Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely is, which is why what they're doing looks fine on internal metrics. Imagine I make a laser bug zapper and install them at every fast food joint in the US. 9999 out of 10000 times it zaps an insect. 1 out of 10000 times the laser fires it blinds a child. I could wax all I want want about the 99.99% accuracy, the _relative_ accuracy won't mean a thing to the million people blinded by it. When there is a m…
Usually cost/benefit arguments do consider the benefits. If I kill millions of mosquitos and reduce malaria fatalties by 100 per million population while blinding 1 per million, then unless there is a better way to kill the bugs we should consider this approach. I don't really see how this line of argument really translates to this issue with Google. First of all I should have acknowledged that imprisoning data is al…
I don't think it's that big a leap to say that it is unlikely that there is any plausible reduction in spam from an automated facility that justifies the kind of extreme harm and disruption created by locking an honest user out of their decades long email-- which might be more damaging to them then a home fire--, with zero effectual recourse. Yet it happens because the cost of the spam is on google's 'balance sheet' while the damage to the user is not.
So that is the sort of argument that I'm making. I think google is creating damages wildly out of proportion to any plausible benefit, but it works out for them currently because the damages are externalities.
Were Google a more conventional company the threat of litigation (even litigation they'd ultimately win) would help internalize some of these costs, but Google has grown to such a size and scope that even the federal government finds prosecuting them to be extremely daunting.