3 ms·

“We have longstanding employee and supplier policies in place to prevent discrimination and conflicts of interest, and we take those seriously.” Isn't adding a

by chicob 4y ago

“We have longstanding employee and supplier policies in place to prevent discrimination and conflicts of interest, and we take those seriously.” Isn't adding a superfluous "and we take those seriously" the rhetorical equivalent of pouting? Every time I read this - after an account suspension, for example - the impression I get is that no, they don't really take those things seriously. They're just improvising or leaving it for the algorithm.

ALittleLight 4y ago
I just switched to hackernews from a Gmail conversation I was having with Google customer support. The chain started when a Google person sent me a follow-up from a chat conversation where the Google support person refused to help me. The follow-up mail said a reply "will come directly to me". I replied and a second emailer replied back to me to "thank you for your understanding". I replied again and yet another Google support person replied to me saying that because I was "logged out" my ticket was now closed and that they were glad they could help. Reading your comment I feel there is just a commitment to shallow lies from Google across the board. For example, why would the first emailer even tell me replies went directly to her? It obviously wasn't true. Why would three or four Google people email me, do absolutely nothing, and then close the ticket? Why not just say "We aren't helping" or just ignore my request?
- afandian 4y ago
  Isn’t it just as likely that the software developers disempower the support staff as much as they do users? Maybe the agent did think that the reply would reach them, and the algorithm was being AB tested.
- chicob 4y ago
  There is nothing more annoying than a Customer Support Chinese Room of Kafka, where tickets are transferred around only to take us back to square one each time. And if plausible deniability from senior management would just add insult to injury, plausibly, claiming that things are taken seriously when things are obviously being neglected is just gaslighting.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by chicob 4y ago

ALittleLight 4y ago

I just switched to hackernews from a Gmail conversation I was having with Google customer support. The chain started when a Google person sent me a follow-up from a chat conversation where the Google support person refused to help me. The follow-up mail said a reply "will come directly to me". I replied and a second emailer replied back to me to "thank you for your understanding". I replied again and yet another Google support person replied to me saying that because I was "logged out" my ticket was now closed and that they were glad they could help. Reading your comment I feel there is just a commitment to shallow lies from Google across the board. For example, why would the first emailer even tell me replies went directly to her? It obviously wasn't true. Why would three or four Google people email me, do absolutely nothing, and then close the ticket? Why not just say "We aren't helping" or just ignore my request?

afandian 4y ago
Isn’t it just as likely that the software developers disempower the support staff as much as they do users? Maybe the agent did think that the reply would reach them, and the algorithm was being AB tested.
chicob 4y ago
There is nothing more annoying than a Customer Support Chinese Room of Kafka, where tickets are transferred around only to take us back to square one each time. And if plausible deniability from senior management would just add insult to injury, plausibly, claiming that things are taken seriously when things are obviously being neglected is just gaslighting.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]