201–210 of 211 posts
Seems like there's a new set of skills that academics need to learn; paging Dr Assange.
The automated canned answer is what rubs me the most here. There is a professor who trusted Google's Gmail and Blogspot product, gets the Axe for some violation of Terms of Service or Quality Guidelines, and does not get a clear and straight answer what specifically he did wrong, or how he can remedy the situation. I wish one of the Googlers reading this here could reach out internally what is going on here. I'd wage…
In such messages, not telling how he can remedy the situation is intentional . It illustrates that their goal&decision is not that they want him to try and change some behaviour (whatever that might be) but that they want to discontinue the relationship even if the behaviour changes, or (in the case of actually malicious users that need to be banned) gets hidden or kept at a 'slightly below the boundary' level, which…
Alas, the long term cost of being opaque is lost trust. I much rather have Google give a straight answer. Especially when there is publicity around a case. That way a lot more people would see that Google actually is mostly really reasonable, and that there is another side to the story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is the file format that one downloads?
Different formats for different services and for some even a choice of formats: iCalendar for Calendar; HTML, CSV or vcard for Contacts; json or KML for location history (Maps); mbox for Gmail... You can see your options before/without exporting anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. Realistically, what's the likelihood that any single user who uses gmail is going to get shut down? Literally one in millions.
> "Literally one in millions." Unless you work at Google and are privy to internal information, how could you possibly know that? The only reason you're hearing about this case is because the account holder is a university professor who lost a long standing Blogger site—used at his school and linked to by the NYT— and then the story made it to the front page of HN . It's overwhelmingly likely that the vast, vast majo…
It's an estimate, not an exact figure.
I'm guessing posts like these had something to do with his banning (the zero hedge link references his blog post, but his blog has been shut down): http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-18/blm-paradox-black-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In such messages, not telling how he can remedy the situation is intentional . It illustrates that their goal&decision is not that they want him to try and change some behaviour (whatever that might be) but that they want to discontinue the relationship even if the behaviour changes, or (in the case of actually malicious users that need to be banned) gets hidden or kept at a 'slightly below the boundary' level, which…
I know it is intentional. It is the easy way out to minimize friction, potential litigation, social backlash. All short term cost. Alas, the long term cost of being opaque is lost trust. I much rather have Google give a straight answer. Especially when there is publicity around a case. That way a lot more people would see that Google actually is mostly really reasonable, and that there is another side to the story.
This means that you pretty much need a way where the average time spent per blocking an account (including any answers and appeals if you allow them) is measured in seconds, not minutes; and the accounts that need to be blocked will use these facilities just as much, and likely more.
In addition, you generally can't simply give a straight answer in public (the only reason why they'd want to give a straight answer, due to this publicity) - reasons for blocking accounts involve either claiming that the account owner has done something shady, or involve non-public data (e.g. if child porn was transferred in emails or something like that). If you want to publish specific claims of abuse performed by someone, you need to be very thorough and careful about anything you claim (much more thorough than you want to be when choosing to block accounts - you need to be able to block accounts quickly and efficiently) or you open yourself up to all kinds of libel issues, so that can't be done as a routine customer service activity without involving lawyers, making the process even more expensive.
Zero Hedge is pro trump FAKE NEWS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because he disagrees with his views, and surely no true professor would say something he disagrees with.
I just thought it was interesting you (edit: you're not parent, I meant parent) didn't call him out by name, and I wanted to make the connection explicit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do two things: 1) I use an address on my own domain (hosted on Google Apps) as my primary email address. If Google pulls the plug on me I can point my MX records elsewhere, and won't have to worry about changing my email at countless places. 2) I use offlineimap to back up the contents of my GMail account at home. If I had to, I could load that backup into a new provider's service (or my own). I still have email fr…
Of course 1) only works until your registrar decides they don't like the content of your website. But you can back up virtually all data hosted with Google through Takeout. https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout
Don't you lose access to Takeout if your account gets closed suddenly?