4 ms·

Google offered unlimited storage of private documents and people used it. I see nothing wrong with that. If this became an issue then goggle should have set lim

Google offered unlimited storage of private documents and people used it. I see nothing wrong with that. If this became an issue then goggle should have set limits or made it count to your google account storage. There is no point offering "Unlimited storage" and then stop people from using it.

sdenton4 7y ago
I went to a restaurant that offered free refills last week. I brought a 50 gallon barrel with me, and then took home a whole barrel of soda... (Or, in other words, somehow all sense of fair play and decorum go out the window once we're anonymous on the internet. And this is why we can't have nice things.)
- air7 7y ago
  That's in interesting point. It's not so much that the sense of fair play is lost, but that it changes. Somehow, we lose track of the human factor when we don't see it and focus solely on "logic" or our own self interests. In this example "unlimited", which actually means "unlimited within reason" works perfectly well (even though it isn't well-defined) in a human setting. We naturally and instinctively understand that people don't mean "take as many as you want" or "make yourself at home" literally. But on the internet, if it's a data/storage plan, we might get angry at anything less than infinity, because logically > "There is no point offering Unlimited storage and then stop people from using it." I see this also apply to our "moral ease-of-use" for adblockers/paywall bypassers/torrents etc.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It's not like this. Google doesn't like storing files as e-mails with base64-encoded binaries because it competes with Google Drive. That solution - the Gmail Drive - existed long before Google Drive, and even had a nice tool that mounted your gmail storage as a network drive on Windows! GMail storage isn't unlimited, so I always considered it fair - they give me a couple of GB of free storage, it's up to me how I use it. As for the unlimited offers and restaurants, people don't do that too much in meatspace because they'd get thrown out by security for obvious abuse. But they do it a little, like e.g. couples buying one cup and using it together. There are also natural limits to how much soda you can consume or use, even if you got away with taking home a whole barrel (sodas lose gas fast)... (And note that the "decorum" and "fair play" doesn't apply in meatspace either, when it comes to e.g. retail chains making mistakes in their promotions, like that one famous case where (AFAIR) Lidl in Poland offered refunds for products you didn't like if you brought back the box, whether or not the product was still inside. You can imagine what happened next.) However, ultimately, it's the company that's playing tricks on people with "unlimited" marketing, and they deserve the problems they get when people take it at face value (offering something with no intent to fulfill that offer is plainly dishonest). Reminds me of a mobile vendor that offered USB modem with free unlimited LTE for $notmuch, back when LTE was a somewhat new thing (~2012). A friend bought the subscription to test it out, and discovered that the "unlimited" LTE was actually throttled past 20th or 30th GB. Guess which company I never considered buying Internet services from since? It's not because of customers that we can't have nice things. It's because of companies using dishonest marketing tactics and then acting surprised when some people call them on their bluff. It isn't so hard to say "no hard limits <small>but we throttle you past XX $unit, and there are following restrictions on use...</small>", except treating customers with respect is anathema to modern business.
  - dboreham 7y ago
    "Unlimited" is a marketing term with a very specific meaning. It means "limited".
    - aepiepaey 7y ago
      "Limited, but we won't tell you the limit."
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Yeah, and "tasty" is a specific marketing term meaning "poisonous", which I won't explain to you when I offer you a tasty sandwich. Marketing does not create reality, no matter how much marketers may think otherwise. Words have meanings, you can't unilaterally attach some new one to a word and expect people to agree with it.
      - criddell 7y ago
        Marketing doesn't create reality, but the courts do and sometimes what a word means in a legal context is different than in conversation. It usually hinges on some standard of being reasonable.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Sure, and marketing which expects people to use their standard of "being reasonable", while the service being offered under a different standard of "being reasonable", is essentially bait and switch. That only a small subset of customers notice it doesn't make it more OK, it only shows the company is not dumb.
        criddell 7y ago
        I don't know if I'd call it a bait-and-switch. Gmail is an email service and the purpose is to send and receive emails. Getting upset that you can't use it as a general purpose storage service isn't reasonable (IMHO). There was no baiting in this regard.
mft_ 7y ago
The phrase "this is why we can't have nice things" applies. Life shouldn’t be about trying to take advantage of people or things to the maximum possible amount.
SkyBelow 7y ago
It is like a box of donuts at the office. They are free. You can take one. Come back for a second if any are left. But walk off with the whole box and you will be judged for it. Do so repeatedly and it will become a problem enough for disciplinary actions to be considered. Edit: If I were to try to formalize the rules, I would say that the donuts are free for everybody in the office but not for anybody in the office. If you are acting as a group with everybody in the office, which means behaving according to certain social rules involving fairness and sharing, then you count as an everybody and can have a donut. Once you cease to do so you no longer count as an everybody and cannot have a donut. If you have special rights to the donuts, taking them won't get you judged. For example, the person who brings in the donuts can take the remainder home at the end of the day or may choose to give the rest to someone to take home, and there won't be any judgment. Further exceptions can exist on an office by office basis. Tying this back to Google, I think there is one notable difference. Google is a private company, not a person, and is engaging in an extremely formal relationship by way of EULA/ToS/Privacy Policy/etc. Companies abusing loopholes in contracts are far more tolerated by people abusing loopholes in our shared social contract. That is likely why my reaction at someone exploiting unlimited Google docs storage is far more 'meh' than someone violating social norms in the office.
- trickstra 7y ago
  Tragedy of the commons

sdenton4 7y ago

I went to a restaurant that offered free refills last week. I brought a 50 gallon barrel with me, and then took home a whole barrel of soda... (Or, in other words, somehow all sense of fair play and decorum go out the window once we're anonymous on the internet. And this is why we can't have nice things.)

