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

561–570 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#561

Post by trhway »

zelon88 wrote: post #531
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…

It isn't really lying from a personal perspective either. The "person" writing the response is unable to reinstate the account as a matter of policy, which is a valid reason forbidding something in a civilized society. Likewise, by matter of a different policy the author is unable to comment on the specifics of the suspension. It could be as simple as "Google management reviewed this app and decided it cuts into the…

They are speaking on behalf of Google. So what is effectively said is "Google is unable to ..." which is clearly BS.

I mean it is like "I'm unable to return the money [as it would be against my policy to do so]".

Though it is even worse than that as Google wouldn't even say which policy was violated. Full Kafka. The fact that people still put up with this is a clear evidence of Google's monopoly position.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#562

Post by ncmncm »

tshaddox wrote: post #530
ncmncm wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not how everyone uses language. I do not use language that way. If you used language that way, you would be dishonest. It is how dishonest corporations use language. That we are aware they are dishonest does not make them less so.

It’s not dishonest because it is language used with a certain intended meaning and that intended meaning is clear to everyone including the people complaining about it. That’s precisely what normal, honest usage of language is: you have an intended meaning and you effectively convey the intended meaning.

Brazen lying does convey an intended meaning; an action that speaks louder than words, it always conveys the same meaning: "You're a fucking peasant who has to take what you get."

Sometimes that's true. Most times they hope you will believe it's true. Many people have been trained to believe it, true or not.

A business concerned you may take your custom elsewhere will not insult you this way. It is the mark of a monopolist or a crook.

I will make a point of remembering your relationship with truth.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#563

Post by gorgoiler »

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…

Plain English is a wonderful thing. I wish it were used more often.

Non-plain English is usually a flag that the person you’re dealing with is not smart.

The usage of plain English words is something we do strive to see more often. We do hope that it can be utilised more often going forward. Unfortunately at this time we advise that the occurrence of non-plain English may indicate a violation of our MTC (minimal thought capacity) guidelines.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#564

Post by x0x0 »

vaastav wrote: post #491
mike_d wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work detecting ad fraud. Publishers would do bad things, call in, and try to get their account rep to get details. Obviously I can't say "of the last 2500 ad clicks zero of them had any mouse movement over the ad before the click event" because then the publisher obviously just fixes their fraud software. This isn't specific to Google or even advertising. Every company has figured out when dealing with abus…

What about false positives? How did you account for that?

I also worked on adtech.

We viewed them as a cost of doing business. Some small accounts got nuked. :shrug: If we had to have humans investigate everything, and produce reports / interpretations that nuked customers found satisfactory, we wouldn't have been willing to service accounts under probably $40k/year.

And keep in mind the ecosystem is filthy with fraud, particularly on the low end. There very much are groups of organized thieves actively exploiting adtech.

And as @PeterisP says... look, we're not a court. We're a private business that is refusing to do further business with someone. Our right to do this was very clearly explained before the beginning of any relationship, and agreed to by that someone. If that someone doesn't like it, their recourse is to not do business with us.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#565

Post by m-p-3 »

thih9 wrote: post #460
unexaminedlife wrote: post #392

Here's a thought. One of the most frustrating things to me about this kind of thing is that Google (or any other major tech company) could just ignore me and just tell me "you're malware". I get it. Technology people cost a lot of money, so I would propose that companies who the public depend on MUST offer consulting out-of-band at an hourly (or daily?) rate. This way the real issues are squashed. Now I know that I c…

Wouldn't that encourage the big company to find more issues in apps, and then tell devs to buy consulting hours to figure out how to solve them?

That would sure beat talking to a brick wall and get stonewalled without any recourses.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#566

Post by zepto »

judge2020 wrote: post #533
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement , which can be a problem, especially when contracts reference the policy.

To clarify your comment, this is exactly what OP was referring to with > someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices

That doesn’t really change anything. It’s still their policy to change. They still decide when to review the policy.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#567

Post by nromiun »

terseus wrote: post #379
nromiun wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.passwordstore.org Here is a popular CLI app to manage passwords. I use it on my desktop, laptop and phone.

You don't need Termux for that, there are native clients for Android, I use this one: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=dev.msfjarvis....

There are native clients, but can you use git to sync the encrypted passwords with your other devices?

And that was just one example. You can also use python as a much better calculator, share files over wifi with a web server etc.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#568

Post by lmm »

judge2020 wrote: post #532
javajosh wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People will criticize no matter what you do" is a great line. It gets used a lot - not so much here, I've noticed. Probably because it doesn't address the particulars of any criticism, and instead provides a nihilistic view of the world where "real improvement" is impossible. "We're unable to" shifts responsibility to something vague, unspecific. It's like the "run around" only with this phrase you've been redirecte…

It's shifting the blame to you - something in their policies prevents them from reinstating your account without allowing you to break the contract. There's no ulterior motive, it's simply the best wording for saying that you still violate some policy.

If they want to say that they won't reinstate your account because you're violating a policy, they should say as much.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#569

Post by serial_dev »

sanxiyn wrote: post #521
mleonhard wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is 1/2 of the mobile duopoly. No app developer can avoid Google Play Store (for publishing their apps) and Firebase Cloud Messaging (for sending push notifications to their apps).

Sure they can. They just chose not to. Do not support Apple. Do not support Google. Support freedom.

And if you are a mobile developer, change career?

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#570

Post by judge2020 »

lmm wrote: post #568
judge2020 wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's shifting the blame to you - something in their policies prevents them from reinstating your account without allowing you to break the contract. There's no ulterior motive, it's simply the best wording for saying that you still violate some policy.

If they want to say that they won't reinstate your account because you're violating a policy, they should say as much.

The original email is context for the review rejection email by saying

> In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account

The rejection email isn't isolated, so when it says "unable" it's conveying the implied message "unable to reinstate your publisher account ".

Post reply on HN