4 ms·

I can feel the downvotes coming deep in my bones. But Google has its own reputation (and users) to protect. It's taking a risk whenever it allows a developer o

I can feel the downvotes coming deep in my bones. But Google has its own reputation (and users) to protect. It's taking a risk whenever it allows a developer on its platform. If a developer with low name recognition uploads malicious software, it's not the developer's name that makes the headline. Crucially, there's no information on what the employee (and later contractor) 'H.' did to get themselves banned. Or fired. From the OP's own timeline, the ban came less than two months after they severed their relationship with 'H.' Google isn't swinging around the ban hammer years after the OP separated with 'H.' The OP's games could still include code contributed by 'H.' And 'H.' is apparently untrustworthy. Is that a risk Google should be forced to take as the curator of the Google Play store? I don't think so.

jonathankoren 5y ago
There’s a difference between banning an app and banning an account.
- whoknew1122 5y ago
  Are you suggesting that Google ban all current apps in their account? Google has no idea which apps 'H.' contributed to. Or whether 'H.' still has a relationship with Raya Games. If 'H.' is a malicious developer, then all apps that were extant while 'H.' was associated with Raya should be considered suspect. Google (and its user base) have no idea what apps 'H.' touched. The very least Google should do is ban all apps uploaded and/or updated during 'H.'s employment. And even then Google has no way to know whether 'H.' still works at the company, or will work again there in the future. Google doesn't (and can't reasonably) have any insight into personnel decisions at Raya Games. Is Google throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Yeah, probably. But Google can't differentiate between baby and bathwater when it comes to malicious developers. Google has an affirmative responsibility to protect its userbase. It doesn't have an affirmative responsibility to let any individual publisher sell apps on the Google Play store.
  - jonathankoren 5y ago
    That’s whole another sentence dude.
spookthesunset 5y ago
Yes all large websites that provide financial incentives to run scams on them have this problem. Whenever there are $$$ to be made at scale the scammers will work very hard to get their cut. The problem lies in the people who implement these anti-fraud measures forgetting that not every account their system flags is actually a scammer. The goal should always be to fuck over the scammer as hard as possible. However you must always make sure the real humans that get caught in the net can always get out of jail. Assuming that the 1% of real humans that get flagged in your system don’t matter is how you piss people off. Always provide ways to get real people out of jail! Those people are honest people doing the right things. They are the ones you are trying to protect!
kmeisthax 5y ago
I get what you're saying, but if 'H.' did something bad, Google should be telling companies that hired him to check their source code for malware. They shouldn't be accusing his former employer of being a shell company for 'H.' to continue doing bad things.

jonathankoren 5y ago

There’s a difference between banning an app and banning an account.

whoknew1122 5y ago
Are you suggesting that Google ban all current apps in their account? Google has no idea which apps 'H.' contributed to. Or whether 'H.' still has a relationship with Raya Games. If 'H.' is a malicious developer, then all apps that were extant while 'H.' was associated with Raya should be considered suspect. Google (and its user base) have no idea what apps 'H.' touched. The very least Google should do is ban all apps uploaded and/or updated during 'H.'s employment. And even then Google has no way to know whether 'H.' still works at the company, or will work again there in the future. Google doesn't (and can't reasonably) have any insight into personnel decisions at Raya Games. Is Google throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Yeah, probably. But Google can't differentiate between baby and bathwater when it comes to malicious developers. Google has an affirmative responsibility to protect its userbase. It doesn't have an affirmative responsibility to let any individual publisher sell apps on the Google Play store.
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  That’s whole another sentence dude.

spookthesunset 5y ago

Yes all large websites that provide financial incentives to run scams on them have this problem. Whenever there are $$$ to be made at scale the scammers will work very hard to get their cut. The problem lies in the people who implement these anti-fraud measures forgetting that not every account their system flags is actually a scammer. The goal should always be to fuck over the scammer as hard as possible. However you must always make sure the real humans that get caught in the net can always get out of jail. Assuming that the 1% of real humans that get flagged in your system don’t matter is how you piss people off. Always provide ways to get real people out of jail! Those people are honest people doing the right things. They are the ones you are trying to protect!

kmeisthax 5y ago

I get what you're saying, but if 'H.' did something bad, Google should be telling companies that hired him to check their source code for malware. They shouldn't be accusing his former employer of being a shell company for 'H.' to continue doing bad things.