7 ms·

I think your thoughts on this are plausible, if not likely. However, the usual complete lack of communication by google is the actual problem. Perhaps droidscri

by dtx1 6y ago

I think your thoughts on this are plausible, if not likely. However, the usual complete lack of communication by google is the actual problem. Perhaps droidscripts could mitigate googles concerns, if they had the decency to explain them.

ajross 6y ago
> However, the usual complete lack of communication by google is the actual problem. Uh... Seems like the actual problem (given that scenario) is that adware is being pushed to users, not whether or not Google defended its ban in public. Complaints about customer service (from everyone, not just Google) are a dime a dozen, actual user security is clearly more important, right? Your answer presupposes a frame where Droidscript is innocent. What if it's not, and it knowingly nodded to a community of junkware being pushed to its users (again, I have no evidence!). In that case you'd want it banned without "decency", right?
- dtx1 6y ago
  Banning it first is fine. banning it first, then not giving a reply to the concerns they have is not. Even if they have reasonable believe or proof that droidscript is indeed malware, it looks like at least a chunk of their userbase uses it for legitimate usecases and the devs, who likely invested at least a few hundred hours of work in it, deserve at least some communication.
  - szopa 6y ago
    I used to work at Google, and a friend reached out to me for help – his company's app was in a similar situation, with similar communication from Google. This was a good friend from high school, so I pressed the issue using internal channels. The person handling it on Google's side was very assertive about them violating a policy, and after some back and forth I received a _vague hint_ about what was the supposed violation. I passed the hint along, and after some digging, lo and behold, it turned out one of their people had lifted someone else's images without permission, violating copyright (kudos to Google for figuring it out). My friend apologized profusely to me, to the support rep, his boss, and let the culprit go. They purged the app's assets, changed their processes, and eventually the app was reinstated. Now, this was a special situation. I had a personal relationship with the developer, and I was happy to vouch for their honesty. Yet it still turned out Google had been right all along. Now, it's a shame Google couldn't let them know what was the issue. However, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people Google support deals with are spammers. And there's a lot of them. If Google gave a detailed explanation to all of them it would mean a ton of additional work – which would create an unsustainable situation at this scale.
    - Aissen 6y ago
      > Now, it's a shame Google couldn't let them know what was the issue. However, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people Google support deals with are spammers. And there's a lot of them. If Google gave a detailed explanation to all of them it would mean a ton of additional work – which would create an unsustainable situation at this scale. I don't think that's reasonable. What if most are spammers ? Better let a few spammers in than treat someone unjustly. Why would it become unsustainable ? I've seen this argument repeated ad nauseam, but have yet to see proper proof. In this particular example, a copyright violation was detected in a image, so an automated response "someone else's image was used without permission, violating copyright" seems entirely plausible.
      - troyvit 6y ago
        Google has the scale to do this, but they also have a large enough monopoly where they don't have to, so they won't. It's not that it's unsustainable, it's that it is entirely sustainable to continue doing things this way.
        JeromeLon 6y ago
        Can you elaborate? I can see how Google can scale this automatically. But I don't see how Google can terminate, say, one million apps a day, if each termination entitles the spammer a one hour conversation with a technical representative.
        burnished 6y ago
        Make the person but the hour, say $100. It's a very different value proposition for some one saving their business vs some one trying to game a system.
        BoorishBears 6y ago
        Why does it need to cost them an hour conversation?! Look at the tone-deaf example this employee just shared. All they had to do was say in the same email that they used to ban someone "you have copyrighted images". The moment they find an infraction they could literally take a screenshot, say "the problem is X" and email it, which would incur the 5 seconds it takes to add a screenshot and say the problem you already identifies, but make a world of difference for developers. This nonsense about "it's to stop spammers" isn't about the cost, the laughably bad logic Google uses is that by identifying what rules you broke, spammers will get better at not doing stuff Google catches... As if the spammers don't already know what they did to get caught!
- pyrale 6y ago
  > In that case you'd want it banned without "decency", right? Due process isn't really a sound concept if it's only for innocent people.
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > Seems like the actual problem (given that scenario) is that adware is being pushed to users Google itself is adware.
sofixa 6y ago
But if they do, a malicious actor can use that information to circumvent their restrictions, and its their walled garden, so they have very little incentive to tell everyone exactly what they don't like.
- ben509 6y ago
  That's the claim made by Google and many other big corporations. It's plausible enough, but I haven't seen any hard evidence that it's true. Suppose it is true that these companies can't reveal their decision making because there's so much to be gained by bad actors that game these highly centralized systems. Then it seems like a larger number of smaller firms could be more transparent and still achieve the same effective level of security.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  And we have very little incentive to not complain loudly and publicly about their practices.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Okay, but this developer isn't "everyone", and there seems to be no reason not to explain in this case.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    Unless the developer decides to share on Twitter or HN or w/e, and now malicious actors know as well.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      I meant that this information is not a problem to share, and that sharing information in one case does not imply sharing it in all cases.
- Jordrok 6y ago
  I know this is standard practice for most big companies moderating lots of content, but it has always seemed like such an insane policy to me. Imagine if this were applied to actual laws enforced by the police. "You're under arrest but we won't tell you what law you've broken, because then other criminals might use that knowledge of the law to avoid being arrested. And by the way, a secret court has sentenced you to life imprisonment and all of your appeals have been denied."

