4 ms·

The third option is hiring enough people that when you are kicked off, there's an actual human visibly in the loop making the decision when you appeal. It's no

The third option is hiring enough people that when you are kicked off, there's an actual human visibly in the loop making the decision when you appeal. It's not just that people get kicked out, it's that people get kicked out with no warning, no explanation, no way to contest, and no guidance to fix whatever the issue is. It should be easy for Google at a minimum to explain why it thinks DroidScript is malware. If it just tripped an automatic system, then "computer says so" is not sufficient, an actual human should review it, make a decision, and explain how they came to that decision. (for totally new apps, summary denial of obvious malware is probably more reasonable, but if an app has been around for years, Google owes them something)

endisneigh 6y ago
> Google owes them something Google doesn't owe anyone anything. If people stopped acting like this, then we'd create things that don't require Google/Apple devices and we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. In any case, even if they hired more people - they could just deny any appeal. Then what?
- roywiggins 6y ago
  I'm not saying developers have a legal claim against Google, but that Google still owes them something, in the moral sense. Google could still deny appeals. They certainly would deny appeals. But having a real process with humans involved would be a healthy change compared to tripping an automated alarm and being locked out forever with no explanation. It's not about a human pressing the button, it's about a human actually being required to make a judgement and explain it, with reference to actual facts. The result of this process will be a yes/no decision attached to, I don't know, a paragraph or two of human-generated text referencing actual aspects of the app in question. Lots of administrative law works like this. Yes, your appeal may be denied. In fact, the people you're appealing to may even be part of the same bureaucracy that is causing you harm in the first place. But creating an actual process whereby claims are adjudicated (even if it's all totally internal) has some value!
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    Again, in the article: https://groups.google.com/g/androidscript/c/Mbh5TZ6YYnA/m/GflwflqaDAAJ?pli=1 https://groups.google.com/g/androidscript/c/Mbh5TZ6YYnA/m/Gf... the person already speaks to a real person with an appeal and is still rejected. What else do you want Google to do? People need to stop making themselves so dependent on Google and Apple to begin with.
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      "You can read through the Malware policy page for more details and examples of common violations." is not an explanation. It's not even specifying which part of the malware policy the app violated, just that it violated it. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about- that's not an explanation, it's a simulacrum. You can see that the replies from "Cindy" are canned. I'm saying that Google owes developers some sort of explanation that is not canned and actually at least references some sort of behavior or code contained the actual app in question. "Your app is bad and we don't like it, look at our bad things policy for examples of bad things we don't like" is not an explanation, "Your app is going this bad thing so we don't like it" is. It's like being fired for violating company policy without at least an explanation of what happened or what policy it was. Sure, maybe that's totally legal and above board, but companies don't have to behave that way- they can choose to write a good-faith paragraph about 1) what the bad thing was and 2) which policy it violated and 3) why it was a violation. I don't see any of that in their correspondence. I'm not saying this needs to go to an independent arbiter[0]. Google can choose what apps to allow. I'm saying that Google really does owe long-time developers explanations when they nuke their apps from orbit. [0] though, you know, the more they behave like this, the more politics may force it on them
      - endisneigh 6y ago
        It’s not really unusual for things to be vague. I don’t know of any organization that gives the level of specificity around decisions that you’re looking for.
- mnd999 6y ago
  The platform is nothing without developers so they certainly owe something to third party developers in general. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that this is a mistake and they didn’t do anything fraudulent. Why in that situation would Google want to deny the appeal? It should be very easily sorted.
- KittenInABox 6y ago
  If they hired people to pretend to be manual approve/deny people then I think Google is acting in entirely bad faith and should be criticized for it.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    That's basically what it comes down to, for me: if you have an actual process that generates documentation, it will make it fairly clear whether Google is operating in good or bad faith. When all decisions are completely opaque, it's impossible to tell from outside.
- titzer 6y ago
  I missed the part where Google created 1 trillion webpages of content, which is where the actual value of the internet lies. Android relies on a ton of open source and free software--even just the kernel! If Google created their platform from scratch, then you'd have a point. They didn't. And in most cases, Google did not even design or build the devices, and users have no choice but to buy a device with their software platform already installed on it. That platform actively prevents users from installing their own software and steers people towards a store where they take a massive cut. Android is like the Windows of the 21st century. Actually, it's worse. Sure there are alternatives, much like Linux and Apple were alternative desktops in the 90s and 2000s. Non-android OSes have even less share than those desktop alternatives did back in the day.
- g_p 6y ago
  In normal business practices (ignoring anomalous ones where coercive practices are used, like in app stores and platforms), B2B disputes end up in court and are settled according to law and contract. Part of the problem seems to be the "at-will" nature of distribution contracts, allowing platforms to remove content for any reason, including none. It is probably for legislators and courts to take a bold step and say that isn't acceptable, and such terms are null and void. In Europe that seems to be the direction things are heading in with the forthcoming Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act.

