4 ms·

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

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.
        javajosh 5y 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.
        zepto 5y ago
        > The only takeaway is that there is no obviously correct wording for google to make when wielding the banhammer. This is true on kh because ‘correct’ is both a relative term and a black and white one, which doesn’t apply to the situation we are discussing. You have to decide what you value, and perfection is not an option, so there is indeed no ‘correct’ wording, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t better wordings, nor does it make the one they chose ok. It seems to me that there are many ways Google could be more honest and less opaque. It seems like quite a few people here (myself included) value those traits and would like to see Google adopt them. That won’t immunize them from criticism or make everyone agree with their judgements, but it would still be better.
- mlyle 5y ago
  Here, I think the concern is that the alternative wordings considered/proposed are possibly open to just as much criticism and negative readings as the original. That is, others consider it difficult to improve here.
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.

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.
      - javajosh 5y 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.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > The only takeaway is that there is no obviously correct wording for google to make when wielding the banhammer. This is true on kh because ‘correct’ is both a relative term and a black and white one, which doesn’t apply to the situation we are discussing. You have to decide what you value, and perfection is not an option, so there is indeed no ‘correct’ wording, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t better wordings, nor does it make the one they chose ok. It seems to me that there are many ways Google could be more honest and less opaque. It seems like quite a few people here (myself included) value those traits and would like to see Google adopt them. That won’t immunize them from criticism or make everyone agree with their judgements, but it would still be better.
mlyle 5y ago
Here, I think the concern is that the alternative wordings considered/proposed are possibly open to just as much criticism and negative readings as the original. That is, others consider it difficult to improve here.

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.