Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Mess with The Google

dansdeals.com

71–80 of 504 posts

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#71
This sort of thing truly needs to run into regulatory force. I don't believe in government being up our collective skirts for everything but regulation does have its place and this, I think, would be appropriate use of such power.

And this does not apply to just Google. We've had run-ins with Google, Facebook and Amazon on different fronts and for different issues. And, in all cases, our clients had their accounts suspended forever, permanently, done, no more.

One case happened about six years ago. Google opened-up a product called, if I remember correctly, "AdSense for Domains". The idea was that, rather than park your domains with GoDaddy (or whoever) and have GoDaddy earn $0.02 and give you $0.005 on ads placed on your domains you could, instead, park them directly with Google and get paid directly.

One of our clients had over 250 domains on GoDaddy. They decided to move them ALL to Google. The process entailed moving them over to the Google provided DNS, followed by an automated approval process that took minutes. All 250+ domains got moved and all 250+ domains got approved.

About three days later: "All your Google accounts have been suspended due to fraudulent activity on your Google for Domains pages". Upon digging, it appears they claimed excessive clicks on ads. Well, nobody clicked on any of them. At least not our client. The domains were many years old and were logging ad clicks on a regular basis when parked with GoDaddy for years. In other words, normal behavior.

So, Google acted like a totalitarian regime run by an asshole and cut off our client. All for the $50 a month these parked domains were going to earn him. What really sucked was that his AdWords account got rolled into that as well, so they lost all ability to use AdWords to promote their legitimate business. No appeal. No email. No way to communicate.

Can't get more despicable than that.

Oh, wait, you can!

A different client. They had been advertising their products on Facebook with some results. Nothing great, but they were learning. Their product, for women, featured images of a woman wearing a normal bikini. No, nothing racy, just a normal looking bikini worn by a model. Facebook flagged the ads as inappropriate despite the fact that, during the same period of time, you could regularly see half-naked Victoria's Secret ads on FB all the time. So these guys, not wanting to get into trouble, changed-up their ads to simple graphics. No problem.

About six months later they decide to take advantage of a lucrative affiliate program for a business course. They decided on a budget and started to advertise it on FB. No scam, a course tens of thousands of people had taken. Legit through and through. About a week into this FB emails: "Your advertising account has been suspended permanently." No reason given.

They reached out to FB with their appeal form. No reply. Tried again. Snotty reply saying "Please consider this decision final. This will be our last communication".

And so, this company, a valuable and upstanding member of society, is now cutoff from advertising on Facebook forever. Done. For life.

This, in no uncertain terms, is pure highly refined bullshit totalitarian crap. This is NOT how business is done outside of the realm of games played by petulant children. It is disgusting, to say the least.

In the real world business people engage in conversations to find common ground. If a magazine doesn't like your ads, the editor will discuss them with you and seek modifications. They don't cut you off for life. That's some violent bullshit there.

No, I think it's high time the likes of Google and Facebook visit the receiving end of a good government style reaming. I'm so sick of it I am more than willing to get the ball rolling. What's the best course of action? Any law firms who read HN interested in a nice fat class action lawsuit?

Consumers can't be treated like this. It has been going on for many years. High time we put an end to it. Any takers?

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#72
post #21
post #3

TL;DR: At least 200 people participated in a scheme in which they purchased (multiple) Pixel phones and had them shipped to a dealer in NH for resale to others, in contravention of the Google ToS. In response, Google suspended all their accounts, without the option to download any their stuff, including email and drive data, etc.

In a sane world Google would get a swift and harsh judgement against them for this. Don't be evil. lol. Anyone remember the glory days of the first sale doctrine? Before we started letting companies essentially make arbitrary binding rules at their whim.

If anyone banned bothers to file a small claims case against Google, they could likely win. I've successfully won cases with significantly more grey area against well informed people in small claims, and Google would be compelled to send a company representative who is wholly unfamiliar with the law and what the case is about due to the way small claims court works.

The most likely outcome is Google will settle well before trial since they know the odds are against them, and the cost to fight it (just in labor) is much more than the cost of any Pixel phone.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#73

Just curious here, but why are people outraged over this? They clearly violated Google's policy, and there were repercussions. Those rules are there to protect Google; perhaps their only legal recourse to cover themselves after a rule violation is to suspend the account?

What if your landlord cut off access to your apartment, and everything inside, because you happened to have 3 guests visit and stay with you this month, instead of the 2 allowed by the lease? Would that be okay with you? And that wouldn't even be as bad as this, because a lease is a far more legally applicable document unlike TOS's which no one reads. Further, at least your violation there is related to your apartmen…

Presumably the argument would be "because otherwise the landlord accepts legal responsibility". Which means that if your apartment burns down with 3 guests in it he not only is not covered by fire insurance (that contractually puts occupancy limits because of legal demands on them), but actually has to pay for the ambulance and medical costs because "he created an unsafe situation".

