3 ms·
The 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 interpret
by oauea 5y ago
The 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 agoIt is about the URL. The google worker doesn't say anything about matomo, he doesn't add any context, he just displays generic and common discussion patterns. I picture the setting in my mind and it's the best explanation. Someone sitting in a cubicle or a farm, answering thousand of messages like that per day. He's not reading the chat, he's scanning it for words like "ok", "thanks you", "fixed", "working now", "bye", etc. Matomo doesn't register on their radar. The user doesn't explain what Matomo is. His message looks like a copy/paste from matomo's website. It's even put into quote. This conversation was not around Matomo being an alternative to GA. Doesn't mean Google doesn't actively classify matomo as malware though.
- oauea 5y agoThis Google employee responded to a question. When looking at the question and answer, and the actual resulting situation, it is pretty clear what's happening here.
- johnchristopher 5y agoWhat question exactly ? I don't see a question in the chat.
- lsaferite 5y agoThey actually said "this is not allowed". Sounds very much like a CS agent reiterating that the URL is on a ban list. You reading it like the CS agent is saying using a competitor is just your interpretation. Look at it like this, specifically banning something because it's a competitor would be a huge deal (rightly so). With that in mind, do you really suppose they would tell the agent that directly?