3 ms·

You seem to have an exclusively legalistic interpretation of language that doesn’t necessarily account for casual, real-life use of speech and writing.

temp667 5y ago
The person is complaining about google's policies. Google's policies follow this accepted language. You are allowed to have donate now buttons to accept donations on or even off platform if you are a charity. If you want to make up your own words, and then be outraged that google and others don't agree with you - fine. We are living in alternative facts / outrage world these days. But if someone calls you out on this - and points out that plenty of scammers also try to thread this needle in lots of ways, maybe worth a minute of real life reflection.
- bashinator 5y ago
  Well now I’m curious. Do you suppose if the app instead of “donation”, said “I’m giving you the gift of this software. If you’d like to return the favor, click here” it would fall within Google’s TOS? I personally kinda doubt it; I think the actual outcome Google wants is to prevent alternative means of monetizing an app, and being strict about the semantics of what a “donation” is, is mostly a means to that end.
  - temp667 5y ago
    No, that would be outside of TOS because it is messaging which would lead to a non Google Play billing payment flow. "may not lead users to a payment method other than Google Play's billing system. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, leading users to other payment methods via: .... [lots edited out] links, messaging, advertisements or other calls to action". The TOS specifically notes that things like tax deductible donations, payments for gambling, and physical services such as cruises and airfare ARE permitted to link outside of google play because google does not want to deal with those through Play in most cases. I think you are actually banned from using Google for those. So the key is a tax deductible donation - and a payment, even voluntary, to an individual in the US at least is not a tax deductible donation in almost all cases. My sense is google is merchant of record, and can't control the delivery of those other types of services (cruises, airfare, wire transfers, gambling etc) and the related liabilities the way it can with digital stuff and apps - so Lyft would be allowed to bill directly and if a lyft driver assaults you and sues, google was not seller or payment handler.
willseth 5y ago
This is tantamount to suggesting that language should always make sense regardless of context, which is absurd. Homonyms could not even exist!

temp667 5y ago

The person is complaining about google's policies. Google's policies follow this accepted language. You are allowed to have donate now buttons to accept donations on or even off platform if you are a charity. If you want to make up your own words, and then be outraged that google and others don't agree with you - fine. We are living in alternative facts / outrage world these days. But if someone calls you out on this - and points out that plenty of scammers also try to thread this needle in lots of ways, maybe worth a minute of real life reflection.

bashinator 5y ago
Well now I’m curious. Do you suppose if the app instead of “donation”, said “I’m giving you the gift of this software. If you’d like to return the favor, click here” it would fall within Google’s TOS? I personally kinda doubt it; I think the actual outcome Google wants is to prevent alternative means of monetizing an app, and being strict about the semantics of what a “donation” is, is mostly a means to that end.
- temp667 5y ago
  No, that would be outside of TOS because it is messaging which would lead to a non Google Play billing payment flow. "may not lead users to a payment method other than Google Play's billing system. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, leading users to other payment methods via: .... [lots edited out] links, messaging, advertisements or other calls to action". The TOS specifically notes that things like tax deductible donations, payments for gambling, and physical services such as cruises and airfare ARE permitted to link outside of google play because google does not want to deal with those through Play in most cases. I think you are actually banned from using Google for those. So the key is a tax deductible donation - and a payment, even voluntary, to an individual in the US at least is not a tax deductible donation in almost all cases. My sense is google is merchant of record, and can't control the delivery of those other types of services (cruises, airfare, wire transfers, gambling etc) and the related liabilities the way it can with digital stuff and apps - so Lyft would be allowed to bill directly and if a lyft driver assaults you and sues, google was not seller or payment handler.

willseth 5y ago

This is tantamount to suggesting that language should always make sense regardless of context, which is absurd. Homonyms could not even exist!