4 ms·

This is a result of taking a product made by someone else for a certain purpose and then using it for one it isn't intended. Its not Google's fault gmail is a b

This is a result of taking a product made by someone else for a certain purpose and then using it for one it isn't intended. Its not Google's fault gmail is a bad fit here. They didn't design it with this use case in mind. The solution is to use one that is. Why are case workers directing the homeless to setup gmail accounts? Because they haven't been provided with a better solution by the system they work within. So its the government's problem to fix. They are the ones handing out phones and setting the expectation to communicate through email. So they can either design an email service themselves that fits their needs. Or they can work with an industry partner, such as google or someone else to provide the service. Normal gmail is a one size fits all commodity solution. It works well enough for most people, most of the time. Specialized problems call for specialized solutions. Complaining that google didn't think of you is misplaced.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
Should users with poor vision also have to use a special blind-person email provider? Because, I'd expect supporting screen readers to take significantly more effort than adding the setting I outlined. Also, if I was homeless, I wouldn't want my email address to indicate I was homeless. I broadly agree that it isn't Google's job to cater to everyone, but in this instance, the ask seems overwhelmingly reasonable—and less than what we expect in other circumstances.
- Kalium 4y ago
  What is the ask that is overwhelmingly reasonable? As has been pointed out to me and others, Google already offers a way to turn off 2FA - https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1064203 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1064203 Naively this seems like it should solve the 2FA problem for the unhoused community members in question. With this in mind, what else should Google do?
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    Even when 2FA is disabled, Google will insist on additional verification (phone, recovery email, etc) if it thinks something about your browser or IP address is unusual, even if you know your password. If you don't have a verification method (or cannot access it), Google will literally just lock you out. I have personally experienced this. It should be possible to turn this off!
    - Kalium 4y ago
      OK. That raises all sorts of follow-up questions, as turning off security measures can be expected to have consequences. What should Google do in the scenario that this purposely-low-security-for-the-unhoused account is breached? What about abuse? Are we OK with Google just shutting off accounts in that scenario? Are we prepared to accept that the members of our community experiencing being unhoused will find themselves constantly creating new accounts as their old ones are shut off or rendered unusual from the consequences of purposely-low-security-for-the-vulnerable? Remember, things like gmail accounts are under constant attack. Security measures, the very ones we're talking about disabling, help keep those attacks at bay. Each of those things that triggers verification actually lines up with real attack patterns. So while this may be a small-ish thing to ask for, I'm a little concerned about the consequences. We're literally asking to offer the most vulnerable and marginalized members of society shittier security and ignoring the effects of this.
      - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
        > Are we OK with Google just shutting off accounts in that scenario? Are we prepared to accept that the members of our community experiencing being unhoused will find themselves constantly creating new accounts as their old ones are shut off or rendered unusual from the consequences of purposely-low-security-for-the-vulnerable? I am, yes, if the alternative is that they loose access to their account every few months! Also, at least this way people have the ability to keep their accounts truly safe if they choose a strong, unique password. If Google just locks them out no matter what, there's no recourse.
        4y ago
Ar-Curunir 4y ago
If Google is going to position itself as the face of the internet, then it has to live up to that responsibility; it can’t go, hm yes, use our browser and our email service and our phones, but only if you fit into this category of prescribed users.
- dublin 4y ago
  Of course they can. It's the only thing they've ever done. I honestly can't think of a company that thinks less of its users than Google does - that's because in their view, they have no users - they only have eyeballs, that are worth anywhere from fractional cents to hundreds of dollars every time they can grab them. Using "support" and "Google" in the same sentence is laughable. They barely support the ad clients that pay their freight. Google's entire business model is built around NEVER providing support for the users of their technologies, and killing off any products that don't monetize.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Gmail is a perfect fit in theory. Google provides a product, workspace, where you can hand out gmail addresses and reset them at need. Given that the cost of providing such accounts is actually less because the support burden falls on the city it might be possible to convince Google to provide them at less than the standard cost.
xg15 4y ago
> They didn't design it with this use case in mind. Where on the gmail page does it say "not for homeless people, sorry"? Adding (and forcing) 2FA was a recent decision from Google, which came a long time after Gmail the product was already introduced. There are millions of accounts which were created long before anyone had an idea what a smartphone was, let alone phone-based 2FA.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

