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

Google have declared Droidscript is malware

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#501

Post by NateEag »

mdoms wrote: post #495
NateEag wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us realised that end users don't want to program and that they can be better protected from themselves by only allowing execution of arbitrary code when they explicitly say they want it.

Presumably those end users aren't downloading Droidscript.

Yup, that's fair for sure.

I thought the parent comment was speaking generally. Maybe I misunderstood.

Either way, I was thinking of downloading Droidscript as one way of saying "I want arbitrary code exec."

I think it's reasonable for Google to say "Most users don't understand what this implies, so if they want this they'll have to get it outside the Play Store."

That said, that doesn't actually seem to be what they're saying here.

I just think it's a reasonable stance to hold as an App Store.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#502

Post by nbardy »

sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

This stuff is on the rise. I used to be able to resolve issues with customer service And they would admit fault. It’s becoming a liability shield where no one accepts fault.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#503

Post by [deleted] »

joemi wrote: post #323
sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies. If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

[deleted]

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#504

Post by saurik »

tshaddox wrote: post #477
zepto wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically you are right. However the key here is exploiting the ambiguity. ‘We are unable to’ is a cowardly way of saying ‘we choose not to’, or ‘our policy dictates’.

And yet no one, including people in this thread who are claiming that the intent of Google's wording is to deceive, are actually the slightest bit unclear about what Google means.

It isn't about wanting to deceive, it is about their seemingly unwillingness to admit; these are related, but not at all the same. It is the same kind of semantic difference people think is really important when discussing scenarios like "you didn't misplace my item on accident, you discarded it on purpose and we both know that: I want to hear you say it out loud".

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#505

Post by Meph504 »

blacklight wrote: post #472

This is the same story that HN readers have read hundreds of times over the past couple of years, just with different subjects. Independent developer/small organization gets their app/YouTube channel/Google account shut down overnight because of false positives triggered by their system. It takes weeks and insistence with bots to just get to speak to a human. When you get to speak to a human, they usually respond wit…

The idea that there are alternatives for anyone but a fringe market without Google is pretty short sited, for example my phone warned me 4 times before it would let me install and use f-droid, each message made it sound like proceeding was compromising my phone.

It's a synthetic but effective barrier to prevent the majority of people from setting it up.

The mobile environment is as bad as chit, and company stores. This won't change by the will of the people alone.

It's hardly fair to suggest other wise.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#506

Post by Mistri »

Setting aside all of the other absurdities that Google has been throwing out here, the one thing that really gets to me is the concept that "ad fraud" is even a type of punishment for Google. I run an site with Google Ads, and users of my site have, in the past, realized this and purposefully ran autoclickers on my ads in order to get me banned from AdSense.

I don't understand how they can blame the publisher for this type of action. I understand they obviously can't pay out for the fraudulent clicks, but instead of banning the account, simply don't count the fraudulent clicks! What's so difficult about that?

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#507

Post by cwkoss »

shadowgovt wrote: post #364
cwkoss wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a service where I can host a raspi on my network and let people send it instructions about which ads should be clicked on and it gradually earns crypto over time? I'd love to make some money while fucking with ad networks... :)

I'm not sure, but I'm going to note that click-fraud already exists and Google (as well as other ad networks) have countermeasures to determine whether your raspi is likely "clicking for fun" and chargeback the advertisers for the non-human clicks. Whether those countermeasures can be reliably defeated is left as an exercise for the raspi owner. ;)

Instead of enriching particular sites, I wonder if adding a bunch of click fraud could punish others. Does 10,000 clicks being detected as fraud only invalidate those 10k clicks or does google use heuristics so that those 10k get extrapolated and punishes the valid traffic as well? Can you send enough bathwater that they'll automatically throw out the baby?

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#508

Post by inopinatus »

bipson wrote: post #355
sequoia wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If you buy a product from me with 30 day warranty and it breaks on day 31 and you contact me, I will not give you a refund because: a) I haven't agreed to do so b) I'm not bound to do so c) I don't think it's warranted in this case. But I'm not "unable" to issue a refund. In another case I may say "hm it's out of warranty but you know what, it really shouldn't have broken like that and you're a good custo…

"I can't agree with you" "I cannot continue this relationship" "I can't kill this guy" "I just can't eat meat anymore" "I cannot continue like this" These are all examples where someone clearly could for physical reasons, but they can't for other reasons they are bound to, whatever these reasons are.

cannot != unable

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#509

Post by Blikkentrekker »

bipson wrote: post #355
sequoia wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. If you buy a product from me with 30 day warranty and it breaks on day 31 and you contact me, I will not give you a refund because: a) I haven't agreed to do so b) I'm not bound to do so c) I don't think it's warranted in this case. But I'm not "unable" to issue a refund. In another case I may say "hm it's out of warranty but you know what, it really shouldn't have broken like that and you're a good custo…

"I can't agree with you" "I cannot continue this relationship" "I can't kill this guy" "I just can't eat meat anymore" "I cannot continue like this" These are all examples where someone clearly could for physical reasons, but they can't for other reasons they are bound to, whatever these reasons are.

All of the sentences you give would be quite different if “can not” were replaced with “to be unable to”.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#510

Post by da39a3ee »

blacklight wrote: post #472

This is the same story that HN readers have read hundreds of times over the past couple of years, just with different subjects. Independent developer/small organization gets their app/YouTube channel/Google account shut down overnight because of false positives triggered by their system. It takes weeks and insistence with bots to just get to speak to a human. When you get to speak to a human, they usually respond wit…

Nonsense. Google is very large and you'll find situations like this in any large sample size. There's really not much more to be said; on the whole google works great for most people. Maybe this particular case has a legitimate grievance (in which case it's a false positive but many FPs exist at scale) or maybe they're opening up programmable interfaces in a way that was never going to fly with play store.
Post reply on HN