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

621–630 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#621

Post by funcDropShadow »

sequoia wrote: post #341
joemi wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

You make valid points. I believe the contradiction here lies in the exact context. The individual shop employee might be "unable" to issue a refund, due to the policy set in place by the managers of the shop. The shop as a whole is certainly able to change the policy and provide refund (unless it is out of money, of course). The individual --- phrasing the message --- might be accurate. But the customer is not interested whether the person in front of him is able to issue the refund. He is usually interested in getting the refund from the shop as a whole.

Similar arguments apply to the Google store the person or more likely the software system that composed that email might be unable to reinstate the account, but Google most definitely is. But Google is merely unwilling to do so.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#622

Post by funcDropShadow »

mike_d wrote: post #488
danudey wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We've noticed that you're violating our policies." "Which policies?" "That's none of your business." "How are we violating them?" "I'm not going to tell you." "What can we do?" "Fix the issues, and then appeal." "Which issues?" "I've said too much already."

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…

Perhaps it is just a symptom of most ad systems being fraud in general.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#623

Post by for_i_in_range »

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…

The comments created by this “unable” vs. “unwilling” matter exemplifies but one reason I love HN. I know of nowhere else I can read intelligent back-and-forth arguments in Philosophy, Linguistics, Information about a Google Ads email—-one I find of importance as, I too have received such emails from big G over the past decade... And, like DroidScript, the experience was devastating for my business. But the more painful, the better. Failure is feedback. And because of my painful past experiences with Google, it’s impossible for me to forget. It’s a case study in Diversification vs. Focus. The downside of Focus is... “A business of one is a business of none.”

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#624

Post by ce4 »

zepto wrote: post #359
bipson wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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 deliberately so, to defuse the situation and not anger the customer further. The "we are" is of the same origin. It creates the assumption that the customer is dealing with "some Google team" that made the decision, when in fact it was one person or even just a stupid algorithm.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#625

Post by aasasd »

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #489
coffeecat wrote: post #368

> In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account (Publisher Code: pub-********) and as a result it has been disabled. Because of this, the ability to serve and monetise through all products which depend on AdSense will also be disabled (for example, AdMob and YouTube). > We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be use…

PSA: "Der Process", English "The Trial", is old enough so you can read it for free on the internet, e.g. on Project Gutenberg: https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849 It's a really entertaining read. And yes, it perfectly matches this situation - right in the very first sentence already.

Note that apparently there's a late-ish ‘restoration’ that seems to correct some of Max Brod's editing decisions so that the plot is more straightforward, if that can be said of the novel. Literally the chapters' proper order is unknown.

I listened to the audiobook of that (read by Geoffrey Howard), and while the reading itself is fine, you'll want to avoid the editors' preface because it gives out some plot points and the ending. (PSA: if you make audiobooks, don't put editors' or critics' opinions anywhere before the end, even in ‘footnotes’. Only clarifying notes for unfamiliar terms.)

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#626

Post by cto_of_antifa »

antonvs wrote: post #393
bipson wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

This all depends on having free will. Otherwise, those statements could all be literally true.

excellent bait

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#627

Post by selfhoster11 »

StavrosK wrote: post #350
joemi wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it. Google can do it, they just don't want to. Hell, they can even change their policies if they want, so they aren't really "unable".

> Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it.

You can do it if you are stonger than the other person. You may not do it, according to the law.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#628

Post by selfhoster11 »

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…

> Alternatives exist nowadays for all of the products developed by a shapeless and faceless corporation that listens to nobody.

Do they exist? True. Are they "good enough" for the average person? False.

To add insult to the injury, they have nowhere near enough reach to build a network effect outside the narrow community of tech geeks or communities that are somehow underserved by the status quo (including communities built around repulsive things, which gives bad reputation to open and uncensored solutions).

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#629

Post by krageon »

ncmncm wrote: post #562
tshaddox wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mon…

> It is the mark of a monopolist or a crook.

It could just be that they know every other option will treat you in the same shitty way. I suppose you could stick that under 'crook'.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#630

Post by atat7024 »

matz1 wrote: post #448
zepto wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a dismissal that could be applied to any criticism of any corporation. Can you explain what value it adds in this specific case?

What value to add to criticize this specific case? Whether they use "unable" or "choose not too" shouldn't matter. Just treat it the same.

Holding companies to the basic standard of good customer service like we used to.
Post reply on HN