11 ms·

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due t

• sequoia 6y ago
  I disagree. If you buy a product from me with 30 day warranty and it breaks on day 31 and you contact me, I will not give you a refund because: a) I haven't agreed to do so b) I'm not bound to do so c) I don't think it's warranted in this case. But I'm not "unable" to issue a refund. In another case I may say "hm it's out of warranty but you know what, it really shouldn't have broken like that and you're a good customer, so I'll give a refund anyway." I can do that because I am able to issue a refund. As for their policy, they are both the authors and interpreters of their own policy, so the "my hands are tied" argument is pure BS. If they are unable to reinstate accounts, why do they have an appeals process at all?
  • bipson 6y ago
    "I can't agree with you" "I cannot continue this relationship" "I can't kill this guy" "I just can't eat meat anymore" "I cannot continue like this" These are all examples where someone clearly could for physical reasons, but they can't for other reasons they are bound to, whatever these reasons are.
    • zepto 6y ago
      Technically you are right. However the key here is exploiting the ambiguity. ‘We are unable to’ is a cowardly way of saying ‘we choose not to’, or ‘our policy dictates’.
      • CrendKing 6y ago
        If Google chose to use the "uncowardly" wording, I'm sure someone would just post saying Google is arrogant and cocky bastard. No matter what someone will find some point to complain. Human nature.
        • zepto 6y ago
          That seems like a dismissal that could be applied to any criticism of any corporation. Can you explain what value it adds in this specific case?
          • matz1 6y ago
            What value to add to criticize this specific case? Whether they use "unable" or "choose not too" shouldn't matter. Just treat it the same.
            • atat7024 6y ago
              Holding companies to the basic standard of good customer service like we used to.
        • javajosh 6y ago
          "People will criticize no matter what you do" is a great line. It gets used a lot - not so much here, I've noticed. Probably because it doesn't address the particulars of any criticism, and instead provides a nihilistic view of the world where "real improvement" is impossible. "We're unable to" shifts responsibility to something vague, unspecific. It's like the "run around" only with this phrase you've been redirected to /dev/null. I'm glad the OP said something.
          • judge2020 6y ago
            It's shifting the blame to you - something in their policies prevents them from reinstating your account without allowing you to break the contract. There's no ulterior motive, it's simply the best wording for saying that you still violate some policy.
    • nxpnsv 6y ago
      Yep they are all lies. I _almost_ can't agree with you more.
    • antonvs 6y ago
      This all depends on having free will. Otherwise, those statements could all be literally true.
      • cto_of_antifa 6y ago
        excellent bait
    • hossyposs 6y ago
      Yes, but without those reasons these are just ambiguous unprovable statements. Without reasoning we cannot tell if the auxiliary verb is even correct. “I can’t eat meat anymore because it’s illegal”, really should read “I shouldn’t eat meat anymore” as although it’s a bad idea you’re still physically capable of eating meat. I think the issue we’re talking about is ambiguity, and this really just emphasises the point.
    • pseudalopex 6y ago
      Those express moral convictions or imminent psychological crises. A corporation experiences neither.
    • inopinatus 6y ago
      cannot != unable
    • Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      All of the sentences you give would be quite different if “can not” were replaced with “to be unable to”.
    • KMag 6y ago
      There's an important distinction between externally and internally imposed restrictions. (In the case of killing, hopefully both restrictions are in play.) The language is intentionally deflecting responsibility by obscuring the source of the restriction. They're trying to reduce argument by giving the impression responsibility exists in some other unidentified channel.
  • fuyu 6y ago
    If I were to ask you if I could get a refund for an item out of warranty, what language would you use to refuse me? I'm struggling to come up with a response that doesn't use the terms "unable" or "can't" that wouldn't come across as fairly rude.
    • akiselev 6y ago
      "We do not issue refunds for items with expired warranties" Notice that the policy is clearly stated in the rejection and there is no ambiguity.
      • random5634 6y ago
        You would be lying - and people will call you out on this, because they will find out that you have in fact issued refunds for products with expired warranties.
        • TheDong 6y ago
          This level of semantics is pointless. They could write "We generally do not issue refunds for items outside of warranty" and they're back to the statement being just one level more vague, and thus more true. But in reality, both of those mean the same thing. Writing "We don't issue refunds outside of warranty periods" has an understood "excluding exceptional circumstances". Everyone knows it's there. Only people who are pedantic to the point of uselessness will argue about this, and you'll find out that the courts generally have little sympathy for that. All human languages so far are inexact. Math is probably the most exact language we've invented for communicating ideas, but languages that the general public knows are all inexact. If the correct thing is communicated unambiguously, that's already a success, even if a pedantic person can say "I know you mean that you don't 'generally' do it, so the absolute there is a lie", the fact that the pedant can point it out means they absolutely understood what was being conveyed correctly.
