4 ms·

What part of the TOS did they violate?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chillingeffect 11y ago
There's this from [1]: "Google may also stop providing Services to you, or add or create new limits to our Services at any time." https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/
- clort 11y ago
  it doesn't seem possible to violate that term
- Terr_ 11y ago
  User-Violation != Provider-Choice
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  Yes, of course there's an ass-covering provision in there that says they can shut you down at any time, with no recourse. We'd still like to know why they did so, in this case.
  - gnu8 11y ago
    They were advocating for the interests of labor over the interests of large high tech companies. Any success that group attains against Amazon would also damage Google's interests.
    - elevenfist 11y ago
      Why has this been downvoted? Remember all the stories we've heard about Google refusing to give earned bonuses to employees who shared their salary information? What about the google exec who was blacklisted for the offhand comment that software engineers should probably unionize? We've seen plenty of evidence on HN of this sentiment. Though Google today might have changed its views.
      - gyardley 11y ago
        Probably because we have no idea why Google shut down the site - they're not always clear and it's not always obvious. Stating that Google shut this particular site down because 'they were advocating for the interests of labor over the interests of large high tech companies' is long-jumping to a completely unsupported conclusion.
        elevenfist 11y ago
        That makes sense--the comment wasn't speculative, and we do not know for sure. Given the history though it might very well be true.
        gyardley 11y ago
        It might. I don't think it passes the Occam's Razor test, though - given Google, I'm more inclined to go with 'an algorithm did something automatically somewhere.'
        true_religion 11y ago
        I don't know about Google, but many companies automatically block any resource that receives X number of DMCA or abuse letters. While a human being looks at it; they just put up a generic "this blank has been blocked for terms of service violations".
        kafkaesq 11y ago
        Or an algorithm churned out a list for human "review". And someone making $200k a year probably spent about 8 seconds thinking about whether to flush this particular site. "Can't they find someone else to do this job? My stomach aches. I hear there's a new sushi chef over the next building..."
        true_religion 11y ago
        It'd be extremely short sighted to stop providing free services for this group, given that (a) they'll make press noise about it and (b) it is extremely easy for them to set up again anywhere else. They're literally just a text web page, they don't need Google site support in anyway.
tamana 11y ago
Perhaps someone thought that the site was impersonating Amazon Corporate.
gozur88 11y ago
Don't these kinds of services usually have a bandwidth limit? Maybe they went over.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

There's this from [1]: "Google may also stop providing Services to you, or add or create new limits to our Services at any time." https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

clort 11y ago
it doesn't seem possible to violate that term
Terr_ 11y ago
User-Violation != Provider-Choice
kafkaesq 11y ago
Yes, of course there's an ass-covering provision in there that says they can shut you down at any time, with no recourse. We'd still like to know why they did so, in this case.
- gnu8 11y ago
  They were advocating for the interests of labor over the interests of large high tech companies. Any success that group attains against Amazon would also damage Google's interests.
  - elevenfist 11y ago
    Why has this been downvoted? Remember all the stories we've heard about Google refusing to give earned bonuses to employees who shared their salary information? What about the google exec who was blacklisted for the offhand comment that software engineers should probably unionize? We've seen plenty of evidence on HN of this sentiment. Though Google today might have changed its views.
    - gyardley 11y ago
      Probably because we have no idea why Google shut down the site - they're not always clear and it's not always obvious. Stating that Google shut this particular site down because 'they were advocating for the interests of labor over the interests of large high tech companies' is long-jumping to a completely unsupported conclusion.
      - elevenfist 11y ago
        That makes sense--the comment wasn't speculative, and we do not know for sure. Given the history though it might very well be true.
        gyardley 11y ago
        It might. I don't think it passes the Occam's Razor test, though - given Google, I'm more inclined to go with 'an algorithm did something automatically somewhere.'
        true_religion 11y ago
        I don't know about Google, but many companies automatically block any resource that receives X number of DMCA or abuse letters. While a human being looks at it; they just put up a generic "this blank has been blocked for terms of service violations".
        kafkaesq 11y ago
        Or an algorithm churned out a list for human "review". And someone making $200k a year probably spent about 8 seconds thinking about whether to flush this particular site. "Can't they find someone else to do this job? My stomach aches. I hear there's a new sushi chef over the next building..."
        true_religion 11y ago
        It'd be extremely short sighted to stop providing free services for this group, given that (a) they'll make press noise about it and (b) it is extremely easy for them to set up again anywhere else. They're literally just a text web page, they don't need Google site support in anyway.

tamana 11y ago

Perhaps someone thought that the site was impersonating Amazon Corporate.

gozur88 11y ago

Don't these kinds of services usually have a bandwidth limit? Maybe they went over.