3 ms·

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

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 6y 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 6y 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.

KMag 6y 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 6y 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.