7 ms·

"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

by 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.

by bipson 5y ago

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.