4 ms·

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 reins

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"
- TheRealPomax 6y ago
  They can certainly change it, thus changing what they can do, in the future, but they can't make exceptions. A policy, written down, becomes a contract as far as the law's concerned. Contract changes are fine (provided all parties involved are then allowed to cancel the contract), but contract violation is not.
  - zepto 6y ago
    This isn’t accurate. There are plenty of policies that state that they may be changed by one side or that exceptions may be made in cases where the wording doesn’t cover the intent. The Apple store policy for example says this.
7OVO7 6y ago
the first sensible and rational comment I see here (I hope more comment like this in this post).
IncRnd 6y ago
> If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. In this particular case, the ambiguity is exactly that - Google didn't say what what real policy was broken or how.
- TheRealPomax 6y ago
  Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question. The downside of business in the US: companies are by law required to make documents available on request, but they are in no way required to make that easy.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question You’d think there would be examples of people doing this, but so far I haven’t heard of them.
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    Getting the text of the policy isn't the whole issue. As you pointed out both the policy and method of verification need to exist, or there is ambiguity. Given the information in the article, you can't verify any of the traffic or actions that were supposed to break policy. After all Google wrote, "We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be used to circumvent our proprietary detection system, we’re unable to provide our publishers with information about specific account activity."
    - LocalH 6y ago
      Imagine if the justice system worked this way. "We understand that you may want to know more about the crimes that we’ve detected. Because this information could be used to circumvent our proprietary policing system, we’re unable to provide defendants with information about alleged criminal activity."

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"
TheRealPomax 6y ago
They can certainly change it, thus changing what they can do, in the future, but they can't make exceptions. A policy, written down, becomes a contract as far as the law's concerned. Contract changes are fine (provided all parties involved are then allowed to cancel the contract), but contract violation is not.
- zepto 6y ago
  This isn’t accurate. There are plenty of policies that state that they may be changed by one side or that exceptions may be made in cases where the wording doesn’t cover the intent. The Apple store policy for example says this.

7OVO7 6y ago

the first sensible and rational comment I see here (I hope more comment like this in this post).

IncRnd 6y ago

> If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. In this particular case, the ambiguity is exactly that - Google didn't say what what real policy was broken or how.

TheRealPomax 6y ago
Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question. The downside of business in the US: companies are by law required to make documents available on request, but they are in no way required to make that easy.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question You’d think there would be examples of people doing this, but so far I haven’t heard of them.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  Getting the text of the policy isn't the whole issue. As you pointed out both the policy and method of verification need to exist, or there is ambiguity. Given the information in the article, you can't verify any of the traffic or actions that were supposed to break policy. After all Google wrote, "We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be used to circumvent our proprietary detection system, we’re unable to provide our publishers with information about specific account activity."
  - LocalH 6y ago
    Imagine if the justice system worked this way. "We understand that you may want to know more about the crimes that we’ve detected. Because this information could be used to circumvent our proprietary policing system, we’re unable to provide defendants with information about alleged criminal activity."