4 ms·

The six-month grace period notice pretty clearly states his data would be read-only, while the seven-day notice seems to be the first time destruction is even m

by ollien 3y ago

The six-month grace period notice pretty clearly states his data would be read-only, while the seven-day notice seems to be the first time destruction is even mentioned. I think we can both agree that there's a world of difference between data being read-only and being destroyed. I think it's completely reasonable to say he has 7 days to download it.

haswell 3y ago
> I think it's completely reasonable to say he has 7 days to download it. 7 days to download 200TB+ does not seem reasonable.
- ollien 3y ago
  No, I agree. Sorry, my phrasing there was poor. I meant: it is completely reasonable to say that "he has seven days to download it", not that it is completely reasonable for him to only have seven days.
  - haswell 3y ago
    I see what you mean; thanks for clarifying.
- freedomben 3y ago
  based on the rest of the comment, I'm guessing GP missed a negative like "don't", or "isn't", or "not", etc
- kbrosnan 3y ago
  'to say that...' is discussing which of the statements in the article is a better interpretation, 7 vs 60. It is not making any claims about the reasonableness of the 7 days to download the soon to be deleted data.
alacode 3y ago
I was curious what the context of "grace period" is for Google Drive and found this: https://support.google.com/drive/thread/13321050/what-will-happen-to-my-data-if-i-don-t-pay-for-google-one-after-few-months?hl=en https://support.google.com/drive/thread/13321050/what-will-h... "If I cancel my additional storage, will all the files/documents that took up the additional space, be deleted? Or will I still have access to them?" "You will still have access to all your files but, if you have used all storage you won't be able to add or create NEW files until you have space available." Which sounds like you're right, unless the Product Expert was wrong.
- llbeansandrice 3y ago
  The fact that this comment chain is about 7 deep trying to figure out whether the customer was given enough notice or not I think is also evidence that Google has a terrible UX for this anyway. If your data is going to be deleted, it should be painfully obvious well in advance.
  - godelski 3y ago
    I don't think the depth of this comment chain has anything to do with the UX design. The words on that warning are unequivocally interpretable as "the data will not be deleted." At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter if hidden in the terms of service or somewhere if it is made clear that the data will be deleted. It doesn't even matter if it is clear to @andrewmutz and @garblegarble that the data will be deleted[0]. What matters is if not thinking the data would be deleted is a reasonable interpretation. Full stop. It also matters that when explicit communication (unequivocally interpreted as slated for deletion) that the user was given 7 days, which was not even enough time, especially considering Google's egress rates. There's a lot of this on HN lately and I'm not sure why. Communication is fuzzy people, I'm not sure why that's surprising. But when there's disagreement don't ask yourself which is right or wrong, but if a reasonable interpretation was made. Because communication is like an autoencoder: there's what's in your head (input), what you say (lossy compressed intermediate latent), and what is received (decompressed information with imputation). There's too many attempts to defend a believed objective reality which just is absurd (ironically making the view less objective). And, importantly, RTFA [0] Obviously these two are reading between the lines. It is not a bad interpretation and we often should practice this, especially to be on the safe side, but it's clear that there is inference, so what's wrong with the comments is their strong assertions that the communication was obvious. One may also make the argument that Techdirt isn't telling the full story or timeline, but that's also a different issue and inferential.
zlg_codes 3y ago
What kinda connection do you have where you're able to transfer 200 TB of data in 7 days? Did you even do the math before that tripe escaped your fingers?

by ollien 3y ago

haswell 3y ago

> I think it's completely reasonable to say he has 7 days to download it. 7 days to download 200TB+ does not seem reasonable.

ollien 3y ago
No, I agree. Sorry, my phrasing there was poor. I meant: it is completely reasonable to say that "he has seven days to download it", not that it is completely reasonable for him to only have seven days.
- haswell 3y ago
  I see what you mean; thanks for clarifying.
freedomben 3y ago
based on the rest of the comment, I'm guessing GP missed a negative like "don't", or "isn't", or "not", etc
kbrosnan 3y ago
'to say that...' is discussing which of the statements in the article is a better interpretation, 7 vs 60. It is not making any claims about the reasonableness of the 7 days to download the soon to be deleted data.

alacode 3y ago

I was curious what the context of "grace period" is for Google Drive and found this: https://support.google.com/drive/thread/13321050/what-will-happen-to-my-data-if-i-don-t-pay-for-google-one-after-few-months?hl=en https://support.google.com/drive/thread/13321050/what-will-h... "If I cancel my additional storage, will all the files/documents that took up the additional space, be deleted? Or will I still have access to them?" "You will still have access to all your files but, if you have used all storage you won't be able to add or create NEW files until you have space available." Which sounds like you're right, unless the Product Expert was wrong.

llbeansandrice 3y ago
The fact that this comment chain is about 7 deep trying to figure out whether the customer was given enough notice or not I think is also evidence that Google has a terrible UX for this anyway. If your data is going to be deleted, it should be painfully obvious well in advance.
- godelski 3y ago
  I don't think the depth of this comment chain has anything to do with the UX design. The words on that warning are unequivocally interpretable as "the data will not be deleted." At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter if hidden in the terms of service or somewhere if it is made clear that the data will be deleted. It doesn't even matter if it is clear to @andrewmutz and @garblegarble that the data will be deleted[0]. What matters is if not thinking the data would be deleted is a reasonable interpretation. Full stop. It also matters that when explicit communication (unequivocally interpreted as slated for deletion) that the user was given 7 days, which was not even enough time, especially considering Google's egress rates. There's a lot of this on HN lately and I'm not sure why. Communication is fuzzy people, I'm not sure why that's surprising. But when there's disagreement don't ask yourself which is right or wrong, but if a reasonable interpretation was made. Because communication is like an autoencoder: there's what's in your head (input), what you say (lossy compressed intermediate latent), and what is received (decompressed information with imputation). There's too many attempts to defend a believed objective reality which just is absurd (ironically making the view less objective). And, importantly, RTFA [0] Obviously these two are reading between the lines. It is not a bad interpretation and we often should practice this, especially to be on the safe side, but it's clear that there is inference, so what's wrong with the comments is their strong assertions that the communication was obvious. One may also make the argument that Techdirt isn't telling the full story or timeline, but that's also a different issue and inferential.

zlg_codes 3y ago

What kinda connection do you have where you're able to transfer 200 TB of data in 7 days? Did you even do the math before that tripe escaped your fingers?