4 ms·
Good God, imagine the bad publicity that comes out of that. "This is advertised as a security measure, but it's clear it's just a way to extort the user at his
by JadeNB 6y ago
Good God, imagine the bad publicity that comes out of that. "This is advertised as a security measure, but it's clear it's just a way to extort the user at his most vulnerable!"
- quadrangle 6y agoI don't know. Free service that isn't even paid for with ads or privacy-invasion, like legitimately free. If something happens on your end, you can pay them for service. What's wrong? Which is worse publicity: A) if you use this security feature, and something goes wrong on your side, you will lose your account forever B) if you use this security feature, and something goes wrong on your side, helping you get your account back will require a lot of work and due-diligence which we can't afford to do for free It's not SO different from: A) if your device fails outside the warranty, it cannot be repaired vs B) if your device fails outside the warranty, it will be expensive to repair
- JadeNB 6y ago> Which is worse publicity: I think it's not so clear. If someone tells me "I can't authenticate, and so I'm locked out of my account", that sounds like his fault. If someone tells me "I can't authenticate, and they'll let me into my account, but only if I pay them money", then that sounds like their fault. I do carefully say sounds—I recognise the underlying tech is the same in both cases; but the nature of publicity is to attach much more about appearance than to technical facts.