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

Google disabled my husband's account

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 499 posts

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#481

Post by tptacek »

nobody9999 wrote: post #330
blunte wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When this topic comes up periodically, some people comment about the difficulty of having their outgoing mail often blacklisted or automatically marked as spam when being sent to major email hosts (such as Google, MS, etc.) Have you found this to be a problem?

>When this topic comes up periodically, some people comment about the difficulty of having their outgoing mail often blacklisted or automatically marked as spam when being sent to major email hosts (such as Google, MS, etc.) Have you found this to be a problem? I had this issue a couple of times (with Comcast IIRC) in the early oughts (somehow I found myself on a RBL/DNSBL). I resolved that fairly quickly. I haven't…

Implementing DNSSEC didn't help your deliverability.

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#482

Post by cnst »

bhaile wrote: post #343
Animats wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who sued Google in small claims court over an account cancellation and won.[1] [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-i-sued-google-and-won_b_1...

The followup is equally interesting. Google filed an appeal and won. [1] [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_2...

That actually serves as a good example for the difference between Small Claims Court and Superior Court.

It might also have been a good idea to wait out until it was no longer possible to appeal the decision, before going public with the outcome.

IANAL, but I think there was still a good chance that the guy could have won an appeal if he had appropriate counsel represent his case, using appropriate discovery and other instruments to properly mount a defence.

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#483

Post by 43423434 »

> And all his data , some very important and irreplaceable (including personal photos) is held hostage with no explanation #googleaccountdisabled

The final response from them just says it was a ToS violation: https://twitter.com/miguelytob/status/1315988742545514496

So all of his husband's data, including "very important and irreplaceable" personal photos, are inaccessible due to a presumed ToS violation. I wonder that violation could be...

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#485

Post by brainfog »

bilalq wrote: post #189

It's so incredibly frustrating that no one at Google seems to care about this. They don't even acknowledge this as an issue to be addressed. It amazes me that their callousness still hasn't backfired further. I was on the receiving end of a similar issue with Google Pay Support for Android and it took weeks for Google to unblock in-app-purchase transactions, even via internal escalations from friends who work there.…

OP works at google, so at least one person at Google cares about it.

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#487

Post by ehsankia »

mcguire wrote: post #234
breakingcups wrote: post #83

It's incredibly Kafka-eqsue that you get banned for a supposed violation that you're supposed to appeal, but you don't know what you're being accused of doing. This is exacerbated by the fact that 9 out of 10 times a story like this appears it's an algorithm gone rogue which its billion-dollar shepherd assumes is infallible. The remaining 1 time it's because someone knows how to abuse reporting systems to get someone…

" The remaining 1 time it's because someone knows how to abuse reporting systems to get someone locked out on purpose. " I'm going to suggest (without any backup) that it's much more common but you simply don't hear about it.

The whole thing is based on anecdotal numbers. We have no idea how often false positives happen or at what rate. And even in those that are apparently false positives and complain, it's not always 100% clear if they're saying the truth.

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#488

Post by jdofaz »

jjav wrote: post #363
jbay808 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely think that what you're saying is true, and is part of the explanation. But another part is that the Wild West internet also had its own major issues -- roving bandits, to carry the analogy -- and these big companies did solve real problems that were only growing with time. Gmail's spam filtering. Recaptcha's bot rejection. Facebook's identity verification. Paypal's secure credit card processing. Google d…

I believe this is an overly rosy-glasses view of the current heavily centralized internet. Gmail spam filtering? Isn't particularly good. I run my own email infrastructure and I get way less spam through it than on my gmail address. And I don't do anything particularly special other than configure postfix correctly. Recaptcha? Was there ever a more hated piece of user abusive technology? Plenty of rage against it her…

You can't look up voting locations without a reCAPTCHA challenge https://recorder.maricopa.gov/pollingplace/default.aspx

Re: Google disabled my husband's account

#489

Post by jjav »

jdofaz wrote: post #488
jjav wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is an overly rosy-glasses view of the current heavily centralized internet. Gmail spam filtering? Isn't particularly good. I run my own email infrastructure and I get way less spam through it than on my gmail address. And I don't do anything particularly special other than configure postfix correctly. Recaptcha? Was there ever a more hated piece of user abusive technology? Plenty of rage against it her…

You can't look up voting locations without a reCAPTCHA challenge https://recorder.maricopa.gov/pollingplace/default.aspx

This is particularly pernicious. If a private business does it I'll hate on them but oh well, it's their business at the end of the day.

But there should be accessibility laws to prevent government agencies from blocking access to citizens/taxpayers using these proprietary technologies.

Post reply on HN