          • judge2020 6y ago
            This level of semantics is indeed pointless - to clarify, your comment supports both what you wrote and Google's use of the "unable" wording in their response; they are unable to reinstate your account <without introducing liability to lawsuits regarding unfair business practices> <and except in exceptional circumstances>.
  • zelon88 6y ago
    It isn't really lying from a personal perspective either. The "person" writing the response is unable to reinstate the account as a matter of policy, which is a valid reason forbidding something in a civilized society. Likewise, by matter of a different policy the author is unable to comment on the specifics of the suspension. It could be as simple as "Google management reviewed this app and decided it cuts into the bottom line of some service offered by Google." If the low-level person writing emails is aware of this fact then it would be reasonable to understand why they are unable to share the true motivation for suspension. What is more likely is the low level email writer looks up the account and the reason for suspension listed is, verbatim "Ad fraud - <3 Mgmgt." Then the low-level person would not be stretching the truth at all when they say they are unable to reinstate the account and are unable to provide more information.
    • KMag 6y ago
      > It isn't really lying from a personal perspective either. The "person" writing the response I agree that the person writing isn't lying, but the language is deflecting responsibility away from management choices. The clearest wording from the prospective of the writer would be "I am unable because we are unwilling...". I agree with those who feel it's important to keep a distinction between externally imposed limitations and internally imposed limitations.
    • trhway 6y ago
      They are speaking on behalf of Google. So what is effectively said is "Google is unable to ..." which is clearly BS. I mean it is like "I'm unable to return the money [as it would be against my policy to do so]". Though it is even worse than that as Google wouldn't even say which policy was violated. Full Kafka. The fact that people still put up with this is a clear evidence of Google's monopoly position.
  • funcDropShadow 6y ago
    You make valid points. I believe the contradiction here lies in the exact context. The individual shop employee might be "unable" to issue a refund, due to the policy set in place by the managers of the shop. The shop as a whole is certainly able to change the policy and provide refund (unless it is out of money, of course). The individual --- phrasing the message --- might be accurate. But the customer is not interested whether the person in front of him is able to issue the refund. He is usually interested in getting the refund from the shop as a whole. Similar arguments apply to the Google store the person or more likely the software system that composed that email might be unable to reinstate the account, but Google most definitely is. But Google is merely unwilling to do so.
  • tqi 6y ago
    This is like being pedantic about usage of the word "literally"... Just because this usage of "unable" doesn't match your strict personal definition doesn't mean they are wrong. People generally agree and understand what "unable" means in this context, so you're kinda SOL.
  • lilfatbitch 5y ago
    wow, you are an asshole
• georgeecollins 6y ago
  Yes, but it is a dodge. Like an apology wrapped in an excuse. I read this post and I made a mental note to try to never say I am "unable" when I am unwilling. It's corporate speak that I have used myself.
• whycombinater 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRgsfHc8kqU&ab_channel=HarryChicken https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRgsfHc8kqU&ab_channel=Harry... https://youtu.be/Y1QQSFlm0dI?t=81 https://youtu.be/Y1QQSFlm0dI?t=81 The audience is laughing because this notion is ridiculous.
• dabbledash 6y ago
  Usually when I say that I can’t do something I mean it’s not within my power to do it.
• Closi 6y ago
  > They are unable due to their policies Unable due to their policies, which they wrote and they can change (and which they often choose not to follow anyway). I agree with OP - it’s not that Google isn’t able to do this, it’s that Google doesn’t want to.
• StavrosK 6y ago
  Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it. Google can do it, they just don't want to. Hell, they can even change their policies if they want, so they aren't really "unable".
  • thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it. If you tried hard enough, you could probably manage this.
    • _carbyau_ 6y ago
      Stainless Steel Rat comes to mind. :-)
  • selfhoster11 6y ago
    > Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it. You can do it if you are stonger than the other person. You may not do it, according to the law.
    • StavrosK 6y ago
      And because an outside force compels me, I am unable to.
• r00fus 6y ago
  Using a less accurate phrase instead of a more accurate one because it benefits/shields you is a dark pattern. Were the implied statement made explicit, then yes it'd be accurate.
• tolmasky 6y ago
  A pet peeve of mine is the deferral and personification of "policy". Policy is just your opinion that you happen to have written down in the past. It holds no power over you, you write the policy! It's not like the US law, which while also just words on paper, is enforced (and often chosen by) other people over you. Me deferring to the law (vs. my own opinion) has meaning because they can be different. The way we really know this is that we repeatedly see policy broken all the time -- again, because it's just a pretend separate agent, not an actual entity that wields power over you. It does in fact ultimately just serve to disguise an active action as a passive one "Oh, I checked the book of rules (that I wrote) and it said I can't let you do that. Shucks. Man, that book, its a tough negotiator. Nothing we can do I'm afraid." I think it is their right to write the rules, but just own up to it. Say "we aren't doing it because we don't want to," that's the truth, because if they did want to, they would, regardless of the "policy".
