4 ms·
> However, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people Google support deals with are spammers. If Google gave a detailed explanation to all of them
by kentonv 6y ago
> However, it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of people Google support deals with are spammers. 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.
You describe a situation where Google was going to put a whole company out of business -- probably ending your friend's job, as well as that of many other honest people -- rather than give them the information they needed to fix the problem. And you think this is reasonable, because it would be "a ton of additional work" for Google? We just have to accept people losing their livelihoods as collateral damage in the war on spammers?
Imagine if we applied the same logic to the government. If they think you committed a crime, they just toss you in jail and don't have to tell you why. They could catch a lot more criminals if they didn't have to waste time prosecuting them!
No, we need a Habeas Corpus for tech companies. If you are banned, you have to be told why. Make it a law. I don't care if it results in more spam.
- richardfey 6y agoI liked all of your comment, but this passage in particular: > No, we need a Habeas Corpus for tech companies. If you are banned, you have to be told why. Make it a law. I don't care if it results in more spam. The whole ordeal seems like an attempt to educate app developers by whipping, where the victims have to guess what they did wrong.
- specialist 6y agoYes, and: Efficient markets require fair & impartial courts, tort, transparency, accountability. Etc.
- cannabis_sam 6y ago.. and P=NP
- cannabis_sam 6y ago“The opaque email responses will continue until morale improves.”