3 ms·
The first case sounds like an unintentional failure to pay. Here it makes Google look bad although it's not clear who is at fault. I think the circumstances a
by omoikane 3y ago
The first case sounds like an unintentional failure to pay. Here it makes Google look bad although it's not clear who is at fault. I think the circumstances are different, but I can see an argument of why similar policy should apply despite the different circumstances.
The second case sounds like an intention to discontinue service, and seem to be a different failure mode not quite related to the current article.
- soraminazuki 3y agoEvery payment dispute has different circumstances, but surely it's possible to observe a pattern here. Google recklessly screws over ordinary people, even when unprovoked. But apparently they won't lift a finger when billionaires don't pay their bills. BTW in the first case, Google looks bad because they are. Payment issues are common, and should never ever result in people losing their digital livelihoods. Bans should have a meaningful appeal process. Users should be able to reach human employees that has the power to actually resolve issues. There's no excuse for getting so many basic things wrong here given the consequences. Your framing of the second case is plainly wrong too. It's theft by Google. You can't discontinue a service you never received. The author moved to prevent further theft only after Google explicitly refused to do what was right.