3 ms·
> without explanation Common misconception. Let’s assume something as bad as a criminal in prison. Well, they still need their emails. Perhaps not in prison bu
by alexis_fr 7y ago
> without explanation
Common misconception. Let’s assume something as bad as a criminal in prison. Well, they still need their emails. Perhaps not in prison but at least for their recovery. Or to access their bank account. Their retirement funds. Their social security. It’s a misconception that there could be a good reason to entirely revoke any account.
Youtube is different. It’s a broadcasting tool.
- chr1 7y agoThere can be some special cases when suspending account is justified, e.g. criminal not in prison using the account for criminal activity, someone creating new account and sending spam from it or collecting phishing data. So we do not want to completely prevent companies from banning users who abuse the service and cause financial damage to the company, we want companies to not mistreat the normal users who happened to trigger a bug in some algorithm. But i was not saying that explanation alone would make suspension ok, i was saying that the lack of explanation is an aggravating circumstance in this case.
- alexis_fr 7y agoCorrect, they shouldn’t be allowed to keep using digital means to perform criminal activity. Perhaps a read-only email or receive-only would be an idea. I just wanted to make people think twice about the idea that suspending an account based on ToS is necessarily as legitimate as currently accepted.