by dtx1 6y ago

ajross 6y ago

> However, the usual complete lack of communication by google is the actual problem. Uh... Seems like the actual problem (given that scenario) is that adware is being pushed to users, not whether or not Google defended its ban in public. Complaints about customer service (from everyone, not just Google) are a dime a dozen, actual user security is clearly more important, right? Your answer presupposes a frame where Droidscript is innocent. What if it's not, and it knowingly nodded to a community of junkware being pushed to its users (again, I have no evidence!). In that case you'd want it banned without "decency", right?

dtx1 6y ago
Banning it first is fine. banning it first, then not giving a reply to the concerns they have is not. Even if they have reasonable believe or proof that droidscript is indeed malware, it looks like at least a chunk of their userbase uses it for legitimate usecases and the devs, who likely invested at least a few hundred hours of work in it, deserve at least some communication.
- szopa 6y ago
  I used to work at Google, and a friend reached out to me for help – his company's app was in a similar situation, with similar communication from Google. This was a good friend from high school, so I pressed the issue using internal channels. The person handling it on Google's side was very assertive about them violating a policy, and after some back and forth I received a _vague hint_ about what was the supposed violation. I passed the hint along, and after some digging, lo and behold, it turned out one of their people had lifted someone else's images without permission, violating copyright (kudos to Google for figuring it out). My friend apologized profusely to me, to the support rep, his boss, and let the culprit go. They purged the app's assets, changed their processes, and eventually the app was reinstated. Now, this was a special situation. I had a personal relationship with the developer, and I was happy to vouch for their honesty. Yet it still turned out Google had been right all along. Now, it's a shame Google couldn't let them know what was the issue. However, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people Google support deals with are spammers. And there's a lot of them. If Google gave a detailed explanation to all of them it would mean a ton of additional work – which would create an unsustainable situation at this scale.
  - Aissen 6y ago
    > Now, it's a shame Google couldn't let them know what was the issue. However, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people Google support deals with are spammers. And there's a lot of them. If Google gave a detailed explanation to all of them it would mean a ton of additional work – which would create an unsustainable situation at this scale. I don't think that's reasonable. What if most are spammers ? Better let a few spammers in than treat someone unjustly. Why would it become unsustainable ? I've seen this argument repeated ad nauseam, but have yet to see proper proof. In this particular example, a copyright violation was detected in a image, so an automated response "someone else's image was used without permission, violating copyright" seems entirely plausible.
    - troyvit 6y ago
      Google has the scale to do this, but they also have a large enough monopoly where they don't have to, so they won't. It's not that it's unsustainable, it's that it is entirely sustainable to continue doing things this way.
      - JeromeLon 6y ago
        Can you elaborate? I can see how Google can scale this automatically. But I don't see how Google can terminate, say, one million apps a day, if each termination entitles the spammer a one hour conversation with a technical representative.
        burnished 6y ago
        Make the person but the hour, say $100. It's a very different value proposition for some one saving their business vs some one trying to game a system.
        BoorishBears 6y ago
        Why does it need to cost them an hour conversation?! Look at the tone-deaf example this employee just shared. All they had to do was say in the same email that they used to ban someone "you have copyrighted images". The moment they find an infraction they could literally take a screenshot, say "the problem is X" and email it, which would incur the 5 seconds it takes to add a screenshot and say the problem you already identifies, but make a world of difference for developers. This nonsense about "it's to stop spammers" isn't about the cost, the laughably bad logic Google uses is that by identifying what rules you broke, spammers will get better at not doing stuff Google catches... As if the spammers don't already know what they did to get caught!
pyrale 6y ago
> In that case you'd want it banned without "decency", right? Due process isn't really a sound concept if it's only for innocent people.
wtetzner 6y ago
> Seems like the actual problem (given that scenario) is that adware is being pushed to users Google itself is adware.

sofixa 6y ago

But if they do, a malicious actor can use that information to circumvent their restrictions, and its their walled garden, so they have very little incentive to tell everyone exactly what they don't like.

ben509 6y ago
That's the claim made by Google and many other big corporations. It's plausible enough, but I haven't seen any hard evidence that it's true. Suppose it is true that these companies can't reveal their decision making because there's so much to be gained by bad actors that game these highly centralized systems. Then it seems like a larger number of smaller firms could be more transparent and still achieve the same effective level of security.
marcinzm 6y ago
And we have very little incentive to not complain loudly and publicly about their practices.
Dylan16807 6y ago
Okay, but this developer isn't "everyone", and there seems to be no reason not to explain in this case.
- sofixa 6y ago
  Unless the developer decides to share on Twitter or HN or w/e, and now malicious actors know as well.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    I meant that this information is not a problem to share, and that sharing information in one case does not imply sharing it in all cases.
Jordrok 6y ago
I know this is standard practice for most big companies moderating lots of content, but it has always seemed like such an insane policy to me. Imagine if this were applied to actual laws enforced by the police. "You're under arrest but we won't tell you what law you've broken, because then other criminals might use that knowledge of the law to avoid being arrested. And by the way, a secret court has sentenced you to life imprisonment and all of your appeals have been denied."