3 ms·

not sure I get how people can assume Google (or any company, person, or government) owes them something. Google provides a free service (which they figured out

not sure I get how people can assume Google (or any company, person, or government) owes them something. Google provides a free service (which they figured out how to support via ads). They can refuse service to anyone. In this case, google is enforcing a rule that is not even their own. Obviously there is a huge pre-teen advertising market that they cannot capitalize on because of this rule. You have knowingly broken this rule, used the account and got caught. They make is clear when you sign up that you must be over 13. Tough luck.

tobtoh 15y ago
This old chestnut of an argument gets rolled out every time a situation like this occurs - "Well they are the rules, you should have read them, it's your fault. Suck it up". In most situations I've read, the people don't so much object the rules, they object to the unfairness of them. Two factors often come into play - were the rules clearly stated and is the penalty in proportion to the 'crime'. 'Rules clearly stated' doesn't mean 'here is a 10 page 8pt font terms and conditions document we assume you read' because you clicked through a EULA apge. If your rule is going to have an impact where they will likely lose their service, that had better be upfront and unmistakable. The dad claims he didn't see such a warning and in all the Google accounts I've signed up for, I don't recall reading such a condition either (I'm sure it's there, I just don't recall ever having seen it). Punishment fitting the crime - it's a bit like those banks which charge you a $5 fee for falling below the $4 minimum amount you have to keep in your account, and then charging you an overdraft fee, then charging you for accessing an overdraft you hadn't previously arranged, then charging you for ... etc. Or perhaps laws where 'if you aren't doing anything criminal, you should have nothing to fear about constant unwarranted surveillance, searches or whatever'. Just because a rule is broken doesn't mean it's fair game for any penalty to be applied. In the case of this kid, losing access to all that data seems to be unfair. I get the sense that if the dad could at least retrieve the data, most of his unhappiness would be gone and he would move on. Arguing with a 'the rules have been broken, lynch them' position, really doesn't take into account basic human behaviours - people make mistakes, you have to help them not make them (clear rules) and guiding them to the correct behaviour when they deviate (appropriate in proportion punishments). Of course, a business doesn't have to take into account basic human behaviour - that's their right - but they rightly deserve the scorn at their lack of respect for their customers when they get called out.
okoni 15y ago
Sorry you have to learn it this way, but most people lie about birthdate as a number entered in an online form is no proof of age.

tobtoh 15y ago

This old chestnut of an argument gets rolled out every time a situation like this occurs - "Well they are the rules, you should have read them, it's your fault. Suck it up". In most situations I've read, the people don't so much object the rules, they object to the unfairness of them. Two factors often come into play - were the rules clearly stated and is the penalty in proportion to the 'crime'. 'Rules clearly stated' doesn't mean 'here is a 10 page 8pt font terms and conditions document we assume you read' because you clicked through a EULA apge. If your rule is going to have an impact where they will likely lose their service, that had better be upfront and unmistakable. The dad claims he didn't see such a warning and in all the Google accounts I've signed up for, I don't recall reading such a condition either (I'm sure it's there, I just don't recall ever having seen it). Punishment fitting the crime - it's a bit like those banks which charge you a $5 fee for falling below the $4 minimum amount you have to keep in your account, and then charging you an overdraft fee, then charging you for accessing an overdraft you hadn't previously arranged, then charging you for ... etc. Or perhaps laws where 'if you aren't doing anything criminal, you should have nothing to fear about constant unwarranted surveillance, searches or whatever'. Just because a rule is broken doesn't mean it's fair game for any penalty to be applied. In the case of this kid, losing access to all that data seems to be unfair. I get the sense that if the dad could at least retrieve the data, most of his unhappiness would be gone and he would move on. Arguing with a 'the rules have been broken, lynch them' position, really doesn't take into account basic human behaviours - people make mistakes, you have to help them not make them (clear rules) and guiding them to the correct behaviour when they deviate (appropriate in proportion punishments). Of course, a business doesn't have to take into account basic human behaviour - that's their right - but they rightly deserve the scorn at their lack of respect for their customers when they get called out.

okoni 15y ago

Sorry you have to learn it this way, but most people lie about birthdate as a number entered in an online form is no proof of age.