3 ms·

I'm feel reasonably sure that Google has introduced some kind of internal policy against employees helping out or publicly commenting on such matters. Anyone w

I'm feel reasonably sure that Google has introduced some kind of internal policy against employees helping out or publicly commenting on such matters. Anyone who has read the comments of a few of these types of articles on HN over the years might recall that in the past, there was almost invariably would be a comment starting with "Hi, Googler here!" offering some help. I don't recall seeing any comments like that in the past 6 months or longer.

qmarchi 4y ago
Disc: Googler, opinions and comments are my own. Not in Ads. I mean, 4 months ago, I posted this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30401241#30402432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30401241#30402432 Ads fraud is generally a no-op from internal escalations though, something that personally I won't touch unless I know the person. As I see it, Ads generally won't ban an account that has historical spend even if they see something lightly suspicious, and that's where the business is. With smaller spenders, new accounts, and various other flags, your risk of cancellation is _significantly_ higher, but Google's risk is lower since they didn't have the spend already.
- jfoster 4y ago
  Thank you for adding your view. No major changes in policy around this, then?
viraptor 4y ago
Given the amount of chaos the insider help can cause, I'm not surprised they would do that. There was a video I can't find now doing rounds on twitter with girls saying how they used relationships/sex with instagram employees to get their accounts unblocked. Companies are likely aiming for more accountability than that.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The problem with Google definitely seems like a lack of accountability...
jeffbee 4y ago
Every company should have a clear policy against jumping into these kinds of support claims outside of established channels, because they are the main vector for social engineering. There are reasons that accounts get suspended and whether or not those reasons are perfect, having humans reach in and jerk around with the system is much less perfect.
- Jasper_ 4y ago
  That's all well and good, except Google has a clear policy against jumping into support claims inside the established channels, too
- jfoster 4y ago
  I agree & didn't mean to imply otherwise. They should focus on making their system (including appeals via the official channels) work properly rather than doing support via HN.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  > perfect > less perfect Nope. How about "dogshit" and "dogshit"?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mik3y 4y ago
Understandable to prohibit public commentary/shows of assistance; but that wasn't at issue here. What I sought was someone to escalate the details in a ticket & get eyes on a likely false positive -- from a very friendly/technical customer (me). The buddies I asked, admittedly not on Ads risk engineering, looked around, hit walls, and gave up.

qmarchi 4y ago

Disc: Googler, opinions and comments are my own. Not in Ads. I mean, 4 months ago, I posted this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30401241#30402432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30401241#30402432 Ads fraud is generally a no-op from internal escalations though, something that personally I won't touch unless I know the person. As I see it, Ads generally won't ban an account that has historical spend even if they see something lightly suspicious, and that's where the business is. With smaller spenders, new accounts, and various other flags, your risk of cancellation is _significantly_ higher, but Google's risk is lower since they didn't have the spend already.

jfoster 4y ago
Thank you for adding your view. No major changes in policy around this, then?

viraptor 4y ago

Given the amount of chaos the insider help can cause, I'm not surprised they would do that. There was a video I can't find now doing rounds on twitter with girls saying how they used relationships/sex with instagram employees to get their accounts unblocked. Companies are likely aiming for more accountability than that.

ethbr0 4y ago
The problem with Google definitely seems like a lack of accountability...

jeffbee 4y ago

Every company should have a clear policy against jumping into these kinds of support claims outside of established channels, because they are the main vector for social engineering. There are reasons that accounts get suspended and whether or not those reasons are perfect, having humans reach in and jerk around with the system is much less perfect.

Jasper_ 4y ago
That's all well and good, except Google has a clear policy against jumping into support claims inside the established channels, too
jfoster 4y ago
I agree & didn't mean to imply otherwise. They should focus on making their system (including appeals via the official channels) work properly rather than doing support via HN.
jjoonathan 4y ago
> perfect > less perfect Nope. How about "dogshit" and "dogshit"?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mik3y 4y ago

Understandable to prohibit public commentary/shows of assistance; but that wasn't at issue here. What I sought was someone to escalate the details in a ticket & get eyes on a likely false positive -- from a very friendly/technical customer (me). The buddies I asked, admittedly not on Ads risk engineering, looked around, hit walls, and gave up.