3 ms·

> I can only assume that this isn't the result of a human flagging Pushbullet like this; I expect it's an automated system There isn't. Take a quick look at st

> I can only assume that this isn't the result of a human flagging Pushbullet like this; I expect it's an automated system There isn't. Take a quick look at stupid popular apps on the Play Store, almost all of them require completely unnecessary permissions literally in conflict with the bullet points that Google listed in their email to PushBullet. Also note that almost all of them have 10-50x the amount of downloads compared to PushBullet. The odds just spell bullshit. Their "automated scanning process" didn't just happen to pick the popular app that gives users more control and platform independence from Google. Because really that's what it's about, PushBullet is dangerous to a closed ecosystem like Google wants. (also, I believe that given the permission system, and if an automated scanning system was in fact in place, it should be super easy to exactly point out what is wrong, like compiler errors. and being granular permissions, there's no "gaming the system" about it, you either get the permission or you don't) > If you're going to run a platform like this and capriciously threaten to kick people off of it, it's pretty antisocial to hide the reasons why. I don't believe Google gets to be "antisocial", they're not a person. They exist since ~20 years and are made of shifting people, none of whom really control it. As far as it can be "antisocial", I wonder if it even vaguely "realises" that its interchangeable parts are the same entities as its consumables.

foolmeonce 6y ago
That's a bit extreme. Google sends out emails every few months about new policy that may get checks. They definitely aren't very good at doing automatic checks that are relevant or have much relationship with the policies they publish.. But that is a bit different than strategically attacking specific apps beyond choosing the X thousand most popular apps to get the most users affected per presumed threat. (I get various compliance spam and ignore it and among things with small numbers of users and/or owners who lost interest a small percentage a year fall out of the stores. The only differences are that we don't care enough to forward the threats Google sends us and no one would bother to amplify them.)

foolmeonce 6y ago

That's a bit extreme. Google sends out emails every few months about new policy that may get checks. They definitely aren't very good at doing automatic checks that are relevant or have much relationship with the policies they publish.. But that is a bit different than strategically attacking specific apps beyond choosing the X thousand most popular apps to get the most users affected per presumed threat. (I get various compliance spam and ignore it and among things with small numbers of users and/or owners who lost interest a small percentage a year fall out of the stores. The only differences are that we don't care enough to forward the threats Google sends us and no one would bother to amplify them.)