451–460 of 514 posts
Gives Google, fb, twitter, et al time to ban the bots (in first 30 days of an account life), while still protecting users from ever expansive tech cos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
G employee. If you are using G to store anything important and if you do not have an offline backup or some other redundancy please reconsider.
Isn't the idea behind cloud storage to be able no to buy the actual physical storage?
It's possible he really did violate Google's "Program Policies" which are utterly ridiculous: "If storing or distributing content related to terrorism for an educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic purpose be mindful to provide enough information so viewers understand the context." So a random photo of a ute with the ISIS logo on the side might be a violation if you don't also write some commentary explaini…
My concern with actions like this is that there is rarely a clear line between what is acceptable and what's not, instead decisions are made in a highly political manner either by companies themselves or more authoritarian governments. So the question I have here is whether Google is simply respecting and enforcing national laws against owning illegal terrorist materials or are they making their own decisions about what is and isn't terrorist material?
IMO this just touches on a wider problem that in many countries simply owning concern books without a good excuse is illegal. To be charitable I suspect Google doesn't have much of an option here. If the government has classified something as terrorist material, even if Google disagrees with them doing so, Google probably should still respect national laws on not allow that material to be stored, or worse, distributed on their platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being free is not an excuse. If Google can't give a reliable free service, then they should stop offering free services. Thee way they're doing it is way unprofessional.
This is like saying the Red Cross should not be allowed to give free sandwiches to homeless people if they are made of baloney and government cheese. It's unprofessional! Either use premium meats and cheeses and artisanal bread, or don't give them any sandwiches at all.
161 comment yelling at either google or the guy for XYZ and here I am just wondering if the bloke got his tank photos back
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Your account has been re-enabled."
https://support.google.com/drive/thread/127021326/google-has...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenStreetMap can be quite good: https://www.openstreetmap.org
Do they bring in stuff like opening hours and can it do searches like "pub near me" yet?
Of course the data can only be shown if someone adds it; with OMaps you can contribute for example `opening_hours` and the pub which is non-existent in OpenStreetMap ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I pay for Google one since approx 24 months and have had surprisingly decent phone support with less than 3 clicks. PS: I tend to avoid google services, but google workplace is too damn superior
This has also been my experience. Google One will get you to the right person to get things fixed. I had a billing issue that they were able to resolve in under 24 hours. But I could see the problem if your account gets banned that has the Google One on it... Would be hard to submit a request when you can't log in.
All done entirely through a text chat.
I'm curious if "has locked my account" means just Google Drive, or if he also lost Gmail, Android functionality, Chrome profiles, Adwords, YouTube, YouTubeTV, purchased movies and tv shows, Fitbit, Nest, sites where he used federated login (DoorDash, Uber, etc). I see, for example, his YouTube channel is up, but it's associated with 'team@armouredarchives.com', and not the personal gmail account he posted in the link…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a fan of that analogy. Walmart can't brick your home thermostat, voice assistant, tv box, cable service, federated logins to Uber, DoorDash, your email account, cloud storage account, and so on.
So you think if google really thinks you're a terrorist that they are obliged to go on supporting you? There's a big difference between having no idea terrorists use your platform, and actually supporting them by enabling those you believe to be terrorists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot feasibly provide any level of acceptable human support and remain “free” with a huge user base. Meanwhile, being “free” is crucial if your actual paying customer is the advertisers. If you stop being free, you (gasp) normalize paid service. Suddenly you are conflicted and fighting two fronts, you compete with other paid services, your users can actually demand things and vote with their money, etc.
Any entity that can control an aspect of your life but doesn't give you the possibility to even talk to a human should not exist. I had to call the IRS today and with a little navigation cheat sheet, I found how to get ahold of someone with a 30 minute wait time. It sucked, but I spoke with a human that was very courteous. For a government agency, people dread it. But I at least have a ridiculous timeline to respond…
Except I believe that there’s a deeper cause here, the misalignment between the interests of the actual users and the company to whom the users aren’t actually a source of revenue except by numbers that can be shown to advertisers and investors. (Further down this goes to our expectation of free service; it was all fun and beta at first but it turned out to be a trap.)
Importantly, providing human service will address a symptom but not eliminate said misalignment—it’ll keep manifesting itself.