6 ms·

They can remove your YouTube account, app, entire Google account or even your website at any time and you can only make guesses why did that happen, because the

by ttt0 6y ago

They can remove your YouTube account, app, entire Google account or even your website at any time and you can only make guesses why did that happen, because they always make the rules really vague and it's never clear what is or is not allowed. And even when they do admit the mistake and get you back up, they still won't explain anything and nothing is ever fixed. Thank you Google, very cool.

superzamp 6y ago
At this point they, and other giants, successfully demonstrated that they cannot regulate themselves over these random terminations and that the public needs to step in.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Rather than further secure their market positions by forcing them to treat their customers well, why not replace the entire company by competition from less insane providers?
  - gambiting 6y ago
    No. Absolutely hard disagree. To give you an example of this working well: In some countries(UK) regulators recognized that you cannot operate in the society without a bank account. So a rule was made that a bank cannot close down your bank account without a court order. They can block your access to nearly all other services, block all of your cards, but at the end of the day, you cannot lose access to your basic bank account and money in that account unless a judge says otherwise. The solution to the problem of "every citizen needs a bank account to function" wasn't "let the free market sort it out". It was to force banks to maintain access to a basic checking account no matter what until a court order is given. In my opinion, Google should be forced to do exactly the same - no matter what, you should never lose access to your google account without a court order. It might be placed under severe restrictions(no new uploads, restriction to storage etc) pending review, but until a lawful court agrees that you broke the rules somehow and google is free to kill your account? They should be forced by law to keep providing their service.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      And how helpful is that when they can stop card access? That seems like a perfect example of a regulation that ended up being almost entirely useless.
      - brigandish 6y ago
        They actually supply a type of card that is limited in what it can do, and you can always go in and use the counter service.
      - ambivalence 6y ago
        What's up with the loaded rhetoric? You can still do most things without card access: - keep standing orders flowing; - transfer your money out through the mobile app or website; - withdraw money from an ATM using an authenticator (nation-wide example in Poland: https://www.blik.com/); https://www.blik.com/); - if push comes to shove, go to a branch and withdraw your money in person.
        yellowapple 6y ago
        > What's up with the loaded rhetoric? How is that rhetoric loaded? What rhetoric? > if push comes to shove, go to a branch and withdraw your money in person. When I was starting out in my IT career, the nearest branch of my credit union was more than an hour away by car, and for much of that time I didn't even have a car. If my credit union had restricted my account to "thou must visiteth a branch and speaketh with a representative", I would've been screwed - on a level of "freezing and starving". > transfer your money out through the mobile app or website; Assuming this wouldn't be one of the first things shut off alongside the card.
        gambiting 6y ago
        >>When I was starting out in my IT career, the nearest branch of my credit union was more than an hour away by car But then.....why did you open an account with a bank without a branch nearby? Not being funny, but that's your own failing, not of the bank.
doliveira 6y ago
I am now left wondering about the .dev gTLD, isn't it owned by Google?
- edoceo 6y ago
  Yep. Adjust risk factors as necessary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dev
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
zepearl 6y ago
One one hand I understand that any site can be hacked anytime and that that can have huge repercussions, therefore I'm happy if Google reacts quickly when it detects something like that (if I were the owner of such a site I would be even thankful to Google to limit the damage). One the other hand it seems, based on this and many other posts, that there isn't much communication from Google to its "clients" to 1) explain what's wrong and 2) quickly/directly ask for a reevaluation (e.g. after the problem has been fixed, to question the validity of the problem, etc)? I understand that there might be bad actors around doing everything on purpose on their website/app and that therefore #1 (basically telling the bad people why they got detected) would be a bit of a gray zone, but at least #2 should be a no-brainer (e.g. in the case of the previous ".ass"-files-case anybody in any support desk could have immediately whitelisted that "problem")?
- ezconnect 6y ago
  Google doesn't need to explain to him anything because he is not their client. That's the problem we have now. Google have become judge and executioner. They are also decide what gets distributed because they own a browser used by most users. The solution to this is just stick to the basic, let the browser be a browser and the search engine just a search engine.
teclordphrack2 6y ago
The reason it is made vague is because there are people who will set their site up so it technically passes the rules but it certainly does not pass the spirit of what was trying to be done by the rules. By making it opaque they do get to cast a wider net and keep those a$$hats from harming others but they certainly catch other fish with that net.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > there are people who will set their site up so it technically passes the rules but it certainly does not pass the spirit of what was trying to be done by the rules. Then that's a problem with the rules, which need clarified to better encode the "spirit" thereof. Hiding the rules entirely is a poor substitute for that.
- himujjal 6y ago
  Really. You really sound like first making up your mind on something and trying to then justify it. What are your saying?

