5 ms·

My first thought when I read this was all the horror stories of people's Google accounts being closed for no obvious reason, and with no recourse (other than go

My first thought when I read this was all the horror stories of people's Google accounts being closed for no obvious reason, and with no recourse (other than going viral on social media and hoping a Googler notices.) Imagine that happening with your bank. I'm sure existing banking laws will restrict them from algorithmically banning people like this, but their reputation is bad enough to keep me away. It's the same reason I'll never use Google Domains or Google Fi - my domains and phone number are too important to lose access to.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> Imagine that happening with your bank. This already happens, a lot. Do something that generates a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report (generally, stuff that looks like money laundering) and your bank will cut you loose, and they aren't legally allowed to disclose why. Running a marijuana dispensary? Forget about a bank account.
- teddyh 7y ago
  See also what credit card companies did to Wikileaks; i.e. they simply refused all their cardholders to donate money to Wikileaks.
  - globuous 7y ago
    Did not know that... now i understand bitcoin.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Because of the numerous chargebacks associated with plenty of people using other people's credit cards to make those donations. They weren't taking a political stance. If Wikileaks supporters had used their own credit cards Wikileaks could still take donations by credit card.
- sharpneli 7y ago
  Sure. But with Google you will lose your bank account by making a comment on youtube livestream. It was here on HN few days ago. Streamer asked people to spam the chat just like in twitch, youtubes automated systems banned viewers who obliged locking them out of all google products, gmail etc. Now imagine losing also your banking due to things like that.
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    Just like one diversifies their investments, clearly it pays to diversify services you use as well. Which is the exact opposite message companies like Google push: "use us for everything, it will be convenient!" Until you lose everything in one fell swoop.
    - sharpneli 7y ago
      Precisely. I do not comment on google platforms at all because I’m so stuck with gmail due to making an account when it came out and I was young then. Whenever I have a choice I avoid their products. I’m even avoiding publishing hobby stuff on Play Store nowadays as a bad submission due to error will, you guessed it, lead to total ban. Just as you said this works against their interests. As consumers we must diversify.
    - LegitShady 7y ago
      Not diversify, just stay away from any provider with multiple services, poor customer support, and a penchant for banning accounts for code of conduct violations. Losing an email address or even access for some time will cost me money. Gmail isn't good enough that I'd risk my business over google code of conduct. Proton mail it is.
      - nkrisc 7y ago
        But any of those negative attributes could apply to any provider at any point in the future, even if they don't now. Best to actively avoid all your eggs in one basket to the extent possible.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  SARs do not automatically result in you being booted out. SARs are objective in nature and the criteria is well defined. I’d you have ever deposited more than 10k in cash or received a 25k+ wire, you probably has a SAR created for that transaction.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Wiki says it's a lot more than that. > In the United States, FinCEN requires that an SAR be filed by a financial institution when the financial institution suspects insider abuse by an employee; violations of law aggregating over $5,000 where a subject can be identified; violations of law aggregating over $25,000 regardless of a potential subject; transactions aggregating $5,000 or more that involve potential money laundering or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act; computer intrusion; or when a financial institution knows that a customer is operating as an unlicensed money services business. Just getting a $10k transfer doesn't sound like it'd trigger any of those.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      Getting a $10k transfer with other contextual information could easily make it all under one of those scenarios.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Sure, just like shooting a gun: "other contextual information" like "the bullets hit someone" makes a big difference.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Well, the bank might cut you off if you do some really weird stuff with money. Google tends to shut down your access to everything in their ecosystem for minor and arbitrary reasons, like commenting with emoji on a lifestream, or logging in to GMail after a few years and setting a mail forward.
- edoceo 7y ago
  In 2019 is loads easier for cannabis business than it was in 2014. There are state charter banks and CU that will take the business but it's a high fee account. (Pun intended)

ceejayoz 7y ago

> Imagine that happening with your bank. This already happens, a lot. Do something that generates a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report (generally, stuff that looks like money laundering) and your bank will cut you loose, and they aren't legally allowed to disclose why. Running a marijuana dispensary? Forget about a bank account.

teddyh 7y ago
See also what credit card companies did to Wikileaks; i.e. they simply refused all their cardholders to donate money to Wikileaks.
- globuous 7y ago
  Did not know that... now i understand bitcoin.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Because of the numerous chargebacks associated with plenty of people using other people's credit cards to make those donations. They weren't taking a political stance. If Wikileaks supporters had used their own credit cards Wikileaks could still take donations by credit card.
sharpneli 7y ago
Sure. But with Google you will lose your bank account by making a comment on youtube livestream. It was here on HN few days ago. Streamer asked people to spam the chat just like in twitch, youtubes automated systems banned viewers who obliged locking them out of all google products, gmail etc. Now imagine losing also your banking due to things like that.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Just like one diversifies their investments, clearly it pays to diversify services you use as well. Which is the exact opposite message companies like Google push: "use us for everything, it will be convenient!" Until you lose everything in one fell swoop.
  - sharpneli 7y ago
    Precisely. I do not comment on google platforms at all because I’m so stuck with gmail due to making an account when it came out and I was young then. Whenever I have a choice I avoid their products. I’m even avoiding publishing hobby stuff on Play Store nowadays as a bad submission due to error will, you guessed it, lead to total ban. Just as you said this works against their interests. As consumers we must diversify.
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    Not diversify, just stay away from any provider with multiple services, poor customer support, and a penchant for banning accounts for code of conduct violations. Losing an email address or even access for some time will cost me money. Gmail isn't good enough that I'd risk my business over google code of conduct. Proton mail it is.
    - nkrisc 7y ago
      But any of those negative attributes could apply to any provider at any point in the future, even if they don't now. Best to actively avoid all your eggs in one basket to the extent possible.
GhettoMaestro 7y ago
SARs do not automatically result in you being booted out. SARs are objective in nature and the criteria is well defined. I’d you have ever deposited more than 10k in cash or received a 25k+ wire, you probably has a SAR created for that transaction.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Wiki says it's a lot more than that. > In the United States, FinCEN requires that an SAR be filed by a financial institution when the financial institution suspects insider abuse by an employee; violations of law aggregating over $5,000 where a subject can be identified; violations of law aggregating over $25,000 regardless of a potential subject; transactions aggregating $5,000 or more that involve potential money laundering or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act; computer intrusion; or when a financial institution knows that a customer is operating as an unlicensed money services business. Just getting a $10k transfer doesn't sound like it'd trigger any of those.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    Getting a $10k transfer with other contextual information could easily make it all under one of those scenarios.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Sure, just like shooting a gun: "other contextual information" like "the bullets hit someone" makes a big difference.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Well, the bank might cut you off if you do some really weird stuff with money. Google tends to shut down your access to everything in their ecosystem for minor and arbitrary reasons, like commenting with emoji on a lifestream, or logging in to GMail after a few years and setting a mail forward.
edoceo 7y ago
In 2019 is loads easier for cannabis business than it was in 2014. There are state charter banks and CU that will take the business but it's a high fee account. (Pun intended)