281–290 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is banned? Your first @gmail.com address? If you weren't 18, how did they know who you were?
Yes. I have not tried using a different gmail address. I am not sure if they have my SSN on record or not, it was a long time ago, I don't remember what information I gave them but I did use my real name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. That + the offense itself is rather stupid minor. The user didn't defraud people out of a lot of money, the user literally just had a few classmates click on an ad, made $80 (that I bet weren't paid out anyway, because the account got banned), and now they are banned for life. At the very worst, I would say a more fair punishment would be a ban for a year or until they reach the age of 18 (whichever comes lat…
Though I agree with your judgment of what would be more fair, for me it doesn’t extend to compelling a private entity to enter into a contract with another private entity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In which circumstances are companies not allowed to ban people for fraud? Power and water utilities I guess?
Yes, the ones people deem essential enough and monopolistic, so they get required to serve everybody. Regulated utilities, companies representing the government, companies handling infrastructure, etc.
If we were talking about gmail that would be one thing, but internet advertising as a utility is too far by far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the ones people deem essential enough and monopolistic, so they get required to serve everybody. Regulated utilities, companies representing the government, companies handling infrastructure, etc.
Water, electricity, and advertising... If we were talking about gmail that would be one thing, but internet advertising as a utility is too far by far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in the opposite boat: I told paypal I was under 18 when I was under 18, called them, they kept my account locked, but as soon as I turned 18 I was unblocked and could used my original account. And I made the account when I was 11.
I made a PayPal account when I was 17 and used it happily for 12 years. In 2021 (being almost 30 years old) I got a payment from US (I'm in the EU) and had to provide ID to PayPal. They figured out that I made my account a few months before my 18th birthday and permanently locked my account. It seems all of this is arbitrary more or less random bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would deleting the account in question help anyone, though? Or are you saying that after deleting, they would then be allowed to re-register after a ban? Isn't that just isomorphic to demanding Free Ban Evasion for All?
>How would deleting the account in question help anyone, though? Or are you saying that after deleting, they would then be allowed to re-register after a ban? The problem described in the post is that the user has a shadow, inaccessible disabled account that they can't do anything about, forever, and that's a problem. >Isn't that just isomorphic to demanding Free Ban Evasion for All? I think it would be isomorphic to…
They did, though. They straight up asked the kid if he was 18, and he lied and said "yes". I don't know what you want here, you want Google to... protect it's customers from their own fraud? Does any other industry do that?
(full disclosure: I work there, but on open source firmware and know nothing about Adsense)
On the other hand, The kid did lie. From the Google Security Department perspective, this person is a threat actor.
You mean Google didn't really check and punishes a minor for his lifetime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made a PayPal account when I was 17 and used it happily for 12 years. In 2021 (being almost 30 years old) I got a payment from US (I'm in the EU) and had to provide ID to PayPal. They figured out that I made my account a few months before my 18th birthday and permanently locked my account. It seems all of this is arbitrary more or less random bullshit.
What if you filed a legal request for all the information Paypal has on you, then for deletion of that information? This is permitted by EU law, is possible in most EU countries and should fix the permaban issues for most cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The escape hatch is the parent opening the account in their own name. Companies don't have a choice here: Someone under 18 can not enter into a contract, there's nothing really they can do.
They have a choice. They could ban him until he's 18 or 5 years lapse whichever is longer. It's not black and white and doesn't need to be for life. I know the google guy who informed him he was banned for life has no power over that though. This is a straight up decision from much higher up than his pay grade. So he informed the person and locked it. It's all he could really do. I hope the internet rage-brigade does…
Is it really? At the very least he can refuse to lock/resolve the question and quit. Perhaps not something to reasonably expect for a single customer. Perhaps he really needs that job to survive. But the notion that you are not responsible for your companies bad behavior that you are part of just because you don't make the decisions is absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. That + the offense itself is rather stupid minor. The user didn't defraud people out of a lot of money, the user literally just had a few classmates click on an ad, made $80 (that I bet weren't paid out anyway, because the account got banned), and now they are banned for life. At the very worst, I would say a more fair punishment would be a ban for a year or until they reach the age of 18 (whichever comes lat…
Though I agree with your judgment of what would be more fair, for me it doesn’t extend to compelling a private entity to enter into a contract with another private entity.
However in this case you don't even need to do that - just make it illegal for such services to keep information on minors for longer than $period. If they can't identify you they can't deny you service while still indiscriminately providing service to everyone else.