air7 7y ago
That's in interesting point. It's not so much that the sense of fair play is lost, but that it changes. Somehow, we lose track of the human factor when we don't see it and focus solely on "logic" or our own self interests. In this example "unlimited", which actually means "unlimited within reason" works perfectly well (even though it isn't well-defined) in a human setting. We naturally and instinctively understand that people don't mean "take as many as you want" or "make yourself at home" literally. But on the internet, if it's a data/storage plan, we might get angry at anything less than infinity, because logically > "There is no point offering Unlimited storage and then stop people from using it." I see this also apply to our "moral ease-of-use" for adblockers/paywall bypassers/torrents etc.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
It's not like this. Google doesn't like storing files as e-mails with base64-encoded binaries because it competes with Google Drive. That solution - the Gmail Drive - existed long before Google Drive, and even had a nice tool that mounted your gmail storage as a network drive on Windows! GMail storage isn't unlimited, so I always considered it fair - they give me a couple of GB of free storage, it's up to me how I use it. As for the unlimited offers and restaurants, people don't do that too much in meatspace because they'd get thrown out by security for obvious abuse. But they do it a little, like e.g. couples buying one cup and using it together. There are also natural limits to how much soda you can consume or use, even if you got away with taking home a whole barrel (sodas lose gas fast)... (And note that the "decorum" and "fair play" doesn't apply in meatspace either, when it comes to e.g. retail chains making mistakes in their promotions, like that one famous case where (AFAIR) Lidl in Poland offered refunds for products you didn't like if you brought back the box, whether or not the product was still inside. You can imagine what happened next.) However, ultimately, it's the company that's playing tricks on people with "unlimited" marketing, and they deserve the problems they get when people take it at face value (offering something with no intent to fulfill that offer is plainly dishonest). Reminds me of a mobile vendor that offered USB modem with free unlimited LTE for $notmuch, back when LTE was a somewhat new thing (~2012). A friend bought the subscription to test it out, and discovered that the "unlimited" LTE was actually throttled past 20th or 30th GB. Guess which company I never considered buying Internet services from since? It's not because of customers that we can't have nice things. It's because of companies using dishonest marketing tactics and then acting surprised when some people call them on their bluff. It isn't so hard to say "no hard limits <small>but we throttle you past XX $unit, and there are following restrictions on use...</small>", except treating customers with respect is anathema to modern business.
- dboreham 7y ago
  "Unlimited" is a marketing term with a very specific meaning. It means "limited".
  - aepiepaey 7y ago
    "Limited, but we won't tell you the limit."
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Yeah, and "tasty" is a specific marketing term meaning "poisonous", which I won't explain to you when I offer you a tasty sandwich. Marketing does not create reality, no matter how much marketers may think otherwise. Words have meanings, you can't unilaterally attach some new one to a word and expect people to agree with it.
    - criddell 7y ago
      Marketing doesn't create reality, but the courts do and sometimes what a word means in a legal context is different than in conversation. It usually hinges on some standard of being reasonable.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Sure, and marketing which expects people to use their standard of "being reasonable", while the service being offered under a different standard of "being reasonable", is essentially bait and switch. That only a small subset of customers notice it doesn't make it more OK, it only shows the company is not dumb.
        criddell 7y ago
        I don't know if I'd call it a bait-and-switch. Gmail is an email service and the purpose is to send and receive emails. Getting upset that you can't use it as a general purpose storage service isn't reasonable (IMHO). There was no baiting in this regard.

mft_ 7y ago

The phrase "this is why we can't have nice things" applies. Life shouldn’t be about trying to take advantage of people or things to the maximum possible amount.

SkyBelow 7y ago

It is like a box of donuts at the office. They are free. You can take one. Come back for a second if any are left. But walk off with the whole box and you will be judged for it. Do so repeatedly and it will become a problem enough for disciplinary actions to be considered. Edit: If I were to try to formalize the rules, I would say that the donuts are free for everybody in the office but not for anybody in the office. If you are acting as a group with everybody in the office, which means behaving according to certain social rules involving fairness and sharing, then you count as an everybody and can have a donut. Once you cease to do so you no longer count as an everybody and cannot have a donut. If you have special rights to the donuts, taking them won't get you judged. For example, the person who brings in the donuts can take the remainder home at the end of the day or may choose to give the rest to someone to take home, and there won't be any judgment. Further exceptions can exist on an office by office basis. Tying this back to Google, I think there is one notable difference. Google is a private company, not a person, and is engaging in an extremely formal relationship by way of EULA/ToS/Privacy Policy/etc. Companies abusing loopholes in contracts are far more tolerated by people abusing loopholes in our shared social contract. That is likely why my reaction at someone exploiting unlimited Google docs storage is far more 'meh' than someone violating social norms in the office.

trickstra 7y ago
Tragedy of the commons