3 ms·

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 agr

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
        Holding companies to the basic standard of good customer service like we used to.
    - javajosh 5y 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 5y 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.
        lmm 5y ago
        If they want to say that they won't reinstate your account because you're violating a policy, they should say as much.
        judge2020 5y ago
        The original email is context for the review rejection email by saying > In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account The rejection email isn't isolated, so when it says "unable" it's conveying the implied message "unable to reinstate your publisher account <without bending the rules because we think our ad fraud detection systems were correct>".
        lelanthran 5y ago
        You all make good points in favour of both sides of the argument, so I upvoted every post in this thread. The only takeaway is that there is no obviously correct wording for google to make when wielding the banhammer.
    - xmprt 5y ago
      > No matter what someone will find some point to complain I don't think there would be many complaints if Google didn't take down apps for vague reasons.
  - TheRealPomax 5y ago
    If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. "We reviewed your case, and based on our policy, we cannot reinstate your account. Because if we did, we'd be the ones violating our policy, and someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices, rather than merely complaining about overly restrictive policies that are blindly enforced through a system that is hard to penetrate". No lying, no ambiguity. They can't reinstate this account. Should they change their policy so that after that change, they can? Maybe, but good luck getting them to.
    - zepto 5y ago
      They can always either change or make an exception to the policy. A policy is just their way of doing things, written down. It’s not magic.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        That's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement, which can be a problem, especially when contracts reference the policy.
        judge2020 5y ago
        To clarify your comment, this is exactly what OP was referring to with > someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices
        zepto 5y ago
        That doesn’t really change anything. It’s still their policy to change. They still decide when to review the policy.
        ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
        Changing your policy to be more friendly to all users moving forward isn't selective enforcement. To reiterate, "policy" is just explicitly specifying "that's just the way we do things around here"
  - gralx 5y ago
    "We refuse to" might be clearest of all.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    And yet no one, including people in this thread who are claiming that the intent of Google's wording is to deceive, are actually the slightest bit unclear about what Google means.
    - saurik 5y ago
      It isn't about wanting to deceive, it is about their seemingly unwillingness to admit; these are related, but not at all the same. It is the same kind of semantic difference people think is really important when discussing scenarios like "you didn't misplace my item on accident, you discarded it on purpose and we both know that: I want to hear you say it out loud".
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        But, as others have mentioned, it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" like this. It's simply not reasonable to interpret this messaging as intended to claim that it's physically impossible to do the thing. I totally understand being upset with Google's policy and decision here, but this particular criticism about the wording they used is simply disingenuous.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        We all know what it means because we are familiar with numerous other cases of such dissembling. That does not make it any less dishonest; it just means they are members of a big, dishonest club.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        It is not how everyone uses language. I do not use language that way. If you used language that way, you would be dishonest. It is how dishonest corporations use language. That we are aware they are dishonest does not make them less so.
  - ce4 5y ago
    And deliberately so, to defuse the situation and not anger the customer further. The "we are" is of the same origin. It creates the assumption that the customer is dealing with "some Google team" that made the decision, when in fact it was one person or even just a stupid algorithm.
  - robaato 5y ago
    "Computer says no" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds
- nxpnsv 5y ago
  Yep they are all lies. I _almost_ can't agree with you more.
- antonvs 5y ago
  This all depends on having free will. Otherwise, those statements could all be literally true.
  - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
    excellent bait
- hossyposs 5y 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 5y ago
  Those express moral convictions or imminent psychological crises. A corporation experiences neither.
- inopinatus 5y ago
  cannot != unable
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  All of the sentences you give would be quite different if “can not” were replaced with “to be unable to”.
- KMag 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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

bipson 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
        Holding companies to the basic standard of good customer service like we used to.
  - javajosh 5y 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 5y 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.
      - lmm 5y ago
        If they want to say that they won't reinstate your account because you're violating a policy, they should say as much.
        judge2020 5y ago
        The original email is context for the review rejection email by saying > In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account The rejection email isn't isolated, so when it says "unable" it's conveying the implied message "unable to reinstate your publisher account <without bending the rules because we think our ad fraud detection systems were correct>".
        lelanthran 5y ago
        You all make good points in favour of both sides of the argument, so I upvoted every post in this thread. The only takeaway is that there is no obviously correct wording for google to make when wielding the banhammer.
  - xmprt 5y ago
    > No matter what someone will find some point to complain I don't think there would be many complaints if Google didn't take down apps for vague reasons.
- TheRealPomax 5y ago
  If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. "We reviewed your case, and based on our policy, we cannot reinstate your account. Because if we did, we'd be the ones violating our policy, and someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices, rather than merely complaining about overly restrictive policies that are blindly enforced through a system that is hard to penetrate". No lying, no ambiguity. They can't reinstate this account. Should they change their policy so that after that change, they can? Maybe, but good luck getting them to.
  - zepto 5y ago
    They can always either change or make an exception to the policy. A policy is just their way of doing things, written down. It’s not magic.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      That's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement, which can be a problem, especially when contracts reference the policy.
      - judge2020 5y ago
        To clarify your comment, this is exactly what OP was referring to with > someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices
        zepto 5y ago
        That doesn’t really change anything. It’s still their policy to change. They still decide when to review the policy.
      - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
        Changing your policy to be more friendly to all users moving forward isn't selective enforcement. To reiterate, "policy" is just explicitly specifying "that's just the way we do things around here"
- gralx 5y ago
  "We refuse to" might be clearest of all.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  And yet no one, including people in this thread who are claiming that the intent of Google's wording is to deceive, are actually the slightest bit unclear about what Google means.
  - saurik 5y ago
    It isn't about wanting to deceive, it is about their seemingly unwillingness to admit; these are related, but not at all the same. It is the same kind of semantic difference people think is really important when discussing scenarios like "you didn't misplace my item on accident, you discarded it on purpose and we both know that: I want to hear you say it out loud".
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      But, as others have mentioned, it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" like this. It's simply not reasonable to interpret this messaging as intended to claim that it's physically impossible to do the thing. I totally understand being upset with Google's policy and decision here, but this particular criticism about the wording they used is simply disingenuous.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        We all know what it means because we are familiar with numerous other cases of such dissembling. That does not make it any less dishonest; it just means they are members of a big, dishonest club.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        It is not how everyone uses language. I do not use language that way. If you used language that way, you would be dishonest. It is how dishonest corporations use language. That we are aware they are dishonest does not make them less so.
- ce4 5y ago
  And deliberately so, to defuse the situation and not anger the customer further. The "we are" is of the same origin. It creates the assumption that the customer is dealing with "some Google team" that made the decision, when in fact it was one person or even just a stupid algorithm.
- robaato 5y ago
  "Computer says no" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds
nxpnsv 5y ago
Yep they are all lies. I _almost_ can't agree with you more.
antonvs 5y ago
This all depends on having free will. Otherwise, those statements could all be literally true.
- cto_of_antifa 5y ago
  excellent bait
hossyposs 5y 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 5y ago
Those express moral convictions or imminent psychological crises. A corporation experiences neither.
inopinatus 5y ago
cannot != unable
Blikkentrekker 5y ago
All of the sentences you give would be quite different if “can not” were replaced with “to be unable to”.
KMag 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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