Earlier quoted context omitted.
My mom’s Gmail account got banned for no reason whatsoever last week. Since then they removed her recovery number and 2FA as they ‘looked suspicious’. Access to nearly 20 years of emails, photos and docs gone in an instant. It’s been particularly painful because she used Google to log in to everything too, including for health records that she needs. There is no way of contacting anyone at Google about it and apparen…
“… There is no way of contacting anyone at Google about it …” Of course there is: you pay your lawyer to send correspondence by registered mail. Then you have them send followup correspondence a week or so later. You will absolutely get a response.
Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended
231–236 of 236 posts
Re: Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended
#232Banning the entire account rather than AI access is wildly user hostile. People have years of emails and calendars on their accounts. And then you get to fight the support bots and eventually go to the actual unofficial Google support - asking hn whether anyone knows someone with a pulse at Google.
Re: Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended
#233Re: Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended
#234Re: Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended
#235Can someone point to a mirror of this X link ? It wants me to install the app to read something that I could/should be able to read using my browser.
Re: Google Antigravity TOS: 3rd party usage can get Google account suspended
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're saying is super reasonable and the ways I think about it too sometimes. I have two thoughts on this and I'm not sure how clear I can be. 1. I think sometimes the shape of a technology pushes a shape of society. But there's a feedback loop here. The like 15 years of tech were dominated by ad-tech which lead to algorithmic feeds that made engagement the game. This had an accidental effect of enraging people…
(Sorry for the delay in replying. There is definitely an analog of Gresham's law for discussions) I completely agree about the feedback loops. They're mutual feedback loops though, and causality can go both ways. We're currently stuck with a strong attractor of surveillance-based software. It's certainly possible to escape from the local minimum, but requires a lot of activation energy to escape it (compelling functi…
I don't think shying away from governing hierarchies are pessimistic but maybe you see it that way because I didn't explain myself well.
It's important to separate something. Hierarchy and cooperation are not the same thing. Though I guess in instantiation at the human level, they seem to mostly be.
But multi-cellular creatures are made up of cooperating cells wherein there is no centralized power. It seems like nature has borne out that this configuration is robust.
And, if you squint, markets are a similar thing. I love markets. They're a way that people can make individual choices about what they can offer their neighbor and so be rewarded by their neighbor in this positive sum way. It is, by nature, decentralized (though regulation exists in modern markets and sometimes work well for a time as a patchwork kludge over a janky system).
Anyway, there's trust networks there and lots of interesting stuff we could tangent about. But the point is that markets are a decentralized thing have been around longer than governments. We don't need monopolies on violence to cooperate if social norms forbid violence. Of course, the violent ones hacked the system and so we needed to defend against that, so we picked the violent winner, and governance is born.
This is also an interesting path turning point that, given our current technology and understanding, if we started from zero, you could wonder if we could develop in a way without a single entity with a monopoly on violence because we handle this sort of threat somehow else.
There's that whole debt and reciprocity thing that is even older than markets - hell, animals do it. But I wonder about the scalability of that. I don't believe david graeber's idea that the abstraction of reciprocity was the root of all evil but that's like one take and maybe we could make better reciprocity networks.
This is all rambly. I hope my point comes across though. We lack imagination for configurations that can be that are cooperative without the cancer of centralization.
It would be nice if someone starts imagining this for us. It's very hard to imagine a world so different from our own. But we know, by nature, that it is possible. There are a lot of cells in my body - it's not a scale issue.
My take is that cultural values/social norms are the real thing that makes society. We think it's all these things like laws, money, and borders. But those things are secondary fiction memes to the primary fiction meme of values.
The thing about values are that they are very resistant to centralized control by nature.