by ttt0 6y ago

superzamp 6y ago

At this point they, and other giants, successfully demonstrated that they cannot regulate themselves over these random terminations and that the public needs to step in.

whatshisface 6y ago
Rather than further secure their market positions by forcing them to treat their customers well, why not replace the entire company by competition from less insane providers?
- gambiting 6y ago
  No. Absolutely hard disagree. To give you an example of this working well: In some countries(UK) regulators recognized that you cannot operate in the society without a bank account. So a rule was made that a bank cannot close down your bank account without a court order. They can block your access to nearly all other services, block all of your cards, but at the end of the day, you cannot lose access to your basic bank account and money in that account unless a judge says otherwise. The solution to the problem of "every citizen needs a bank account to function" wasn't "let the free market sort it out". It was to force banks to maintain access to a basic checking account no matter what until a court order is given. In my opinion, Google should be forced to do exactly the same - no matter what, you should never lose access to your google account without a court order. It might be placed under severe restrictions(no new uploads, restriction to storage etc) pending review, but until a lawful court agrees that you broke the rules somehow and google is free to kill your account? They should be forced by law to keep providing their service.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    And how helpful is that when they can stop card access? That seems like a perfect example of a regulation that ended up being almost entirely useless.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      They actually supply a type of card that is limited in what it can do, and you can always go in and use the counter service.
    - ambivalence 6y ago
      What's up with the loaded rhetoric? You can still do most things without card access: - keep standing orders flowing; - transfer your money out through the mobile app or website; - withdraw money from an ATM using an authenticator (nation-wide example in Poland: https://www.blik.com/); https://www.blik.com/); - if push comes to shove, go to a branch and withdraw your money in person.
      - yellowapple 6y ago
        > What's up with the loaded rhetoric? How is that rhetoric loaded? What rhetoric? > if push comes to shove, go to a branch and withdraw your money in person. When I was starting out in my IT career, the nearest branch of my credit union was more than an hour away by car, and for much of that time I didn't even have a car. If my credit union had restricted my account to "thou must visiteth a branch and speaketh with a representative", I would've been screwed - on a level of "freezing and starving". > transfer your money out through the mobile app or website; Assuming this wouldn't be one of the first things shut off alongside the card.
        gambiting 6y ago
        >>When I was starting out in my IT career, the nearest branch of my credit union was more than an hour away by car But then.....why did you open an account with a bank without a branch nearby? Not being funny, but that's your own failing, not of the bank.

doliveira 6y ago

I am now left wondering about the .dev gTLD, isn't it owned by Google?

edoceo 6y ago
Yep. Adjust risk factors as necessary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dev https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dev
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

zepearl 6y ago

One one hand I understand that any site can be hacked anytime and that that can have huge repercussions, therefore I'm happy if Google reacts quickly when it detects something like that (if I were the owner of such a site I would be even thankful to Google to limit the damage). One the other hand it seems, based on this and many other posts, that there isn't much communication from Google to its "clients" to 1) explain what's wrong and 2) quickly/directly ask for a reevaluation (e.g. after the problem has been fixed, to question the validity of the problem, etc)? I understand that there might be bad actors around doing everything on purpose on their website/app and that therefore #1 (basically telling the bad people why they got detected) would be a bit of a gray zone, but at least #2 should be a no-brainer (e.g. in the case of the previous ".ass"-files-case anybody in any support desk could have immediately whitelisted that "problem")?

ezconnect 6y ago
Google doesn't need to explain to him anything because he is not their client. That's the problem we have now. Google have become judge and executioner. They are also decide what gets distributed because they own a browser used by most users. The solution to this is just stick to the basic, let the browser be a browser and the search engine just a search engine.

teclordphrack2 6y ago

The reason it is made vague is because there are people who will set their site up so it technically passes the rules but it certainly does not pass the spirit of what was trying to be done by the rules. By making it opaque they do get to cast a wider net and keep those a$$hats from harming others but they certainly catch other fish with that net.

yellowapple 6y ago
> there are people who will set their site up so it technically passes the rules but it certainly does not pass the spirit of what was trying to be done by the rules. Then that's a problem with the rules, which need clarified to better encode the "spirit" thereof. Hiding the rules entirely is a poor substitute for that.
himujjal 6y ago
Really. You really sound like first making up your mind on something and trying to then justify it. What are your saying?