are needed the most."

[BruceDM]

Hi @CaptainHook,

As Google Maps policy notes: Only post content based on your experience or questions about experiences at the specific location. Maps is not meant to be a forum for general political, social commentary, or personal rants. Content that does not meet this standard will be removed.

While I can respect the cause, the persons behind this project would always need to abide by a certain set of guidelines depending on the type of protest they were making.  For example they would need to obtain permits if they were taking to the streets. Similarly they need to respect the rules of Google Maps policy.  In that regard, I think it is unfair for them to categorize this as silencing free speech.