16 ms·

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

by 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.
    - lmm 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
        javajosh 6y ago
        >The only takeaway... Well, that is, strictly speaking, a false statement. I agree the discussion has been civil; but consider that the support to Google's position requires adding phrases to their statement which fundamentally change the statements meaning. I'm not sure what it's called, something like the opposite of a strawman attack. It is indeed simple to defend a statement when you give yourself permission to rewrite it in a post hoc fashion. It's an argument I find uncompelling, no matter how civilly it's presented.
- xmprt 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
        That doesn’t really change anything. It’s still their policy to change. They still decide when to review the policy.
    - ImPostingOnHN 6y 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 6y ago
"We refuse to" might be clearest of all.
tshaddox 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
        It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.
        ncmncm 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
"Computer says no" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds

by 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.
  - lmm 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.
        javajosh 6y ago
        >The only takeaway... Well, that is, strictly speaking, a false statement. I agree the discussion has been civil; but consider that the support to Google's position requires adding phrases to their statement which fundamentally change the statements meaning. I'm not sure what it's called, something like the opposite of a strawman attack. It is indeed simple to defend a statement when you give yourself permission to rewrite it in a post hoc fashion. It's an argument I find uncompelling, no matter how civilly it's presented.
xmprt 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
      That doesn’t really change anything. It’s still their policy to change. They still decide when to review the policy.
  - ImPostingOnHN 6y 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 6y ago

"We refuse to" might be clearest of all.

tshaddox 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
      It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.
      - ncmncm 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago

"Computer says no" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds