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

Google have declared Droidscript is malware

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#341

Post by sequoia »

joemi wrote: post #323
sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies. If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

I disagree. If you buy a product from me with 30 day warranty and it breaks on day 31 and you contact me, I will not give you a refund because: a) I haven't agreed to do so b) I'm not bound to do so c) I don't think it's warranted in this case.

But I'm not "unable" to issue a refund.

In another case I may say "hm it's out of warranty but you know what, it really shouldn't have broken like that and you're a good customer, so I'll give a refund anyway." I can do that because I am able to issue a refund.

As for their policy, they are both the authors and interpreters of their own policy, so the "my hands are tied" argument is pure BS. If they are unable to reinstate accounts, why do they have an appeals process at all?

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#342

Post by georgeecollins »

joemi wrote: post #323
sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies. If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

Yes, but it is a dodge. Like an apology wrapped in an excuse. I read this post and I made a mental note to try to never say I am "unable" when I am unwilling. It's corporate speak that I have used myself.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#343

Post by pmlnr »

arp242 wrote: post #82
eplanit wrote: post #25

It's seriously time to re-embrace the idea of ownership and control of our devices, and reject Android and iOS altogether. Developing for those platforms has become worse and more restrictive over the years, and this kind of crap is now just everyday news. How good are Pinephones[1]? Are there better alternatives? [1] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

The biggest problem with "alternative" platforms is just the lack of app support. I used to have a Nokia N9; great phone. But it didn't support WhatsApp and I was out on the loop on the WhatsApp chat all my other coworkers were in. Then there's things like banking apps, flight check-in apps, food ordering apps, dating apps, etc. etc. Can you do without those? Sure, of course. But if I want to order food where I live…

> The biggest problem with "alternative" platforms is just the lack of app support.

Websites.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#344

Post by burnished »

JeromeLon wrote: post #306
troyvit wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has the scale to do this, but they also have a large enough monopoly where they don't have to, so they won't. It's not that it's unsustainable, it's that it is entirely sustainable to continue doing things this way.

Can you elaborate? I can see how Google can scale this automatically. But I don't see how Google can terminate, say, one million apps a day, if each termination entitles the spammer a one hour conversation with a technical representative.

Make the person but the hour, say $100. It's a very different value proposition for some one saving their business vs some one trying to game a system.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#345

Post by whycombinater »

joemi wrote: post #323
sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies. If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRgsfHc8kqU&ab_channel=Harry...

https://youtu.be/Y1QQSFlm0dI?t=81

The audience is laughing because this notion is ridiculous.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#346

Post by dabbledash »

joemi wrote: post #323
sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies. If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

Usually when I say that I can’t do something I mean it’s not within my power to do it.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#347

Post by franga2000 »

eplanit wrote: post #25

It's seriously time to re-embrace the idea of ownership and control of our devices, and reject Android and iOS altogether. Developing for those platforms has become worse and more restrictive over the years, and this kind of crap is now just everyday news. How good are Pinephones[1]? Are there better alternatives? [1] https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

Ditching Android is not a good solution - see the application support problem on Linux for why. What we need is a serious and well-funded Android "distro" that lifts Google's dumb restrictions and reimplements Google's proprietary APIs for compatibility. MicroG is doing very well on that second part, but due to lack of funding still has far too many holes.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#348

Post by shkkmo »

munificent wrote: post #166
szopa wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at Google, and a friend reached out to me for help – his company's app was in a similar situation, with similar communication from Google. This was a good friend from high school, so I pressed the issue using internal channels. The person handling it on Google's side was very assertive about them violating a policy, and after some back and forth I received a _vague hint_ about what was the supposed vio…

Caveat: I work at Google but know nothing about this area and my opinion here is entirely personal. > which would create an unsustainable situation at this scale. Financial sustainability may have something to do with it, but I suspect the larger issue is that providing too much detail essentially trains malware authors to route around the company's defenses. Imagine the Play Store as a castle which has both good tow…

I'm sorry, but the "security" excuse is BS. You don't have to tell users what automated tool flagged them or how their violation was discovered.

You do have an ethical obligation to inform them of what policy was violated with sufficient detail that a good actor has a reasonable chance of complying with your policy.

I think that this should be required of any company that to provides publicly available goods/services, not just Google. This doesn't just help with monopolies, but also makes it harder to hide racism and censorship behind opaque policies.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#349

Post by Closi »

joemi wrote: post #323
sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies. If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

> They are unable due to their policies

Unable due to their policies, which they wrote and they can change (and which they often choose not to follow anyway).

I agree with OP - it’s not that Google isn’t able to do this, it’s that Google doesn’t want to.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#350

Post by StavrosK »

joemi wrote: post #323
sequoia wrote: post #301

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account. I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilli…

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies. If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it. Google can do it, they just don't want to.

Hell, they can even change their policies if they want, so they aren't really "unable".

Post reply on HN