5 ms·

What would having a human in the loop accomplish in this case? Doesn't strike me as the poster child of a massive injustice

by pcai 4y ago

blondin 4y ago
they wouldn't have banned the kid for life?
sct202 4y ago
Human in the loop could redirect payments to their parent without a lifetime ban. Children do unwise things all the time. Google's growth rates are starting to plateau, and they might want to revisit the legion of people they've robobanned from spending on their platforms.
- TylerE 4y ago
  The problem is minors can’t legally enter into binding contracts (with a very small number of exceptions, none of which this even approaches)
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    That'd be a reasonable argument to ban minors until they turn 18, but not after that.
  - romwell 4y ago
    No, the problem is that Google doesn't have a human being to tell the kid "have your parents contact us".
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It may not be possible for Google to do that redirect without incurring legal liability. Fraud occurred here. Google just shuffling the shells might be aiding and abetting fraud. (The law here isn't set up just to protect Google; nor is it set up to just protect the kid. It ties into broader societal protections against child exploitation and child labor. So Google runs the risk of tripping over criminal liability, in which case the end result is no longer in the hands of any of the immediate parties. Their policies are maximally paranoid to avoid that outcome).
  - romwell 4y ago
    >It may not be possible for Google to do that redirect without incurring legal liability. Utter nonsense. "Hold on, you are 13? Get your parents to call us, they'll have to set up that account for you"
  - code51 4y ago
    a) Unpaid balance could just be refunded to advertisers. b) Worries about child labor: already happened. Google profited from his activity already. It's just the kid not receiving anything.
treffer 4y ago
Got banned from Amazon on my first purchase. For some reason the payment bounced even though everything should have been fine (correct payment details, enough money in the account etc). Complained and got unbanned. AWS has even a notary(!) based process to recover accounts. It is pretty normal to recover bad things on non-Google sites by getting a human into the loop, especially if money is involved.
- forgotpwd16 4y ago
  AWS support has left me really impressed. They were answering inquiries even when started and was playing around a free-tier account. (Even got a refund for a charge due to forgetting some stuff running beyond the free-tier limit.) Not surprised they dominate the cloud segment and GCP barely reaches two-digits usage.
  - kylebyproxy 4y ago
    > forgetting some stuff running beyond the free-tier limit Weird, they banned my account for that. Tried AWS when it was brand new and assumed they'd just drop the instance when the free tier expired.
    - forgotpwd16 4y ago
      Banned sounds strange. Going beyond the free-tier limits simply means they start charging you. Though to say the truth, as you, was expecting them to stop the service. Did you tried a chargeback or blocked them access to your card?

What would having a human in the loop accomplish in this case? Doesn't strike me as the poster child of a massive injustice

by pcai 4y ago

What would having a human in the loop accomplish in this case? Doesn't strike me as the poster child of a massive injustice

blondin 4y ago

they wouldn't have banned the kid for life?

sct202 4y ago

Human in the loop could redirect payments to their parent without a lifetime ban. Children do unwise things all the time. Google's growth rates are starting to plateau, and they might want to revisit the legion of people they've robobanned from spending on their platforms.

TylerE 4y ago
The problem is minors can’t legally enter into binding contracts (with a very small number of exceptions, none of which this even approaches)
- josephcsible 4y ago
  That'd be a reasonable argument to ban minors until they turn 18, but not after that.
- romwell 4y ago
  No, the problem is that Google doesn't have a human being to tell the kid "have your parents contact us".
shadowgovt 4y ago
It may not be possible for Google to do that redirect without incurring legal liability. Fraud occurred here. Google just shuffling the shells might be aiding and abetting fraud. (The law here isn't set up just to protect Google; nor is it set up to just protect the kid. It ties into broader societal protections against child exploitation and child labor. So Google runs the risk of tripping over criminal liability, in which case the end result is no longer in the hands of any of the immediate parties. Their policies are maximally paranoid to avoid that outcome).
- romwell 4y ago
  >It may not be possible for Google to do that redirect without incurring legal liability. Utter nonsense. "Hold on, you are 13? Get your parents to call us, they'll have to set up that account for you"
- code51 4y ago
  a) Unpaid balance could just be refunded to advertisers. b) Worries about child labor: already happened. Google profited from his activity already. It's just the kid not receiving anything.

treffer 4y ago

Got banned from Amazon on my first purchase. For some reason the payment bounced even though everything should have been fine (correct payment details, enough money in the account etc). Complained and got unbanned. AWS has even a notary(!) based process to recover accounts. It is pretty normal to recover bad things on non-Google sites by getting a human into the loop, especially if money is involved.

forgotpwd16 4y ago
AWS support has left me really impressed. They were answering inquiries even when started and was playing around a free-tier account. (Even got a refund for a charge due to forgetting some stuff running beyond the free-tier limit.) Not surprised they dominate the cloud segment and GCP barely reaches two-digits usage.
- kylebyproxy 4y ago
  > forgetting some stuff running beyond the free-tier limit Weird, they banned my account for that. Tried AWS when it was brand new and assumed they'd just drop the instance when the free tier expired.
  - forgotpwd16 4y ago
    Banned sounds strange. Going beyond the free-tier limits simply means they start charging you. Though to say the truth, as you, was expecting them to stop the service. Did you tried a chargeback or blocked them access to your card?