Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google disabled my husband's account

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 499 posts

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#251

Post by lotsofpulp »

bleepblorp wrote: post #195
lotsofpulp wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason these tech companies managed to get so big is because they'll cheat at anything that requires human scale. Support, moderation, taking responsibility for the content they host. They somehow managed to skirt on that just as the web was transitioning from a wild west to a somewhat ingrained, regulated place and the world is worse off for it. People willingly chose the free option and chose to not pay…

The argument that customers chose to be ripped off by opting for 'free' is not supported by evidence that paid services are any more accountable. Anyone who's had to deal with Google support for paid business accounts will tell you that the situation is barely any different for paying customers. Things might be different for very large businesses who are spending millions per month, but that's hardly relevant to how…

> Anyone who's had to deal with Google support for paid business accounts will tell you that the situation is barely any different for paying customers. Things might be different for very large businesses who are spending millions per month, but that's hardly relevant to how Google might handle email customers hypothetically paying $9.95 a month for a personal mailbox.

Then don’t pay google $10 a month. I don’t. I do the work of supporting businesses that I think deserve it. I know some businesses have monopolies that customers can’t fix by voting with their wallet, but email isn’t one of them.

> Collaborating with hostile entities is not a redeeming quality.

Using their free services and not voting for the right candidate in the market by paying for the service is collaborating with hostile entities (in the example of email where there is no monopoly and almost zero cost to switching).

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#252

Post by bilalq »

justinlloyd wrote: post #222

I had a Google Pixel phone. Less than a year old old. Treated with kid gloves. Always kept in a case. Pristine condition. An approved Google software update bricked it. This was, by all accounts, a known issue. The phone was under warranty. I sent it back. They shipped me a scratched up refurbished phone. It ran fine for a week then bricked itself due to the same software update. I sent that back. They sent me anothe…

That's honestly unacceptable. Google deserves whatever anti-trust action comes their way. It's absolutely insane that they can lock you out of your phone, email, youtube, password manager, business, and everything you've ever used sign in with google for on the whims of some buggy algorithm.

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#253

Post by Jabbles »

I remember, long, long ago (2011) there was a similar story about a Google account that was banned, and Matt Cutts himself looked into it and came back with a boring, corporate, legalease answer that was most unlike him.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2795465

The underlying reason in that instance, was the mistaken identification of childporn.

https://nhwn.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/the-thomas-monopoly-af...

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#255

Post by Karunamon »

justinlloyd wrote: post #222

I had a Google Pixel phone. Less than a year old old. Treated with kid gloves. Always kept in a case. Pristine condition. An approved Google software update bricked it. This was, by all accounts, a known issue. The phone was under warranty. I sent it back. They shipped me a scratched up refurbished phone. It ran fine for a week then bricked itself due to the same software update. I sent that back. They sent me anothe…

Isn't that last bit retaliation, and explicitly illegal on its own?

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#256

Post by luckylion »

sangnoir wrote: post #178
breakingcups wrote: post #83

It's incredibly Kafka-eqsue that you get banned for a supposed violation that you're supposed to appeal, but you don't know what you're being accused of doing. This is exacerbated by the fact that 9 out of 10 times a story like this appears it's an algorithm gone rogue which its billion-dollar shepherd assumes is infallible. The remaining 1 time it's because someone knows how to abuse reporting systems to get someone…

I'll play the devils advocate: moderating any platform is a challenging endeavor, mostly because of malicious users. Having all the rules broken down in detail allows bad actors to either get close to the line but not cross it, or abuse the system while technically not breaking any rules. As such, having very broad rules (read TOS) helps. Additionally, not having to explain exactly what was violated means that people…

> moderating any platform is a challenging endeavor, mostly because of malicious users. Having all the rules broken down in detail allows bad actors to either get close to the line but not cross it, or abuse the system while technically not breaking any rules.

Couldn't that same argument be used to support secret laws and secret courts enforcing those secret laws? After all, we're definitely seeing the problem of people going as close as possible to the line without overstepping.

I think those laws would help tremendously, but mostly by forcing everyone to be overly cautious not to break them, creating strong chilling effects. They'd stifle freedom, and so does Google's secret law system.

To minimize fallout, I think it's more useful to split up Google along services (Search, Youtube, Gmail, Office/Suite etc). You could search for double plus ungood things on Google Search then without running the risk to loose access to your emails.

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#257

Post by zeusflight »

tpoacher wrote: post #81

I've been slowly trying to decouple myself from google in the last few years (/decades) ... but I have stuff that goes back at least 2 decades that I have been lazy / hesitant, e.g. contacts on the phone (since I doubt I would have the necessary patience to import / export / sync contacts manually anymore). But ... seeing this kind of thing, I need to reconsider and at least keep a monthly backup or something ... as…

Local backup and sync for contacts and calendar can be made using vdirsyncer. mbsync or offlineimap does the same for mail. All of them can be deployed as services to do automatic sync. Some client software can use these local copies directly.

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#259

Post by cbsks »

xibalba wrote: post #221

I understand this is frustrating, but reading through this person's thread, it reads as an absolute temper tantrum. A few choice quotes: > Our lives are in a bind because of this BULLSHIT > I am out of office reconsidering whether I should work at a company that continuously escalates its attacks towards my family. > [looking for]... A company that provides a steady salary and respects me, my nationality, culture, et…

He never said that Google attacks his life or sexuality, only his family.

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#260

Post by dleslie »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #226
dleslie wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For jokes and for carrying deadly assault spoons. AFAICT, it looks to be sporting aftermarket tacticool rust. ;) https://www.foxnews.com/world/british-police-station-mocked-...

The spoon might be the most extreme part of that picture, but I wouldn't blink at seeing 90% of those in a kitchen - how are brits supposed to cut meat?

It's hard to keep track because they keep encroaching on knife ownership.

It's illegal to sell a knife to someone under 18! As a Canadian, I owned a half dozen pocket knives by the time I was 10, and took them camping and so forth.

It's illegal for an adult to carry a knife without good reason! I carry one on me all the time, because I often need one.

It blows my mind how far down the authoritarian rabbit hole they're going, rather than addressing the root causes of violence.

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

Post reply on HN