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

641–650 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#641

Post by AtNightWeCode »

When I had a small scale business Google was difficult to work with. Practically impossible to start advertising for amounts around a couple of hundreds of dollars a month. The support organization even gave advises for the wrong services.

I still own some apps that Google Play removed because they don't fit some "programs". The thing is that the apps never opted in on those "programs".

For companies I work with that spend 1 000 000+ Euros monthly on Google services it is the opposite way around. Staff from Google more or less are fixing everything, even setting up Google Analytics reports and so on.

Google will be the tell when it is time to sell all these insanely overrated stocks that we all own.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#643

Post by zepto »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #640
IncRnd wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. In this particular case, the ambiguity is exactly that - Google didn't say what what real policy was broken or how.

Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question. The downside of business in the US: companies are by law required to make documents available on request, but they are in no way required to make that easy.

> Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question

You’d think there would be examples of people doing this, but so far I haven’t heard of them.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#644

Post by random5634 »

TheDong wrote: post #485
random5634 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be lying - and people will call you out on this, because they will find out that you have in fact issued refunds for products with expired warranties.

This level of semantics is pointless. They could write "We generally do not issue refunds for items outside of warranty" and they're back to the statement being just one level more vague, and thus more true. But in reality, both of those mean the same thing. Writing "We don't issue refunds outside of warranty periods" has an understood "excluding exceptional circumstances". Everyone knows it's there. Only people who…

The person responding at a big corporation is often unable to, for practical purposes as a result of policies other than in exceptional circumstances.

When you write in and ask them, please steal a million dollars and give it to me, while they might be able to figure out a way to steal and give it to you, for policy and job performance reasons they are unable to. They say - "I'm unable to do that for you". Who cares if they somehow could - we all understand they have chosen not to.

We are unable to reinstate your account = person responding does not have policy authority to reinstate your account and the exceptional circumstance was not identified.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#645

Post by mlyle »

javajosh wrote: post #398
CrendKing wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google chose to use the "uncowardly" wording, I'm sure someone would just post saying Google is arrogant and cocky bastard. No matter what someone will find some point to complain. Human nature.

"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…

Here, I think the concern is that the alternative wordings considered/proposed are possibly open to just as much criticism and negative readings as the original. That is, others consider it difficult to improve here.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#646

Post by vaer-k »

sequoia wrote: post #407
vaer-k wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a cashier, I am certainly "able to" just hand you the goods and let you leave without paying, but in reality due to laws, regulations and good morals I am unable to do that.

As a cashier you are not empowered to make this decision. You are not "able to" violate store policy this way and keep your job. If a store owner or manager wishes to give someone a product for free or issue a full refund, yes they are "able to" do that. The rep in TFA uses "we," referring to Google. Google is able to reinstate accounts, and The Google Ad Traffic Quality Team is able to reinstate accounts depending o…

I think you're overcomplicating things. Fine, substitute "business owner" for cashier, and the point stands. I am "able to" just hand you the goods, but my policies and morals prohibit me from doing so. They are abbreviating the longer statement, "we are unable to reinstate droidscript at this time without significantly redefining our policies"

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#647

Post by Igelau »

mackrevinack wrote: post #596
Igelau wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using YouTube less and less. The ads have become intolerable, and I had my own bad experience with their copyright violation detection. That's the easiest one for me to abandon.

ublock origin helps with the ad problem but yea ive been using it much less recently as well. there used to be a point where i would get good recommendations on the homepage but all that shows up is trash these days. i think i must have clicked on 1 short trashy video once and now google thinks thats what im really into. its similar to how annoying it is to use spotify these days and having to be really careful what…

The funny thing is I can't even vote with my dollars. Most of the ads I get are for insurance companies that have already refused to touch my century-old house with knob-and-tube wiring.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#648

Post by IncRnd »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #640
IncRnd wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. In this particular case, the ambiguity is exactly that - Google didn't say what what real policy was broken or how.

Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question. The downside of business in the US: companies are by law required to make documents available on request, but they are in no way required to make that easy.

Getting the text of the policy isn't the whole issue. As you pointed out both the policy and method of verification need to exist, or there is ambiguity.

Given the information in the article, you can't verify any of the traffic or actions that were supposed to break policy. After all Google wrote, "We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be used to circumvent our proprietary detection system, we’re unable to provide our publishers with information about specific account activity."

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#649

Post by withinboredom »

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…

This is the issue I have with macs being the “go to dev machine.” People forget there are entire lines of devices with touch screens…

Not saying this is what was happening here, or that y’all didn’t think of it; just a general observation I’ve noticed over the years.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#650

Post by Smoosh »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #622
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…

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

The expression "lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" comes to mind...
Post reply on HN