3 ms·

> There’s no bad intent here — nobody targets me personally, who even cares about me. It’s a constant error in the processes that came, probably, from a good pl

> There’s no bad intent here — nobody targets me personally, who even cares about me. It’s a constant error in the processes that came, probably, from a good place — but it’s no better for me. Nobody will fix this error. This is the truth and it's very depressing. I would personally support either legislation forcing Google to be more transparent of these bans or legislation ripping the company apart so that they don't own the ad exchange, as well as sell ads themselves, as well as everything else they have integrated. One can only dream...

JoshTriplett 5y ago
I think it's bad business to be this opaque and to not point to a specific policy detail. There's also a case to be made for whether the outsized impact of such refusals is evidence in favor of a company being a harmful monopoly; I think it's certainly supporting evidence in that direction. On the other hand, this post talks about having a similar response from Microsoft, and those companies didn't collude; they just have similar policies, likely for similar reasons. This may have been a false positive, or on the other hand, it might be a true positive; we don't know much about this business or why they were declined, but for instance the mention of "get out of debt" in this context sounds shady, and "sounds shady" is not an unreasonable threshold for denying an ad. I also think "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" applies no matter who you are. I don't support the idea of legislation that forces giving detailed policy responses, or any responses at all. Google (and others) have formed a business around having policies so automated that half the people involved might not even know what the policy is, just "computer says no" or "computer flagged it and someone somewhere in the review process said no". I don't think that practice should be banned; on the contrary, it should be possible to try the approach of using automation to be able to scale. And that's a potential opportunity for other competitors; one demonstrated path to success in competing with a company like Google is providing better support and real human interaction. If it turns out that a company is succeeding in spite of awful service, it might be because their product is just that good to overcome that deficiency, or it might also be because their monopoly prevents people from competing with them even with a better product. That's worth examining. But I don't think that's an argument that people should be forced to explain why they don't want to do business with someone; I think that's an argument that we should make sure that it's possible to compete fairly and offer better service to people who want better service.
- dkzlv 5y ago
  Hi! Author's here. > On the other hand, this post talks about having a similar response from Microsoft, and those companies didn't collude As I wrote, I got the ban from Microsoft minutes after Google even before I created an ad or told them what site I planned to advertise. So my guess is that they do exchange data about potential fraudsters. > applies no matter who you are In this case we're talking about a monopoly that is the internet's gatekeeper. If they decide they can refuse their service to us, we die, no guesses. Is that the right way?
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  > I also think "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" applies no matter who you are. It should never apply to monopolies. Governments should always go to all extent into making sure a market is competitive, or make sure things like that do not happen. The preference should obviously be the first one.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    I agree; my argument is that that means we should consider if there's a monopoly issue. We shouldn't write new universal rules to address behaviors that only work if you're a monopoly; we should determine if there's abuse of a monopoly going on, and if so, treat the monopoly as the problem to fix. Doing otherwise risks saying "well, the monopoly is OK, as long as you fix this specific thing", and even entrenching those monopolies further. (For instance, even if you believe that it's acceptable to mandate explaining every refusal to do business with someone, taking the time to explain policies to everyone is something that may in some cases be easier for a large company but prohibitively hard for a smaller one.) If you're abusing a monopoly in a way that prevents other people from coming in and doing better than you, that's the issue, not the specific manifestation of how you're abusing it.

JoshTriplett 5y ago

I think it's bad business to be this opaque and to not point to a specific policy detail. There's also a case to be made for whether the outsized impact of such refusals is evidence in favor of a company being a harmful monopoly; I think it's certainly supporting evidence in that direction. On the other hand, this post talks about having a similar response from Microsoft, and those companies didn't collude; they just have similar policies, likely for similar reasons. This may have been a false positive, or on the other hand, it might be a true positive; we don't know much about this business or why they were declined, but for instance the mention of "get out of debt" in this context sounds shady, and "sounds shady" is not an unreasonable threshold for denying an ad. I also think "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" applies no matter who you are. I don't support the idea of legislation that forces giving detailed policy responses, or any responses at all. Google (and others) have formed a business around having policies so automated that half the people involved might not even know what the policy is, just "computer says no" or "computer flagged it and someone somewhere in the review process said no". I don't think that practice should be banned; on the contrary, it should be possible to try the approach of using automation to be able to scale. And that's a potential opportunity for other competitors; one demonstrated path to success in competing with a company like Google is providing better support and real human interaction. If it turns out that a company is succeeding in spite of awful service, it might be because their product is just that good to overcome that deficiency, or it might also be because their monopoly prevents people from competing with them even with a better product. That's worth examining. But I don't think that's an argument that people should be forced to explain why they don't want to do business with someone; I think that's an argument that we should make sure that it's possible to compete fairly and offer better service to people who want better service.

dkzlv 5y ago
Hi! Author's here. > On the other hand, this post talks about having a similar response from Microsoft, and those companies didn't collude As I wrote, I got the ban from Microsoft minutes after Google even before I created an ad or told them what site I planned to advertise. So my guess is that they do exchange data about potential fraudsters. > applies no matter who you are In this case we're talking about a monopoly that is the internet's gatekeeper. If they decide they can refuse their service to us, we die, no guesses. Is that the right way?
marcosdumay 5y ago
> I also think "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" applies no matter who you are. It should never apply to monopolies. Governments should always go to all extent into making sure a market is competitive, or make sure things like that do not happen. The preference should obviously be the first one.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  I agree; my argument is that that means we should consider if there's a monopoly issue. We shouldn't write new universal rules to address behaviors that only work if you're a monopoly; we should determine if there's abuse of a monopoly going on, and if so, treat the monopoly as the problem to fix. Doing otherwise risks saying "well, the monopoly is OK, as long as you fix this specific thing", and even entrenching those monopolies further. (For instance, even if you believe that it's acceptable to mandate explaining every refusal to do business with someone, taking the time to explain policies to everyone is something that may in some cases be easier for a large company but prohibitively hard for a smaller one.) If you're abusing a monopoly in a way that prevents other people from coming in and doing better than you, that's the issue, not the specific manifestation of how you're abusing it.