So "why would people complain" ... it's a matter of perspective and maybe ideology.

I would say the other reaction is easier : make sure you have 5 google accounts. One is email and you DO NOT use it for anything even remotely business related.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#74
post #39
post #3

TL;DR: At least 200 people participated in a scheme in which they purchased (multiple) Pixel phones and had them shipped to a dealer in NH for resale to others, in contravention of the Google ToS. In response, Google suspended all their accounts, without the option to download any their stuff, including email and drive data, etc.

My response to Google deleting peoples email accounts. Google deletes artist’s blog, a decade of his work: This makes me laugh my ass off. This is a bit of a pet peeve I have with people and modern technology. They believe they have a right to use a service even though they're not paying for the usage of the service. Then they turn around shocked and angry when the free service is removed. `Why! why did they do this…

Really sick sense of humor you've got there bud.

Sure, people should pay & support the tools they use, but there are a lot of clueless, inept people out there who have been trained by Google, Facebook, etc that everything is free.

Whatsapp with the $1 a year charge was a step in the right direction, but Facebook idiotically killed that (decent) business model. That could have made over $80 mil a month in revenue, while being a nominal amount for the average user to pay.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#75
post #64

This really seems like it needs to be regulated in law. For telephone companies, there are rules about when they may disconnect you, e.g. the Arizona Utilities Division write > f I am unable to pay my entire bill, what can I do to maintain local dial tone? > The Arizona Administrative Code specifically states that a telephone company may not disconnect a customer for failure to pay an unregulated portion of their bil…

Fastmail. I'm just a regular (paying) customer, not a business or anything. I've opened a small number of tickets, one or two of the RTFM variety. I've always got a human response and satisfaction, even a "here, let me RTFM that for you." I can't imagine being locked out of my fastmail account for anything other than abuse of my fastmail account . Or not paying my bill.

We also stalk you on... I mean, we read the same tech news sites you do.

(I'm on third line ticket duty right now, so if you have something significantly more complex than RTFM, or an actual bug, you'll probably be talking to me this week)

The most common cause of getting locked out other than you abusing your fastmail account is having your credentials stolen and used for spam/fraud, which is why we recommend 2 factor authentication:

https://www.fastmail.com/help/account/securityupgrade.html

But yeah, even then we don't lock you out forever - just need you to reconfirm your identity and re-secure your account.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#76
post #23

Pretty incredible - especially with how little that a hardware product purchase has to do with a user's data. Imagine for a moment that google required people to have an account to access all their services - that they have the ability to cut you off arbitrarily across ALL their services for a TOS violation should scare anyone. Imagine if facebook cut your account and thereby ties to many of your friends and acquaint…

OMG, I can't even imagine live after being cut out of facebook, all my friends are there.

People get banned from Facebook every day for stupid reasons, whether it be Facebook's real name policy or otherwise, and I would encourage you and everyone else to keep alternate contact details handy for your friends.

Maybe you should encourage them to get on Signal Private Messenger, so that you aren't SOL if anything happens to Facebook.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#77
post #19

We have to stop being naive about our email accounts. My recommendation is to buy a domain name use that as the primary email. It may cost in total around $100/year but it is definitely worth it.

I hear clintonemail.com is available

Every time I see that, I feel it should be camelcase.. it just reads to me as clin-tone-mail for some reason.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#78
Could this have been fraud detection automation? I would be shocked if they didn't at least let you dump the contents of your account and setup temporary mail forwarding. It's their service and these people didn't follow the rules but when they ask us to essentially entrust our digital lives to them they owe even the misbehaving users (as opposed to criminal users) who broke a TOS agreement something more than just scorched earth tactics.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#79

Slightly OT: Is there something funny going on with this post? 1 hour, 103 points and it's already at the bottom of HN?

It's often quite stunning how quickly posts showing malpractice by Google disappears off the front page of HN. I wouldn't dare speculate as to why, but it's pretty common.

Re: Don’t Mess with The Google

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a ToS rule like that even legal? This comes a bit more from copyright law, but the US has the "right of first sale"[0] which guarantees individuals the right to sell works they purchased to someone else. I can't imagine this protection would be weaker on physical purchases. Additionally, Google's Terms of Service also says you own your data, including IP rights: "You retain ownership of any intellectual property r…

Yeah, very legal. The "right of first sale" means that you can't be sued (well, you can be sued but they would lose) if you sell a book you own. It doesn't say that the publisher of that book must continue to sell you additional copies or that the author won't give you a dirty look if you pass in the street or that someone may take steps that don't involve suing you for copyright infringement to discourage your activ…

Does RHEL sign the binaries or embed a signature somewhere on a per-customer basis to determine if you're redistributing?
Post reply on HN