8 ms·
I don't think this is actually related to Matomo being a competitor. Malware is much more likely, making this a non-issue. Could be a false positive, too.
by rbinv 5y ago
I don't think this is actually related to Matomo being a competitor. Malware is much more likely, making this a non-issue. Could be a false positive, too.
- funshed 5y agoPlausable but I do not imagine that to be the case. It was recently updated and Matomo has a self-diagnostic includeing "File integrity", it has no warnings. Its also on its own small droplet, so somewhat isoloated. The Google Rep was clear it was not allowed also (though perhaps misinformed).
- lolinder 5y agoHe was communicating poorly, but I don't read that as him stating Google's official stance on Matomo. I read it as him saying "those links are not allowed because our link scanner says so, and that's all I know."
- oauea 5y agoThen why would a Google worker (not a machine, but a real life human) tell this person that using their competitor is not allowed? Did you read the screenshot?
- sodality2 5y agoThe Google worker said "x url is not allowed". It says nothing of using Matomo. The URL is to the js which google must have considered malicious.
- oauea 5y agoThe user explained it was Matomo, a Google competitor, and the worker responded with "No, that is not allowed.". Seems to leave absolutely no room for interpretation. It is not about the URL, it is about Matomo.
- eli 5y agoThe worker is just reading what their screen says. Might as well be a robot.
- Macha 5y agoYeah, the fact that you're talking to a person-operated robot rather than an automated one doesn't change the fact that you're talking to a robot.
- oauea 5y agoIt's a huge difference. This is a Google employee explicitly telling you that using their competitor is not allowed.
- squeaky-clean 5y agoIt's no different at all from a support chatbot incorrectly telling you using their competitor is not allowed. This support employee does not write or enforce the contracts for Google beyond a support form. The employee could say "Google requires you send us your first-born child" and it wouldn't mean Google is actually bound to that employee's statements.
- lolc 5y agoYour example is bad because clearly Google has no claims on a child. In this context, a Google employee is telling a Google customer that he is not allowed to use a competitor's product. After the customer has explicitly noted the problem. Now a lot of people have said this poor drone could not possibly understand the situation well enough to not make statements that are flagrantly anti-competitive. Well, that is Google's problem. Both their automated system and their customer service are behaving in a way that hinders competitors. If they don't fix this, they are liable. And by the looks of it, it has happened before, so there is a pattern.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
- rst 5y agoWhat's anticompetitive behavior is for URLs associated with competitors to be banned. They were. Whether a customer support drone was able to identify them as URLs associated with competitors is immaterial.
- cerved 5y agoBecause they are a support agent who is reporting to the customer a bunch of links that their computer screen is telling them is not allowed.