5 ms·

> they don't give away these explanations because such explanation would hint the spammer to what they should _not_ do next time We've heard this excuse countl

by _qulr 6y ago

> they don't give away these explanations because such explanation would hint the spammer to what they should _not_ do next time We've heard this excuse countless times, but it's simply not acceptable. The foundation of our legal system is that it's better to let a criminal go than to punish an innocent person. How many innocents have to get caught in the crossfire before we start protecting them?

PaulHoule 6y ago
This isnt criminal law. This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out. There are some limits on that (e.g. a restaurant can't kick black people out) but for the most part a business that doesnt want your business doesnt have to serve you, right or wrong.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  The reason people are incensed about FAANGMP doing so is because, in their respective markets, they're monopolies. No one would care if Google banning a developer meant they could list their app through a non-Play app store with decent exposure, or a non-App Store at all. But that's not the reality we live in. So it's more like if Walmart moved into my podunk town, put all the local shops out of business, and then banned me.
  - PaulHoule 6y ago
    Hmmmm. I thought it was Apple that banned sideloading. Maybe Google kicked this guy out for the same reason they fired off their own Stadia devs.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      I don't think the "but you can" rounding error alternate Android app stores and side-loading constitute a viable developer alternative. * * Except in China, in which case it's only true for their domestic Android market
      - BlueTemplar 6y ago
        It's different for Huawei's app store ?
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      There is speculation that Google will ban sideloading in the near future, too. That is, it will extend its Advanced Protection model to mass-market Android. Then, sideloading will only be possible for that tiny minority of nerds like us who know how to use ADB and install an .apk over the command line.
      - badjeans 6y ago
        Well, and Huawei users.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > This isnt criminal law. Not yet, but that's my whole point, it needs to be: It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. You can't really compare getting kicked out of a bar with losing access to your gmail. There are no "algorithms" automatically kicking innocent people out of bars. Getting kicked out of a bar is a direct human interaction, which is exactly what I'm demanding.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>e.g. a restaurant can't kick black people out Well they can, just not for the sole reason of being black... >>This isnt criminal law. No it is Civil Tort law, but that does not mean your rights are completely removed, nor that principle does not apply >>This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out. There are some limits on that Absolutely, and those limits are normally set either by over riding civil / businessl law passed the government, or a contract entered into by 2 parties The problem with Google and many other online platforms is their ToS (their contract) is sooooooo one side that IMO it should be considered an unconscionable contract thus void and unenforeable. Also we have things like Truth in Advertising laws, many times these platforms Public messaging, and advertisement in no way match their terms of service I am fully in support of the right of a private business to choose who they want to do business with. I am not however in favor of allowing business to use marketing manipulation, false advertisement, and unconscionable contracts in the form of ClickWrapped Terms of Service to abuse the public the "mah private business" defense is a weak one, very weak, and it is telling that people defending the large companies with this defense often times do not support it in other contexts. Google has every right to choose who it does business with, but it need to make those choices in transparent, and public manner.
- msh 6y ago
  But then they should be required to refund your purchases, fx in the app store or their movie store.
- Majromax 6y ago
  > This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out. Not exactly? It's certainly not criminal law. Proof beyond reasonable doubt has no place here. But it's also not exactly the relationship between a host and guest, where the guest has no rights save what the host grants. Website terms of service purport to be contracts, so there is a contractual rather than ex gratia basis for the relationship. So, begin interpreting website terms of service as contracts of adhesion, and read in a duty for website operators to enforce those terms fairly, with a reasonable basis (on the balance of probabilities) for harmful decisions. This isn't the current law, of course, but it's not hard to imagine the law reaching that place from here.
gabipurcaru 6y ago
the legal system deals with a finite number of people; the internet enables that finite number of people to act as a potentially infinite number of entities, without a great way of disaggregating them into people. E.g. if a spammer can pretend they're 10 million different people, and each of those "people" requests an explanation, the whole system grinds to a halt. This is the reason behind a push for more KYC-like verification on these platforms (e.g. asking for IDs). But this comes at a huge privacy cost for legitimate users. So one way or another people who are real, legitimate and with good intentions somehow pay the cost of the harm that is being done on the internet. This is a hard problem. Source: am thinking/working on this sort of stuff; not representing my employer, my opinions are my own etc. etc.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Out of curiosity, what's current thinking (broad strokes) on methods to address this? My first guess would be third-party attestation of identity, with stored credential disposal on a short schedule? Essentially normal-user-verification-as-a-service?
  - gabipurcaru 6y ago
    privacy, online safety, no false positives Pick two. Different companies do different trade-offs. The optimal solution depends on how the internet community weighs each individual axis
    - PixyMisa 6y ago
      Two would be amazing. One would be nice. Currently we get zero.
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    Self-sovereign identities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sovereign_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sovereign_identity) are one attempt to address this issue.
- Majromax 6y ago

by _qulr 6y ago

PaulHoule 6y ago

This isnt criminal law. This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out. There are some limits on that (e.g. a restaurant can't kick black people out) but for the most part a business that doesnt want your business doesnt have to serve you, right or wrong.

