3 ms·

> Of course a chargeback, the final legal method through which you have issues redressed, is a valid reason to deny you further access to a private company's pl

• thefurdrake 4y ago
  Google is historically incapable of ensuring the left hand knows what the right is doing. That isn't to say it's an okay way for things to be. It isn't. However, if I were to get into a disagreement with Google, and a CSR told me to "do a chargeback", I would assume that CSR was engaging with me in poor faith, because these megashitcorps have a penchant for completely banning people out of hand for chargebacks to the point where it's basically autonomic. It seems like something I'd tell an annoying customer to do if they were annoying me and I was having a particularly bad day, because doing tech support is a miserable and soul-destroying job. Again, this isn't a justification/rationalization, because this isn't an okay state of affairs in my mind, but I generally expect that a chargeback means I am ending my relationship with a business. Perhaps the OP from reddit should adopt the same mentality defensively.
• hunter2_ 4y ago
  That's the crux of the issue. If a CSR told you to jump off a bridge though... Yes you might win something if charges are pressed, but also you really should've known better. In matters of "ToS;DR" it's generally the case that terms aligned with common expectations are enforceable but terms that don't aren't. That leaves me wondering if "chargebacks get you canceled" is a common expectation or not. The answer to this strongly influences whether my bridge analogy is accurate.