3 ms·

There are a couple of things that I don't get. Why are accounts suspected of TOS violations not simply put into read-only mode instead of shutting out users co

There are a couple of things that I don't get. Why are accounts suspected of TOS violations not simply put into read-only mode instead of shutting out users completely? If the identity/authorisation of the user is not in doubt it makes zero sense to not let people download their data before closing the account. This simple change would fix all the consumer related horror stories with zero cost to Google. In fact it would become cheaper for Google because people would stop pleading with them. Also, why is there no one-off paid support option that covers the cost of a human checking evidence and is expensive enough to deter mass abuse by fraudsters? Why is there no option to provide a photo ID upfront so that there is always a last resort to check whether a user is who they say they are?

thu2111 6y ago
A lot of abuse is things like posted comments. The locks are retroactive and "account disabled" is a signal to each service to hide content generated by that user. Read only mode would make sense for content that's truly private, or which can be made private. Nothing stops them allowing Google Takeout for disabled accounts, heck maybe they do these days. Paid support: 1. the optics of false positives being held to ransom to get their account back is terrible. Giving the money back isn't always easy (credit cards support this sometimes but many users don't have them). And this is made worse by: 2. many accounts aren't easily verifiable. People imagine that every Google/FB user puts their entire life on these accounts. A very small number do. For those, expensive ad-hoc processes could maybe increase the account verification rate by a little bit. But most accounts that get disabled are accounts with fake names, that use exclusively one service, etc. It's extraordinarily difficult to come up with reliable ways to verify the identity of the holder of accounts that required no identity to sign up.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  >A lot of abuse is things like posted comments. Right, but removing an offending comment can easily be done indepenently of any other action against the account. >the optics of false positives being held to ransom to get their account back is terrible. That's true and I had that thought as well, but it's clearly the lesser evil compared to stories of people losing irreplaceable data. >many accounts aren't easily verifiable. True, but as I said, users could be given an option to make their account easily verifiable.

thu2111 6y ago

A lot of abuse is things like posted comments. The locks are retroactive and "account disabled" is a signal to each service to hide content generated by that user. Read only mode would make sense for content that's truly private, or which can be made private. Nothing stops them allowing Google Takeout for disabled accounts, heck maybe they do these days. Paid support: 1. the optics of false positives being held to ransom to get their account back is terrible. Giving the money back isn't always easy (credit cards support this sometimes but many users don't have them). And this is made worse by: 2. many accounts aren't easily verifiable. People imagine that every Google/FB user puts their entire life on these accounts. A very small number do. For those, expensive ad-hoc processes could maybe increase the account verification rate by a little bit. But most accounts that get disabled are accounts with fake names, that use exclusively one service, etc. It's extraordinarily difficult to come up with reliable ways to verify the identity of the holder of accounts that required no identity to sign up.

fauigerzigerk 6y ago
>A lot of abuse is things like posted comments. Right, but removing an offending comment can easily be done indepenently of any other action against the account. >the optics of false positives being held to ransom to get their account back is terrible. That's true and I had that thought as well, but it's clearly the lesser evil compared to stories of people losing irreplaceable data. >many accounts aren't easily verifiable. True, but as I said, users could be given an option to make their account easily verifiable.