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

631–640 of 665 posts

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#631

Post by StavrosK »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #627
StavrosK wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> 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. You can do it if you are stonger than the other person. You may not do it, according to the law.

And because an outside force compels me, I am unable to.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#632

Post by zepto »

lelanthran wrote: post #589
judge2020 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original email is context for the review rejection email by saying > In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account The rejection email isn't isolated, so when it says "unable" it's conveying the implied message "unable to reinstate your publisher account ".

You all make good points in favour of both sides of the argument, so I upvoted every post in this thread. The only takeaway is that there is no obviously correct wording for google to make when wielding the banhammer.

> The only takeaway is that there is no obviously correct wording for google to make when wielding the banhammer.

This is true on kh because ‘correct’ is both a relative term and a black and white one, which doesn’t apply to the situation we are discussing. You have to decide what you value, and perfection is not an option, so there is indeed no ‘correct’ wording, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t better wordings, nor does it make the one they chose ok.

It seems to me that there are many ways Google could be more honest and less opaque.

It seems like quite a few people here (myself included) value those traits and would like to see Google adopt them.

That won’t immunize them from criticism or make everyone agree with their judgements, but it would still be better.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#633

Post by zepto »

tshaddox wrote: post #517
saurik wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't about wanting to deceive, it is about their seemingly unwillingness to admit; these are related, but not at all the same. It is the same kind of semantic difference people think is really important when discussing scenarios like "you didn't misplace my item on accident, you discarded it on purpose and we both know that: I want to hear you say it out loud".

But, as others have mentioned, it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" like this. It's simply not reasonable to interpret this messaging as intended to claim that it's physically impossible to do the thing. I totally understand being upset with Google's policy and decision here, but this particular criticism about the wording they used is simply disingenuous.

> it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that"

It’s standard corporate doublespeak. Just because a lot of corporations do something by habit, doesn’t make it disingenuous to critique.

Google in particular tried to be a different and less evil kind of company.

We know that ship has sailed, but it doesn’t mean the values that it spoke to are any less important.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#634

Post by Spivak »

rlayton2 wrote: post #602
randallsquared wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Our ML system registered a hit on your account, which is almost always associated with policy violations, but we don't know what the trigger was, or why that set of data about your account is almost always associated with policy violations... it just is."

"and we know the ML system always works, because those that get banned from it never get their account reinstated"

"and we know that it doesn't always work and don't care because despite our ML model being opaque and hard to introspect when we tested it against our database of known bad actors it performed better than both human review and our old heuristic based system."

There is an opposite side to this. If you have a human appeal process your accuracy drops to min(ml_model, humans) and I have bad news about which one of these is smaller.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#635

Post by tqi »

sequoia wrote: post #341
joemi wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 custo…

This is like being pedantic about usage of the word "literally"...

Just because this usage of "unable" doesn't match your strict personal definition doesn't mean they are wrong. People generally agree and understand what "unable" means in this context, so you're kinda SOL.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#636

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #424
zepto wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can always either change or make an exception to the policy. A policy is just their way of doing things, written down. It’s not magic.

That's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement , which can be a problem, especially when contracts reference the policy.

Changing your policy to be more friendly to all users moving forward isn't selective enforcement.

To reiterate, "policy" is just explicitly specifying "that's just the way we do things around here"

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#637

Post by munchbunny »

gorgoiler wrote: post #563
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…

Plain English is a wonderful thing. I wish it were used more often. Non-plain English is usually a flag that the person you’re dealing with is not smart. The usage of plain English words is something we do strive to see more often. We do hope that it can be utilised more often going forward. Unfortunately at this time we advise that the occurrence of non-plain English may indicate a violation of our MTC (minimal thou…

> Non-plain English is usually a flag that the person you’re dealing with is not smart.

I don't think it's that they're not smart. It's that they have a separate agenda, often deflecting responsibility. People often use this sort of indirect wording even without consciously realizing it.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#638

Post by ticviking »

zerd wrote: post #274
ticviking wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I would. At much much much lower prices

Leasing usually isn't cheaper than owning long term though. So your total cost will most likely be higher.

Hence my point about the price needing to be much much lower.

It's not that I want to own or lease most random stuff I use. I want the use of a particular item. Since owning is cheaper I own a lot of stuff.

If my local library or maker space had better tool and book availability I would own fewer tools sitting in the shed used for one project and not with the effort to resell

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#639

Post by TheRealPomax »

zepto wrote: post #412
TheRealPomax wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. "We reviewed your case, and based on our policy, we cannot reinstate your account. Because if we did, we'd be the ones violating our policy, and someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices, rather than merely complaining about overly restrictive policies that are blindly enforced throug…

They can always either change or make an exception to the policy. A policy is just their way of doing things, written down. It’s not magic.

They can certainly change it, thus changing what they can do, in the future, but they can't make exceptions. A policy, written down, becomes a contract as far as the law's concerned. Contract changes are fine (provided all parties involved are then allowed to cancel the contract), but contract violation is not.

Re: Google have declared Droidscript is malware

#640

Post by TheRealPomax »

IncRnd wrote: post #436
TheRealPomax wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. "We reviewed your case, and based on our policy, we cannot reinstate your account. Because if we did, we'd be the ones violating our policy, and someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices, rather than merely complaining about overly restrictive policies that are blindly enforced throug…

> If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. In this particular case, the ambiguity is exactly that - Google didn't say what what real policy was broken or how.

Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question. The downside of business in the US: companies are by law required to make documents available on request, but they are in no way required to make that easy.
Post reply on HN