3 ms·
They don't have to disclose how they inferred the age but they can absolutely say that they'll ban anyone under 13 from streaming. The rule must be made transpa
by 8ytecoder 8y ago
They don't have to disclose how they inferred the age but they can absolutely say that they'll ban anyone under 13 from streaming. The rule must be made transparent and clear - how they measure it and its boundaries can be somewhat opaque to aid enforcement and prevent reverse engineering
- dragonwriter 8y ago> The rule must be made transparent and clear The rule itself is transparent and clear. Whether the rule in as the basis for the action here is not. It clearly would generally be required (as due process) to make that clear, too, if Google was the government of the US or one of it's states, but they aren't. Absent a contractual obligation I have seen no evidence for, I don't see why they would be obligated to explain this, even if I might find it prerable if they would.
- 8ytecoder 8y agoAren't we all talking about how we would like it to be and not what is legal or contractual? I thought so at least. If we are talking about contract, it's all stacked against us. We have no bargaining power. We have no rights whatsoever. Google absolutely has the right to do what they want within legal boundaries. These discussions and the noise we generate is how we are flexing our muscle and accomplishing what we want from Google.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Aren't we all talking about how we would like it to be “Must”, in the post I was responding to, seems to clearly indicate otherwise. It is possible that word was poorly chosen.