18 ms·
I'm glad this guy has a sense of humor about this, but I really hope that Google does right by him and that he doesn't get stuck in their Byzantine customer ser
by hpkuarg 5y ago
I'm glad this guy has a sense of humor about this, but I really hope that Google does right by him and that he doesn't get stuck in their Byzantine customer service process.
- jeswin 5y agoActually he should sue them. The damage to his reputation and prospects are real.
- paulpauper 5y agothis is google we're talking about. so good luck with that.
- cryptica 5y agoIt's disturbing how often people infer that Google is impervious to the law.
- paulpauper 5y agoThat would req. showing that law was broken. I don't think in this case it was. More like a mistake.
- ghaff 5y agoIf Google refused to fix it, it might be different. But I expect that, if someone were to file a suit, not even trying to get it fixed wouldn't be seen as acting in good faith.
- inimino 5y agoDoes every person who is impacted by this kind of thing have the responsibility to do Google's QC for them? What about people who never notice it? Maybe a lawsuit would be hopeless, but it sure would be nice to see some kind of real consequences here.
- dcow 5y agoHow do you even contact Google about an issue like this in the first place? My only communication with Google in the capacity of a user has been automated messages.
- bliteben 5y agoMeanwhile sending an email to Google asking for something to be fixed, could be seen as an act of insanity.
- cwkoss 5y agoMistakes can be illegal. Intent only matters for small subset of laws.
- retrac 5y agoIt's surprisingly easy, just time-involved, to sue large corporations in small claims, at least in some jurisdictions. Yes, they've got lawyers, but if you have a case you may still win. I sued one of the largest telecoms in Canada for not honouring a verbal contract, and won quite easily once I proved the facts in dispute. Businesses assume people won't have the commitment to carry through and actually take them to court over malfeasance. Probably mostly correctly. I'm not sure it was really worth the hassle.
- paulpauper 5y agoGoogle is not a typical large corp though. They will spend millions on top lawyers for even small cases even if settling costs far less, just to make a point that they do not lose. If a company shows a willingness to settle or they they lose easily, then that makes them vulnerable to future litigation. Contingency lawyers will not take on companies that do not lose or settle.
- H8crilA 5y agoAnd you know this because?
- pizza234 5y agoI don't agree with the parent's way to put it, however, there is at least some truth. There as been an interesting case - Aaron Greenspan vs Google: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_213176 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_2.... It's a very interesting and even entertaining read.
- astrange 5y agoYou're replying to a comment that says "in small claims" and lawyers don't appear in small claims court. Though I don't know about winning vs Google there, just that it's worked against Uber.
- retrac 5y ago
- acjohnson55 5y agoHe should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.
- pavon 5y agoFor libel, you generally have to show harm, but there are some claims that are assumed on their face to be damaging an no proof of harm is needed (libel per-se). Falsely accusing someone of being a serial killer would generally fall into this category. Edit: I think the harder part would be showing that people would believe the claim (which legally is separate from showing harm). Google could argue that since the box showed the serial killer died in the 80's that a reasonable person would realize it must be a mistake.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bcrosby95 5y ago> Google could argue that since the box showed the serial killer died in the 80's that a reasonable person would realize it must be a mistake. A reasonable person would realize which part was a mistake: that it's a picture of the serial killer, or that the serial killer died in the 80s?
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoFalsely claiming that someone committed a serious crime is per se defamation in many jurisdictions. There is no need to prove actual damage. It is damaging by definition.
- pvaldes 5y agoEasy to provide when will be detained at random airport for 10 hours until the authorities will triple-check all the info until everybody and the janitor will be satisfied. People has been stopped to take their fly for much less.
- wicket 5y ago
- protomyth 5y agoFiguring out or demonstrating the "Quantifiably injurious" part might be very hard https://thelawdictionary.org/article/when-to-sue-for-defamation-slander-and-libel/ https://thelawdictionary.org/article/when-to-sue-for-defamat...
- duskwuff 5y agoMight not be necessary. Many jurisdictions recognize certain types of claims, including accusations of serious crime, as defamation per se; no specific proof of harm is required.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y agoI just looked it up and google does have a workflow that allows you to send them a court order. Let's start there first before issuing a lawsuit. You only sue if you can prove damages for defamation. Which, as tepid as most people are on here about patent trolls, I can't imaging taking on google. It's literally like taking on god at this point.
- xxs 5y agoRight to be forgotten would be much easier to invoke. Suing in Bulgaria is likely to end up nowhere with Bulgaria having the worst courts in the EU (a primary reason not being in Schengen)
- schoolornot 5y agoHe'll be lucky if they don't suspend his Google account outright for raising the issue.
- gundmc 5y agoThis just seems like a bad faith comment. Is there ANY example of a user raising a legitimate concern like this and getting banned for it? This reads like cheap, low-effort bashing.
- RockmanZero 5y agothis just seems like a google-faith comment.
- cwkoss 5y agoGoogle has cheap, low-effort customer support, so I'll allow it.
- renewiltord 5y agoWait, how does that help? Low quality customer support hurts us. Low quality comments also hurt us. That just doubles the hurt for me. It doesn't compensate in any way. It's like some guy punching me saying "For the Green Team!" and then you come by and punch me saying "For the Yellow Team!". Like, dude, you didn't undo the first punch. I'm now twice-punched. I want to be zero punched.
- cwkoss 5y agoGoogle's (Youtube's specifically) automated processes have allowed the rise of extortion via their copyright systems using the threat of automatic account deletion. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47227937 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47227937 Their automated processes do result in account deletions, and they intentionally build their systems so it is hard to reach humans to resolve complaints, so I don't think that comment was particularly undeserved - I read it as jokingly superlative.
- xxs 5y agoImagine trying to get a date...
- runawaybottle 5y agoLol what? They have customer service process? News to me, how to reach them?
- martyvis 5y agoI found a Google One subscription is helpful for that. It's only a few dollars a month, which in fact I fund for free using Google Rewards dollars. You then get to speak to a real live person that actually respond properly, even with handwritten emails.
- eitland 5y agoThis happens? Can anyone else confirm it? The only time I have seen actual people in the loop was on two rather large GCP users and even then it was sometimes just "have you tried restarting it?"-level of support half the time.