ethbr0 6y ago
The reason people are incensed about FAANGMP doing so is because, in their respective markets, they're monopolies. No one would care if Google banning a developer meant they could list their app through a non-Play app store with decent exposure, or a non-App Store at all. But that's not the reality we live in. So it's more like if Walmart moved into my podunk town, put all the local shops out of business, and then banned me.
- PaulHoule 6y ago
  Hmmmm. I thought it was Apple that banned sideloading. Maybe Google kicked this guy out for the same reason they fired off their own Stadia devs.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    I don't think the "but you can" rounding error alternate Android app stores and side-loading constitute a viable developer alternative. * * Except in China, in which case it's only true for their domestic Android market
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      It's different for Huawei's app store ?
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    There is speculation that Google will ban sideloading in the near future, too. That is, it will extend its Advanced Protection model to mass-market Android. Then, sideloading will only be possible for that tiny minority of nerds like us who know how to use ADB and install an .apk over the command line.
    - badjeans 6y ago
      Well, and Huawei users.
_qulr 6y ago
> This isnt criminal law. Not yet, but that's my whole point, it needs to be: It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. You can't really compare getting kicked out of a bar with losing access to your gmail. There are no "algorithms" automatically kicking innocent people out of bars. Getting kicked out of a bar is a direct human interaction, which is exactly what I'm demanding.
syshum 6y ago
>>e.g. a restaurant can't kick black people out Well they can, just not for the sole reason of being black... >>This isnt criminal law. No it is Civil Tort law, but that does not mean your rights are completely removed, nor that principle does not apply >>This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out. There are some limits on that Absolutely, and those limits are normally set either by over riding civil / businessl law passed the government, or a contract entered into by 2 parties The problem with Google and many other online platforms is their ToS (their contract) is sooooooo one side that IMO it should be considered an unconscionable contract thus void and unenforeable. Also we have things like Truth in Advertising laws, many times these platforms Public messaging, and advertisement in no way match their terms of service I am fully in support of the right of a private business to choose who they want to do business with. I am not however in favor of allowing business to use marketing manipulation, false advertisement, and unconscionable contracts in the form of ClickWrapped Terms of Service to abuse the public the "mah private business" defense is a weak one, very weak, and it is telling that people defending the large companies with this defense often times do not support it in other contexts. Google has every right to choose who it does business with, but it need to make those choices in transparent, and public manner.
msh 6y ago
But then they should be required to refund your purchases, fx in the app store or their movie store.
Majromax 6y ago
> This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out. Not exactly? It's certainly not criminal law. Proof beyond reasonable doubt has no place here. But it's also not exactly the relationship between a host and guest, where the guest has no rights save what the host grants. Website terms of service purport to be contracts, so there is a contractual rather than ex gratia basis for the relationship. So, begin interpreting website terms of service as contracts of adhesion, and read in a duty for website operators to enforce those terms fairly, with a reasonable basis (on the balance of probabilities) for harmful decisions. This isn't the current law, of course, but it's not hard to imagine the law reaching that place from here.

gabipurcaru 6y ago

the legal system deals with a finite number of people; the internet enables that finite number of people to act as a potentially infinite number of entities, without a great way of disaggregating them into people. E.g. if a spammer can pretend they're 10 million different people, and each of those "people" requests an explanation, the whole system grinds to a halt. This is the reason behind a push for more KYC-like verification on these platforms (e.g. asking for IDs). But this comes at a huge privacy cost for legitimate users. So one way or another people who are real, legitimate and with good intentions somehow pay the cost of the harm that is being done on the internet. This is a hard problem. Source: am thinking/working on this sort of stuff; not representing my employer, my opinions are my own etc. etc.

ethbr0 6y ago
Out of curiosity, what's current thinking (broad strokes) on methods to address this? My first guess would be third-party attestation of identity, with stored credential disposal on a short schedule? Essentially normal-user-verification-as-a-service?
- gabipurcaru 6y ago
  privacy, online safety, no false positives Pick two. Different companies do different trade-offs. The optimal solution depends on how the internet community weighs each individual axis
  - PixyMisa 6y ago
    Two would be amazing. One would be nice. Currently we get zero.
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  Self-sovereign identities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sovereign_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sovereign_identity) are one attempt to address this issue.
Majromax 6y ago