Should users with poor vision also have to use a special blind-person email provider? Because, I'd expect supporting screen readers to take significantly more effort than adding the setting I outlined. Also, if I was homeless, I wouldn't want my email address to indicate I was homeless. I broadly agree that it isn't Google's job to cater to everyone, but in this instance, the ask seems overwhelmingly reasonable—and less than what we expect in other circumstances.

Kalium 4y ago
What is the ask that is overwhelmingly reasonable? As has been pointed out to me and others, Google already offers a way to turn off 2FA - https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1064203 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1064203 Naively this seems like it should solve the 2FA problem for the unhoused community members in question. With this in mind, what else should Google do?
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  Even when 2FA is disabled, Google will insist on additional verification (phone, recovery email, etc) if it thinks something about your browser or IP address is unusual, even if you know your password. If you don't have a verification method (or cannot access it), Google will literally just lock you out. I have personally experienced this. It should be possible to turn this off!
  - Kalium 4y ago
    OK. That raises all sorts of follow-up questions, as turning off security measures can be expected to have consequences. What should Google do in the scenario that this purposely-low-security-for-the-unhoused account is breached? What about abuse? Are we OK with Google just shutting off accounts in that scenario? Are we prepared to accept that the members of our community experiencing being unhoused will find themselves constantly creating new accounts as their old ones are shut off or rendered unusual from the consequences of purposely-low-security-for-the-vulnerable? Remember, things like gmail accounts are under constant attack. Security measures, the very ones we're talking about disabling, help keep those attacks at bay. Each of those things that triggers verification actually lines up with real attack patterns. So while this may be a small-ish thing to ask for, I'm a little concerned about the consequences. We're literally asking to offer the most vulnerable and marginalized members of society shittier security and ignoring the effects of this.
    - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
      > Are we OK with Google just shutting off accounts in that scenario? Are we prepared to accept that the members of our community experiencing being unhoused will find themselves constantly creating new accounts as their old ones are shut off or rendered unusual from the consequences of purposely-low-security-for-the-vulnerable? I am, yes, if the alternative is that they loose access to their account every few months! Also, at least this way people have the ability to keep their accounts truly safe if they choose a strong, unique password. If Google just locks them out no matter what, there's no recourse.
      - 4y ago

Ar-Curunir 4y ago

If Google is going to position itself as the face of the internet, then it has to live up to that responsibility; it can’t go, hm yes, use our browser and our email service and our phones, but only if you fit into this category of prescribed users.

dublin 4y ago
Of course they can. It's the only thing they've ever done. I honestly can't think of a company that thinks less of its users than Google does - that's because in their view, they have no users - they only have eyeballs, that are worth anywhere from fractional cents to hundreds of dollars every time they can grab them. Using "support" and "Google" in the same sentence is laughable. They barely support the ad clients that pay their freight. Google's entire business model is built around NEVER providing support for the users of their technologies, and killing off any products that don't monetize.

michaelmrose 4y ago

Gmail is a perfect fit in theory. Google provides a product, workspace, where you can hand out gmail addresses and reset them at need. Given that the cost of providing such accounts is actually less because the support burden falls on the city it might be possible to convince Google to provide them at less than the standard cost.

xg15 4y ago

> They didn't design it with this use case in mind. Where on the gmail page does it say "not for homeless people, sorry"? Adding (and forcing) 2FA was a recent decision from Google, which came a long time after Gmail the product was already introduced. There are millions of accounts which were created long before anyone had an idea what a smartphone was, let alone phone-based 2FA.