endisneigh 6y ago

> Google owes them something Google doesn't owe anyone anything. If people stopped acting like this, then we'd create things that don't require Google/Apple devices and we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. In any case, even if they hired more people - they could just deny any appeal. Then what?

roywiggins 6y ago
I'm not saying developers have a legal claim against Google, but that Google still owes them something, in the moral sense. Google could still deny appeals. They certainly would deny appeals. But having a real process with humans involved would be a healthy change compared to tripping an automated alarm and being locked out forever with no explanation. It's not about a human pressing the button, it's about a human actually being required to make a judgement and explain it, with reference to actual facts. The result of this process will be a yes/no decision attached to, I don't know, a paragraph or two of human-generated text referencing actual aspects of the app in question. Lots of administrative law works like this. Yes, your appeal may be denied. In fact, the people you're appealing to may even be part of the same bureaucracy that is causing you harm in the first place. But creating an actual process whereby claims are adjudicated (even if it's all totally internal) has some value!
- endisneigh 6y ago
  Again, in the article: https://groups.google.com/g/androidscript/c/Mbh5TZ6YYnA/m/GflwflqaDAAJ?pli=1 https://groups.google.com/g/androidscript/c/Mbh5TZ6YYnA/m/Gf... the person already speaks to a real person with an appeal and is still rejected. What else do you want Google to do? People need to stop making themselves so dependent on Google and Apple to begin with.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    "You can read through the Malware policy page for more details and examples of common violations." is not an explanation. It's not even specifying which part of the malware policy the app violated, just that it violated it. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about- that's not an explanation, it's a simulacrum. You can see that the replies from "Cindy" are canned. I'm saying that Google owes developers some sort of explanation that is not canned and actually at least references some sort of behavior or code contained the actual app in question. "Your app is bad and we don't like it, look at our bad things policy for examples of bad things we don't like" is not an explanation, "Your app is going this bad thing so we don't like it" is. It's like being fired for violating company policy without at least an explanation of what happened or what policy it was. Sure, maybe that's totally legal and above board, but companies don't have to behave that way- they can choose to write a good-faith paragraph about 1) what the bad thing was and 2) which policy it violated and 3) why it was a violation. I don't see any of that in their correspondence. I'm not saying this needs to go to an independent arbiter[0]. Google can choose what apps to allow. I'm saying that Google really does owe long-time developers explanations when they nuke their apps from orbit. [0] though, you know, the more they behave like this, the more politics may force it on them
    - endisneigh 6y ago
      It’s not really unusual for things to be vague. I don’t know of any organization that gives the level of specificity around decisions that you’re looking for.
mnd999 6y ago
The platform is nothing without developers so they certainly owe something to third party developers in general. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that this is a mistake and they didn’t do anything fraudulent. Why in that situation would Google want to deny the appeal? It should be very easily sorted.
KittenInABox 6y ago
If they hired people to pretend to be manual approve/deny people then I think Google is acting in entirely bad faith and should be criticized for it.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  That's basically what it comes down to, for me: if you have an actual process that generates documentation, it will make it fairly clear whether Google is operating in good or bad faith. When all decisions are completely opaque, it's impossible to tell from outside.
titzer 6y ago
I missed the part where Google created 1 trillion webpages of content, which is where the actual value of the internet lies. Android relies on a ton of open source and free software--even just the kernel! If Google created their platform from scratch, then you'd have a point. They didn't. And in most cases, Google did not even design or build the devices, and users have no choice but to buy a device with their software platform already installed on it. That platform actively prevents users from installing their own software and steers people towards a store where they take a massive cut. Android is like the Windows of the 21st century. Actually, it's worse. Sure there are alternatives, much like Linux and Apple were alternative desktops in the 90s and 2000s. Non-android OSes have even less share than those desktop alternatives did back in the day.
g_p 6y ago
In normal business practices (ignoring anomalous ones where coercive practices are used, like in app stores and platforms), B2B disputes end up in court and are settled according to law and contract. Part of the problem seems to be the "at-will" nature of distribution contracts, allowing platforms to remove content for any reason, including none. It is probably for legislators and courts to take a bold step and say that isn't acceptable, and such terms are null and void. In Europe that seems to be the direction things are heading in with the forthcoming Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act.