5 ms·
It's not so much that they would be desperate to keep the $x; but rather "has had $x posted for Y years" is a strong signal the account warrants careful human r
by kylecordes 4y ago
It's not so much that they would be desperate to keep the $x; but rather "has had $x posted for Y years" is a strong signal the account warrants careful human review for any flagged issue.
- kevmo314 4y agoSurely any actual nefarious user would see that $x as a small cost of doing business...
- Dylan16807 4y agoWhy do you think that? What kind of nefarious use makes a hundred bucks or more per account and is subtle enough for the ban review to let them keep doing it?
- jsnell 4y agoThere is no cost to a bad actor in the OP's proposal. If/when the account gets terminated, the money is returned to them. This policy would be worse than useless. No real users would sign up for it, only abusers.
- Dylan16807 4y agoWell the bond will be meaningless if it was only put there yesterday. If it's been there for a while that's a real cost. But true, it's not the full amount unless they do something that makes them owe Google money.
- tmoertel 4y agoFor bad actors, an extra careful review is still going to result in account termination. So, for them, the bonds buy virtually no protection, but it does tie up real money. How many bad actors are going to prefer to loan Google $100 per active account rather than $0 per active account?