4 ms·

There's two things at stake here: 1. The letter of the service being offered 2. The spirit of the service being offered Personally, I've always thought #2 wa

There's two things at stake here: 1. The letter of the service being offered 2. The spirit of the service being offered Personally, I've always thought #2 was more important than #1. Unfortunately, #1 is often the one that gets enforced, especially when lawyers get involved, which is why legalese exists because when you know people argue from the standpoint of #1, you have to make sure there aren't any loopholes. But I'm digressing a bit here... Look, just because a company offers something "unlimited" doesn't necessarily mean it can't be abused. To argue otherwise is bad faith, IMO. We can argue over where the line is, but that's just a pointless distraction. But I think everyone would agree that storing a petabyte of data with a service that offers "unlimited" storage for $12/month is abuse.

kadoban 6y ago
I wouldn't agree that that's abuse. I'd say that it's a bad business model, and I'd be wary of a scam, but it's not abuse. A: "We'll store all your data, no limit!" B: "Ok, here's all my data." A: "Abuse!" Doesn't really make sense to me.
- esyir 6y ago
  Think of it less of legalese and more in terms of human speech and it becomes a bit more understandable why there some people consider this fine. "help yourself to the drinks" carts your entire refrigerator and larder's supply home
pessimizer 6y ago
Number 2 doesn't really exist. It simply means lying about the service you're offering when you really intend to offer a lesser service. All so you don't have to say "practically unlimited" or "virtually unlimited" in your marketing copy.
thatguy0900 6y ago
It's not abuse, they can't get the goodwill advertising value from unlimited and then call foul when people take them up on it, that's absurd. If Google doesn't think it can make money with unlimited storage for 12$ then they shouldn't offer it, not offer it then complain about customers using it too much.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Unhelpful perspective, honestly. Of course there’s a limit on anything “unlimited”, the world is finite. This is a distinction that adults don’t have to make except when they are perhaps talking to small children. And besides, it’s not like Google ever promised anyone “unlimited” anything. The contract says “unlimited, unless we decide to change something”. Getting up in arms about the literal wording while ignoring the fact that only the literal wording of the contract matters is also unhelpful.
  - causality0 6y ago
    Google disconnecting unprofitable users is not the issue. They of course have that right, as stipulated in the terms of service. The point of contention is whether it's fair to call abnormally high use "abuse" when the service is marketed as unlimited.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      If we don’t use “abuse” then the word becomes less useful and we have to find a new one to cover this scenario. This is the same usage of “abuse” as appears in the expression “abuse of process”.
      - Reelin 6y ago
        On the contrary, if we reserve the word "abuse" for situations where the ToS is actually violated then the word becomes more useful. Similarly, if we reserve the word "unlimited" for things that are actually, y'know, unlimited, then the word again becomes more useful. Flagrant disregard for commonly understood definitions of words when it's convenient to one's cause is a concrete example of a tragedy of the commons that makes a language less useful overall.
        dodobirdlord 6y ago
        The word abuse also covers scenarios where someone technically or legally has the capability or entitlement to do something, but a convention exists that they will not. This is the usage when someone is said to have “abused their privileges”, or to have engaged in “abuse of process”. It sounds like you object to the standard usage of these words, which doesn’t seem like a productive position. Olive Garden isn’t actually going to give you unlimited breadsticks either.
causality0 6y ago
It's not abuse any more than using your $500/month insurance plan to cover a $12,000/month chemotherapy treatment is abuse. Advertising unlimited storage for $12 is Google saying "We bet the vast majority of our users don't need twelve dollars' worth of storage but will pay it anyway because they want one less thing to have to think about".
- crpatino 6y ago
  On the other hand, your insurance company would have strictly (and wisely, IMHO) defined how many millions worth of chemo your $500/month plan will buy you, or specifically what kinds of treatments will it pay for, and at what rates. So, if you run into a "miracle doctor" that will charge you $1,000,000 per dose of their "miracle medicine" that "wipes away cancer, like, forever", the reasons why your claim will be denied are already stated clearly in the small print of your contract.

kadoban 6y ago

I wouldn't agree that that's abuse. I'd say that it's a bad business model, and I'd be wary of a scam, but it's not abuse. A: "We'll store all your data, no limit!" B: "Ok, here's all my data." A: "Abuse!" Doesn't really make sense to me.

esyir 6y ago
Think of it less of legalese and more in terms of human speech and it becomes a bit more understandable why there some people consider this fine. "help yourself to the drinks" carts your entire refrigerator and larder's supply home

pessimizer 6y ago

Number 2 doesn't really exist. It simply means lying about the service you're offering when you really intend to offer a lesser service. All so you don't have to say "practically unlimited" or "virtually unlimited" in your marketing copy.

thatguy0900 6y ago

It's not abuse, they can't get the goodwill advertising value from unlimited and then call foul when people take them up on it, that's absurd. If Google doesn't think it can make money with unlimited storage for 12$ then they shouldn't offer it, not offer it then complain about customers using it too much.

dodobirdlord 6y ago
Unhelpful perspective, honestly. Of course there’s a limit on anything “unlimited”, the world is finite. This is a distinction that adults don’t have to make except when they are perhaps talking to small children. And besides, it’s not like Google ever promised anyone “unlimited” anything. The contract says “unlimited, unless we decide to change something”. Getting up in arms about the literal wording while ignoring the fact that only the literal wording of the contract matters is also unhelpful.
- causality0 6y ago
  Google disconnecting unprofitable users is not the issue. They of course have that right, as stipulated in the terms of service. The point of contention is whether it's fair to call abnormally high use "abuse" when the service is marketed as unlimited.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    If we don’t use “abuse” then the word becomes less useful and we have to find a new one to cover this scenario. This is the same usage of “abuse” as appears in the expression “abuse of process”.
    - Reelin 6y ago
      On the contrary, if we reserve the word "abuse" for situations where the ToS is actually violated then the word becomes more useful. Similarly, if we reserve the word "unlimited" for things that are actually, y'know, unlimited, then the word again becomes more useful. Flagrant disregard for commonly understood definitions of words when it's convenient to one's cause is a concrete example of a tragedy of the commons that makes a language less useful overall.
      - dodobirdlord 6y ago
        The word abuse also covers scenarios where someone technically or legally has the capability or entitlement to do something, but a convention exists that they will not. This is the usage when someone is said to have “abused their privileges”, or to have engaged in “abuse of process”. It sounds like you object to the standard usage of these words, which doesn’t seem like a productive position. Olive Garden isn’t actually going to give you unlimited breadsticks either.

causality0 6y ago

It's not abuse any more than using your $500/month insurance plan to cover a $12,000/month chemotherapy treatment is abuse. Advertising unlimited storage for $12 is Google saying "We bet the vast majority of our users don't need twelve dollars' worth of storage but will pay it anyway because they want one less thing to have to think about".

crpatino 6y ago
On the other hand, your insurance company would have strictly (and wisely, IMHO) defined how many millions worth of chemo your $500/month plan will buy you, or specifically what kinds of treatments will it pay for, and at what rates. So, if you run into a "miracle doctor" that will charge you $1,000,000 per dose of their "miracle medicine" that "wipes away cancer, like, forever", the reasons why your claim will be denied are already stated clearly in the small print of your contract.