6 ms·
That's not really the problem. The problem is that *customer support* suggested to do so.
by mbauman 4y ago
That's not really the problem. The problem is that *customer support* suggested to do so.
- CogitoCogito 4y agoYeah there is no excuse for Google not to make an exception to the policy when Google told the poster to do the chargeback.
- kube-system 4y agoThis is the inevitable result of automation. There is no negotiating with a piece of code.
- CogitoCogito 4y agoIt’s not inevitable. Of course it can be overridden.
- kube-system 4y agoBut by who? There’s nobody to hire for that role, because the role has been automated.
- CogitoCogito 4y agoI have no idea if you're being serious, but of course code can be overridden and of course you can hire someone to override it. Google has apparently chosen not to.
- kube-system 4y agoHiring someone to do a thing is the opposite of automating it.
- 10729287 4y agoI think the chargeback here was a personal "go f yourself" move from the supervisor to a "troublesome" client, not Google.
- CogitoCogito 4y agoIf the customer was told to do a chargeback by a Google employee (or outsourced contractor) then it was _Google_ who told the customer to do the chargeback.
- michaelmrose 4y agoEvery action by myself acting in my official capacity is an action by my company and they cannot disentangle themselves from that obligation by blaming an employee.
- Brian_K_White 4y agoGoogle logs everything about everyone, but somehow doesn't have a record of themselves telling the user to do something. Man it sure is a great gig being google!
- Brystephor 4y agoThat's definitely a problem. But a lot of people seem surprised that issuing a chargeback can result in a loss of access to company services. So was just sharing from my work experience.