3 ms·
> do not use the “get out of debt” header, because you look like a “get rich quick” scheme. It reminded me of the times when Apple nagged me about the translati
by thanhhaimai 5y ago
> do not use the “get out of debt” header, because you look like a “get rich quick” scheme. It reminded me of the times when Apple nagged me about the translations in my app that was never supposed to target an english-speaking audience.
Opinions are my own.
Tbh, any ads with the phrase "get out of debt" sounds very shady to me. I wouldn't give it the benefits of doubt personally.
> Microsoft never answered at all. After two weeks of silence I reached out to them myself, and the agent tried to be nice, but the phrase “I understand your feelings, but, I’m afraid you’re banned for life and this cannot be changed” just broke me.
If two companies with 100% different spam & abuse systems detected something wrong with this ads, I have the feeling we're not hearing the full story here. Microsoft even went to the extreme of "ban-for-life".
- fighterpilot 5y agoThey didn't use the phrase "get out of debt".
- robertlagrant 5y agoOr they exchange info. The article even says that MS banned them before they even knew what the business was.
- dkzlv 5y agoAuthor's here. Yes, that is true and was the big red flag for me. I believe it would be in their best interest to exchange the data on potential fraudsters, because it would make their life simpler.
- Bjartr 5y ago> If two companies with 100% different spam & abuse systems detected something wrong with this ads Do we know this for sure, or are we assuming they only use in-house resources to determine "suspiciousness"? Could they both be contracting out to the same third-party for some additional trustworthiness signal?