121–130 of 199 posts
Is this kind of problem widespread with google products? That is, could it be explained by a small number of bad calls from somewhere inside Google's innards?
not sure I get how people can assume Google (or any company, person, or government) owes them something. Google provides a free service (which they figured out how to support via ads). They can refuse service to anyone. In this case, google is enforcing a rule that is not even their own. Obviously there is a huge pre-teen advertising market that they cannot capitalize on because of this rule. You have knowingly broke…
In most situations I've read, the people don't so much object the rules, they object to the unfairness of them. Two factors often come into play - were the rules clearly stated and is the penalty in proportion to the 'crime'.
'Rules clearly stated' doesn't mean 'here is a 10 page 8pt font terms and conditions document we assume you read' because you clicked through a EULA apge. If your rule is going to have an impact where they will likely lose their service, that had better be upfront and unmistakable. The dad claims he didn't see such a warning and in all the Google accounts I've signed up for, I don't recall reading such a condition either (I'm sure it's there, I just don't recall ever having seen it).
Punishment fitting the crime - it's a bit like those banks which charge you a $5 fee for falling below the $4 minimum amount you have to keep in your account, and then charging you an overdraft fee, then charging you for accessing an overdraft you hadn't previously arranged, then charging you for ... etc. Or perhaps laws where 'if you aren't doing anything criminal, you should have nothing to fear about constant unwarranted surveillance, searches or whatever'. Just because a rule is broken doesn't mean it's fair game for any penalty to be applied.
In the case of this kid, losing access to all that data seems to be unfair. I get the sense that if the dad could at least retrieve the data, most of his unhappiness would be gone and he would move on.
Arguing with a 'the rules have been broken, lynch them' position, really doesn't take into account basic human behaviours - people make mistakes, you have to help them not make them (clear rules) and guiding them to the correct behaviour when they deviate (appropriate in proportion punishments).
Of course, a business doesn't have to take into account basic human behaviour - that's their right - but they rightly deserve the scorn at their lack of respect for their customers when they get called out.
B-b-but Google made this fancy video advertisement about how I can give my infant daughter a Gmail account and write to her as she grows up! Does it only work if she never uses it? You've gotta wait until you can hold a bat mitzvah to hand it off to her? This kind of chicanery is why I can only chuckle when Google announces new initiatives that require significant customer service, like selling telephones or providin…
It may feel like the Googles and the Facebooks are self-sustaining juggernauts, but customer happiness and retention is exactly the incentive machinery you are missing. Everyone plays the balance game. You can have the best customer service in the world, but my daughter is still going to cry if your moving company breaks her stuff, or your store sells us tainted dog food, or your family-run email service writes the w…
Except we're not their customers.
This is why you should take control of your own data, and not let your data in the hands of a company. Buy your own email address, set up your own blog self hosted.
Running your own shouldn't be that complicated, but it won't become easy until enough people start switching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A parent can't 'over-rule' a federal law. "Hey Mr Food-N-Liquor owner, I give you consent for you to sell my 18 year old alcohol" etc
Except, of course, that COPPA has a parental consent provision. The problem is the burden of verifiability.
Whatever happend to "If you are under 18 (or 13?), ask your parents or gaurdian for permission"? Believe that's the current Dutch regulations, not an expert though. It's quite unfair to assume that companies will keep track of this. Kids under 13 should probably have parental/monitored internet usage anyway. (Though I have to admit to having had a Fb account back when it was 18+ when I was 17. School wasn't on Fb and…
It's a US company so they have to obey COPPA, which requires verifiable consent from a parent before collecting any private information from the child and restricts marketing to that child. So, in practical terms, for Google to offer mail accounts to children under 13, they need to be able to collect faxed or mailed proof of consent from parents, have some system to process that information and tie it to the accounts…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may feel like the Googles and the Facebooks are self-sustaining juggernauts, but customer happiness and retention is exactly the incentive machinery you are missing. Everyone plays the balance game. You can have the best customer service in the world, but my daughter is still going to cry if your moving company breaks her stuff, or your store sells us tainted dog food, or your family-run email service writes the w…
It may feel like the Googles and the Facebooks are self-sustaining juggernauts, but customer happiness and retention is exactly the incentive machinery you are missing. Except we're not their customers.
And then I dug this up: http://sunpig.com/martin/archives/2011/07/03/google-made-my-...