Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 236 posts

Re: Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

#201

Post by fragmede »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #198
tremon wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Load shedding is the correct technical term for it. It's not just a South African thing either, industrial consumers in Europe have the same stipulation in their power contracts: in case of emergency, the power company (network operator) may choose to suspend power delivery to protect the grid. However, in the EU this 1) isn't a regular occurrence, and 2) the grid has a tiered system for load shedding. I can't find a…

American here--I've experienced load shedding once. The problem was a lineman started a wildfire that took out the primary source of power for the town. Until the line was repaired there was nowhere near enough power available, they directed what they had to things like the hospital etc and everyone else was in the dark. There is also the mess we currently have in California. High winds blew stuff into high power lin…

The utility is at fault because they didn't spend enough money on maintenance. As a for-profit company in an established industry, PG&E won't ever be able to "pop" like a SaaS company does, so profits and salaries for executives and shareholders have to come from somewhere. Spending less on maintenance won't bite you - until it does - but until then, thats money that can be put elsewhere like CEO pockets.

Re: Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

#202

Post by LorenPechtel »

tommilukkarinen wrote: post #16

This is the other side of the Play-store problem. The other side is the tax. Play store employee can ban your app = destroy your business at any time. The reason can be 'new policy', 'misunderstanding' or something more problematic, such as influence from your competitor to the employee. A 'power to destroy business', should not be a click away from some random employee.

And they can even do it inadvertently. I've run into multiple examples recently due to the Android file system becoming ever more locked down.

Yes, the vast majority of apps have no business writing to any location other than their own storage, and in general even reading other areas should be subject to severe restrictions.

However, there are some apps that have a *legitimate* need to be able to wander freely through the file system. Specifically, apps whose purpose in life is dealing with files.

The latest run-in I've had with this: The Goodsync Android client, which now appears to be basically useless. It's a file synchronization tool, what good is it if it can't wander where the user wants it to? Now I have to plug my phone into the computer to do the same task (the file system lockdown doesn't apply to access from the PC) that I used to be able to do simply by having the phone in the room.

Re: Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

#203

Post by ArchOversight »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #198
tremon wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Load shedding is the correct technical term for it. It's not just a South African thing either, industrial consumers in Europe have the same stipulation in their power contracts: in case of emergency, the power company (network operator) may choose to suspend power delivery to protect the grid. However, in the EU this 1) isn't a regular occurrence, and 2) the grid has a tiered system for load shedding. I can't find a…

American here--I've experienced load shedding once. The problem was a lineman started a wildfire that took out the primary source of power for the town. Until the line was repaired there was nowhere near enough power available, they directed what they had to things like the hospital etc and everyone else was in the dark. There is also the mess we currently have in California. High winds blew stuff into high power lin…

PG&E is at fault because they refused to properly maintain the power lines, and lines that had been hanging for years from the same supports where the supports failed are the cause of the fires.

See here: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/long-term-wear-found-o...

https://www.kqed.org/news/11792217/1987-report-suggested-pge...

I can't find it right now, but there was an absolutely fantastic RCA report that included all the information on the wearing down of the hooks and how this could have all been prevented.

Re: Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

#204

Post by LorenPechtel »

p_l wrote: post #72
adamcstephens wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they force binding arbitration in their terms. This is quite common and precludes you from going to court.

Which is why such terms should be illegal.

Yup. Binding arbitration clauses should be taken out with a RKEW as nuke from orbit means you're way too close.

// RKEW - Relativistic kinetic energy weapon

Re: Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

#206

Post by oarsinsync »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #151
josephcsible wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM can't unilaterally revoke a contract (and even if they tried, it'd end up in court; your production lines wouldn't just suddenly stop working one day), and there's plenty of ways to distribute games to users on PCs other than Steam.

> ARM can't unilaterally revoke a contract (and even if they tried, it'd end up in court; your production lines wouldn't just suddenly stop working one day) And the only reason Google can do that in this case is because the terms were specified as such, and ARM Holdings could do that too. > and there's plenty of ways to distribute games to users on PCs other than Steam. And there is also a plenty of ways to distribut…

> And there is also a plenty of ways to distribute Android software other than the Google Play Store, but the effect in both cases is that one's business will likely die being denied access by either.

What's the rationale behind wanting multiple appstores on iOS, if multiple appstores on Android has no positive effect for developers anyway?

Re: Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

#207

Post by Dylan16807 »

mindslight wrote: post #190
msandford wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All my reading said that the decisions ERCOT made during the weather event were all very competent. They kept the grid from collapsing, which was their job. I respectfully disagree. Demand might have been twice what supply was, but the way the load shedding was done wasn't smart at all. The rolling blackouts were done on a roughly 18-48 hour basis, i.e. if you lost power you probably lost it for at least 18 hours a…

> If demand was double what the supply was then it should have been possible to give people power for say 2 hours every 4 hours The problem is if that electricity is being used for heat, the draw of the 2 hour on periods will increase to make up for the time off. Perhaps even resulting in more total usage, because when power is on, people will set the thermostat to 80 instead of 65, anticipating the power going off a…

Only so much of the load is heating, and heaters can only draw so much current.

Even 1 hour every few would stop food from rotting and let people do important tasks.

Re: Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

#208

Post by bawolff »

wheresmycraisin wrote: post #65
bawolff wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean that thing which google controls 90% of the rendering engines for? [Yes, they have much less power, but its not exactly independence either]

Let's not go into hypotheticals about what might happen if google started... what, inserting spyware, basically, into their own open source browser engine?

The hypothetical is that they remove support for part of a web standard and screw over your app.

Which they certainly have done in the past (albeit,usually for really good reason. Google is a bit in a damned if you do damned if you dont position)

Re: Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

#209

Post by diogenescynic »

euph0ria wrote: post #53

The company I work for has forbidden the use of Google and their services such as GCP etc. due to how they treat their Play Store developers and other customer, in particular that there never seems to be any human being that you can talk to and find out what you need to do to fix the situation. We do not want the same to occur to our servers or if there is an overflow from Play Store ban to GCP etc. The business risk…

Some Google employee usually chimes in on these to provide a link to some forum where if you just follow these specific steps for one specific problem, you might be able to fix it. But it ignores everyone else who doesn't fit into that narrow range. Google has worse customer service than Comcast.

Re: Our app was banned because the button says “Report User” and not just “Report”

#210

Post by LorenPechtel »

bena wrote: post #138
CivBase wrote: post #124

> We don't allow apps whose primary purpose is featuring or hosting objectionable [User Generated Content]. [...] your app currently only includes feature to flag inappropriate users. [...] the app must provide a user-friendly, in-app system for reporting objectionable UCG. It's user generated content. How is reporting a user functionally different from reporting content? This makes me even more driven to switch to F…

The difference is the same between malice and ignorance. A user may just be wrong about something or not quite understand something. They're not trying to deliberately cause disruption, there's no need to fault the user. Remove the content, inform the user, move on. It's only a problem is a user continues to submit reported material.

Yup. I reported a message on a forum a couple of days ago. The user made a completely innocent mistake and there was nothing at all objectionable about the message--the problem is that he inadvertently doxxed himself.

Elsewhere I am a moderator on a forum and I have seen exactly the same mistake, zapped it (the errant line, I left the rest of the message alone) on the spot and PMed the user--and been thanked for doing so.

Post reply on HN