4 ms·
I still think some congress person needs to pass a consumer rights bill that forces companies like this to disclose the exact reason and data relating the accou
by protomyth 5y ago
I still think some congress person needs to pass a consumer rights bill that forces companies like this to disclose the exact reason and data relating the account termination. The excuse of security practices should not come before consumer rights.
Frankly, we would ALL also be safer if the decision had to be made based on conduct on that specific service and could not include anything outside that service. There is a certain scale where your company is now an internet utility and you should have to act like every other utility.
- aaomidi 5y agoActually it should go one more step further. Companies making over a certain amount should be banned from outright removing your access to your account. At most it should be making the account read only. People have a right to their photos, emails, conversations, and data they have safeguarded to these companies.
- devoutsalsa 5y agoI think I agree with you, but I will say I don’t envy Google’s position on this one. They have massive amounts of fraud and spam to contend with. Coming up with a system that allows them to retain legit uses but prevents them from shutting down naughty people doesn’t sound good. There need to be a mechanism that allows account recovery in a way that is actually sustainable.
- glitchc 5y ago
- aaomidi 5y agoThen just put these accounts in read only mode. It's not like Google ever deletes the data these bad accounts made.
- R0b0t1 5y agoSeems reasonable to make Google liable for your damages. They've incentivizing people to use their store, and then pulling the rug out from under them. Similar logic has already been applied in the US for e.g. rapes that occur on a business' property. If they're incentivizing you to come their, they are liable for bad thing that happen to you.
- devoutsalsa 5y agoI don’t want to be the one to pay for figuring out how to neutralize spammers on a global, free service with billions of users.
- R0b0t1 5y agoWell, Google is trying to get you to pay for it by putting you at risk of account suspension via poor policies. If Google wants to neutralize spammers that's their business. The law doesn't have to stop them. But causing severe financial harm to your business partners with no recourse is something the law should care about and stop.
- fredgrott 5y agoproblems: 1. How exactly do propose a bill to limit a company in how they use their property and enforce use of that property by an end user? 2. Bad actors out number good actors with honest accidents at over 1 million to one and obviously disclosing gives unequal advantage to the bad actors and harms the one accident good actor.
- markdown 5y ago> 1. How exactly do propose a bill to limit a company in how they use their property and enforce use of that property by an end user? Is this a trick question? The same way all the other bills have been written. Most service providers have laws limiting how they can use their property in providing services. Banks, hotels, nightclubs, stadiums, taxis, etc.
- dboreham 5y ago1. Isn't that the typical purpose of a law?
- DoctorOW 5y agoI feel like the answer to 1 is that it shouldn't be any more difficult than the GDPR. It's just asking for a publicly available reason and evidence for bans, not actually forbidding them?
- slabity 5y ago> 2. Bad actors out number good actors with honest accidents at over 1 million to one and obviously disclosing gives unequal advantage to the bad actors and harms the one accident good actor. I don't even care if this is hyperbole, an outrageous claim like this needs a source. You're telling me that over 99.9999% of these issues are caused by bad actors?
- Hizonner 5y ago2. Citation needed. "1 million to one" does not even pass the laugh test, not if it's measured in any meaningful way. And the actual numbers would matter... if they were available... which they are not...
- 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cube00 5y agoNever going to happen for the same reason companies don't tell you why your job application was rejected because it opens them up to unnecessary liability.
- adamparsons 5y agoCrazy thing about a bill is that if it passes, then it will happen, just like the parent is suggesting should happen.
- BeetleB 5y agoIf a bill like that passes, expect all kinds of clauses in the contract that make it easier to get banned.
- sumedh 5y agoYou dont really lose if you a job application is rejected, you can get a job somewhere else. You cant do that when there only 2 players who control mobile Apps.