4 ms·
This is well meaning and shows an unfortunate side of 2f-auth, but she seems to think that google is in the business of helping people. They are in the business
by tomjen3 4y ago
This is well meaning and shows an unfortunate side of 2f-auth, but she seems to think that google is in the business of helping people. They are in the business of selling ads. True their search engine has greatly helped a lot of people, as has gmail.
But they are in the business of selling ads, and they are not selling enough ads to people who both a) cannot continuously afford a phone number b) are unable to afford an internet connection at home to be worth dealing with the complaints, manual verification and prevent fraud.
Google is in the business of making money. You make very little money from poor people, and you lose money if they cost even more to service.
This does not mean that it doesn't suck for the homeless lady, but this is reality.
- dredmorbius 4y agoRegulation can change that.
- tomjen3 4y agoWell yes, but then a) regulation can also cause more damage and b) you should be writing to your senator, not google.
- dredmorbius 4y agoPoints being that: 1. Overcoming business incentivisation requires some external influence. 2. Individual action alone won't accomplish this. 3. We're part of that larger conversation. Writing Google first shows a good-faith effort. Google's failed to respond to that. HN is upping the ante. Regulatory action is another level. These are not exclusive or independent actions.