4 ms·

The automated canned answer is what rubs me the most here. There is a professor who trusted Google's Gmail and Blogspot product, gets the Axe for some violation

The automated canned answer is what rubs me the most here. There is a professor who trusted Google's Gmail and Blogspot product, gets the Axe for some violation of Terms of Service or Quality Guidelines, and does not get a clear and straight answer what specifically he did wrong, or how he can remedy the situation. I wish one of the Googlers reading this here could reach out internally what is going on here. I'd wager though that the professor's Google account did something wrong, and might be even a serial offender in Google's eyes, so as to warrant a ban. Question is though if the professor himself did something wrong.

jszymborski 9y ago
> I wish one of the Googlers reading this here could reach out internally what is going on here. Or better yet: 1) move to a reputed, paid e-mail account (fastmail, mailbox.org, tutanota, protonmail etc...) 2) there used to be baywords.com for uncensored blogs, but I think you can trust posthaven.com.
PeterisP 9y ago
In such messages, not telling how he can remedy the situation is intentional. It illustrates that their goal&decision is not that they want him to try and change some behaviour (whatever that might be) but that they want to discontinue the relationship even if the behaviour changes, or (in the case of actually malicious users that need to be banned) gets hidden or kept at a 'slightly below the boundary' level, which is not the intended result. Also, not telling what specifically he did wrong is also intentional. They have already decided that they don't want any future relationship. At that point, telling which behavior exactly went over the line is counterproductive - since it would invite that information to be challenged, and they've preemptively decided that no, they don't want to read the response or excuses or reasons, they've made a decision already; and throughly explaining and defending a decision takes much more effort than simply making one, effort that Google doesn't want to spend on every banned person.
- xpaqui 9y ago
  Very good read.
- shaqbert 9y ago
  I know it is intentional. It is the easy way out to minimize friction, potential litigation, social backlash. All short term cost. Alas, the long term cost of being opaque is lost trust. I much rather have Google give a straight answer. Especially when there is publicity around a case. That way a lot more people would see that Google actually is mostly really reasonable, and that there is another side to the story.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    An approach like that would be suitable for this case, but it doesn't and cannot scale to be suitable for the general, standard process that can work for blocking abusive accounts on Google scale. All kinds of spammers, trolls and simply abusive users are able to create many accounts (often in a semi-automated way) and create new ones when you block them. You need a way to block hundreds of thousands of such accounts every day in a cost-efficient manner, because the service is free and revenue per user - low. This applies to pretty much any free service with a large user base, by the way - all of those need ways to efficiently ban lots of accounts and can't afford to negotiate with the banned ones. This means that you pretty much need a way where the average time spent per blocking an account (including any answers and appeals if you allow them) is measured in seconds, not minutes; and the accounts that need to be blocked will use these facilities just as much, and likely more. In addition, you generally can't simply give a straight answer in public (the only reason why they'd want to give a straight answer, due to this publicity) - reasons for blocking accounts involve either claiming that the account owner has done something shady, or involve non-public data (e.g. if child porn was transferred in emails or something like that). If you want to publish specific claims of abuse performed by someone, you need to be very thorough and careful about anything you claim (much more thorough than you want to be when choosing to block accounts - you need to be able to block accounts quickly and efficiently) or you open yourself up to all kinds of libel issues, so that can't be done as a routine customer service activity without involving lawyers, making the process even more expensive.
jmkd 9y ago
"Listen! Can you smell something?" - Ghostbusters 1984 / Google 2017

jszymborski 9y ago

> I wish one of the Googlers reading this here could reach out internally what is going on here. Or better yet: 1) move to a reputed, paid e-mail account (fastmail, mailbox.org, tutanota, protonmail etc...) 2) there used to be baywords.com for uncensored blogs, but I think you can trust posthaven.com.

PeterisP 9y ago

In such messages, not telling how he can remedy the situation is intentional. It illustrates that their goal&decision is not that they want him to try and change some behaviour (whatever that might be) but that they want to discontinue the relationship even if the behaviour changes, or (in the case of actually malicious users that need to be banned) gets hidden or kept at a 'slightly below the boundary' level, which is not the intended result. Also, not telling what specifically he did wrong is also intentional. They have already decided that they don't want any future relationship. At that point, telling which behavior exactly went over the line is counterproductive - since it would invite that information to be challenged, and they've preemptively decided that no, they don't want to read the response or excuses or reasons, they've made a decision already; and throughly explaining and defending a decision takes much more effort than simply making one, effort that Google doesn't want to spend on every banned person.

xpaqui 9y ago
Very good read.
shaqbert 9y ago
I know it is intentional. It is the easy way out to minimize friction, potential litigation, social backlash. All short term cost. Alas, the long term cost of being opaque is lost trust. I much rather have Google give a straight answer. Especially when there is publicity around a case. That way a lot more people would see that Google actually is mostly really reasonable, and that there is another side to the story.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  An approach like that would be suitable for this case, but it doesn't and cannot scale to be suitable for the general, standard process that can work for blocking abusive accounts on Google scale. All kinds of spammers, trolls and simply abusive users are able to create many accounts (often in a semi-automated way) and create new ones when you block them. You need a way to block hundreds of thousands of such accounts every day in a cost-efficient manner, because the service is free and revenue per user - low. This applies to pretty much any free service with a large user base, by the way - all of those need ways to efficiently ban lots of accounts and can't afford to negotiate with the banned ones. This means that you pretty much need a way where the average time spent per blocking an account (including any answers and appeals if you allow them) is measured in seconds, not minutes; and the accounts that need to be blocked will use these facilities just as much, and likely more. In addition, you generally can't simply give a straight answer in public (the only reason why they'd want to give a straight answer, due to this publicity) - reasons for blocking accounts involve either claiming that the account owner has done something shady, or involve non-public data (e.g. if child porn was transferred in emails or something like that). If you want to publish specific claims of abuse performed by someone, you need to be very thorough and careful about anything you claim (much more thorough than you want to be when choosing to block accounts - you need to be able to block accounts quickly and efficiently) or you open yourself up to all kinds of libel issues, so that can't be done as a routine customer service activity without involving lawyers, making the process even more expensive.

jmkd 9y ago

"Listen! Can you smell something?" - Ghostbusters 1984 / Google 2017