5 ms·
I'm leaning this way too. I've read and understand the counterargument - "if we tell the bad actors why we banned them, it will give them explicit help on new
by nlh 4y ago
I'm leaning this way too. I've read and understand the counterargument - "if we tell the bad actors why we banned them, it will give them explicit help on new ways to scam us." You know what? Too bad.
Here's my best analogy: If you run a jewelry store, yes, you can have hidden cameras and silent alarms and lots of things so the bad guys don't know what your defenses are. But also, sometimes a big person with a big weapon standing at the doorway is fine too. It very clearly tells people what your defenses are, and that's OK.
To build on that in Google's case: If they just said "Sorry, your payment via Brex triggered some of our security policies because lots of bad actors use Brex", then yes, bad actors would stop using Brex and look for other methods to defraud. Is that a....bad thing?
- jfim 4y agoThere would probably be a lawsuit coming from Brex if that was written down, so it would just expose Google to additional liability. It's the kind of situation where the correct decision for Google is to not reveal anything, as it just adds risk on their end for not much gain, but at the same time, we're all losing because everyone is subject to random acts of overzealous algorithms with no clear understanding of what happened, candidates don't get interview feedback if they fail the interview, executives never apologize for anything because that would be admitting guilt, and so on. But hey, we minimized liability!
- horsawlarway 4y agoCorrect - it's clearly a case of market failure. The incentives for the company do not align with the incentives of the public. That's when you fucking regulate them! That's literally the foundational case law for the last 100 some years (more really, since anti-trust goes back to the 1890s) on when to god damn regulate a company.