  • judge2020 6y ago
    The "policy" is indeed the law, in the form of a contract - you or Google breaking that contract could mean you end up in a civil lawsuit that would cost you tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars assuming it isn't frivolous. Instead of actually taking everyone to court and scaring off developers, they simply give themselves the option to terminate the contract if you break it instead of going to court. The thing is that they can't bend the policy for certain players without being sued for unfair business practices/anti-competitive behavior, which is why Google has to enforce it on everyone if they want to enforce it on anyone.
    • tolmasky 6y ago
      Plenty of companies get sweetheart deals from Google and Apple. Your contract has no bearing on another company’s. That’s why I can’t sue Apple for giving Netflix and Amazon a more favorable deal than 30%. It’s also why I can’t sue Target for making an exception and letting someone else return something one day later than their return policy explicitly allows but not doing that for me. Furthermore, most contracts you sign (click) with Google and such usually have a catch-all clause that says everything is up to their discretion and they can change their minds on most of these subjective judgement calls.
• dalbasal 6y ago
  You're right, but I think you're not doing justice to the OP's complaint. You're right that this isn't solely a faceless corporate thing. People say "I can't" when "I won't" for the same reasons Google did. We even ask "can you watch my kids?" Again, the same reasons drive the language. It lets a false but face-saving implication stand: You will pick up my kids if you can and if you won't than I'll assume you couldn't. We also "ask" our employees or waitresses to do things, even though it's technically an order. All this is good and fine. Language is supposed to embed cultural niceties that speak to our values and smooth relations between people. The Orwellian shit comes in when it comes in. These cross from figures of speech into euphemization and the Orwellian point is that these things run deep. A bank manager is literally unaware of where her own prerogatives, organisational norms, hard corporate policies and regulatory rules begin and end. They are constantly implying (and thinking) that whatever is annoying/abusing their customers is not because of them. Usually it is.
  • anoncake 6y ago
    Is "can you watch my kids?" really the same as "are you able to watch my kids?" or an idiom in which "can" does not have precisely its stand-alone meaning?
    • dalbasal 6y ago
      Well... I don't think you can nail down language, especially idiomatic phrases, to that level of specificity. "Can you X" literally/etymologically means "are you able." If you were to translate, you'd translate to "will you." I don't think the etymology is coincidence, or lost on an average speaker. "Can you" feels softer and more polite. It reflects something about how people want to interact with each other. You have to leave work early because your mom "couldn't" watch your kids, not because she refused to. Incidentally, in Ireland we do say "will you," "would you" and "are you able to" more commonly than "can you," which sounds slightly american/international to my ear. Oddly (or not), "will you" is (IMO, locally) more informal. You'd say it to friends, when making trivial (pass the salt) requests. "Would you not" is also (I think) an irish choice of words. It's used to make suggestions, rather than requests. These things don't bother us until/unless they're coopted into a different context, and used tactically. Going back to the original point about corporate-drone speak.... The "can't" vs "won't" language is used in the first person to obscure responsibility. I didn't call it Orwellian because it's evil or onerous. I called it Orwellian because it affects culture/thought deeply. The language helps maintain an impenetrable ambiguity, implying that every contentious decision is actually not a decision. It's dictated by regulators, or at least by "corporate." Also, in context... it's an (passive?) aggressive way to cut off a conversation. The equivalent of "Good day Sir!"
• caconym_ 6y ago
  You aren’t wrong, but (taking the corporate entity in question as a monolith, which is fair from the outside) “unwilling” is a much more honest word choice in cases like this since it clearly communicates that there was a real practical decision that could feasibly have gone either way. “Unable” lines up better with things that are infeasible, e.g. Apple can’t recover the data on an encrypted hard drive without the password or recovery key because it’s literally impossible or would at least require nation-state level computing resources to have a realistic shot at cracking even a weak password. “Unable” is dishonest because it passes responsibility beyond the veil of the typical user’s ignorance. We’re so used to this sort of language that we’re conditioned to allow it even when we know it’s bullshit. It shuts down discussion and allows its wielder (inevitably a corporation) to avoid explaining itself. In the developed Western world we have a big problem with letting corporations do whatever the hell they want without explaining themselves, so I don’t think we should let them get away with this sort of thing anymore, and not being satisfied with mealy-mouthed evasion is one of the first steps down that road.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• sigzero 6y ago
  It is still "unwilling". "Unable" implies a capacity to do a thing which they clearly can but they are "unwilling" to do so because of their policies.
• felipelemos 6y ago
  But there lies the lie. When they use 'unable' they are implying that an external factor is blocking them, so arguing further is not possible and unfruitful.