6 ms·

> What matters is if not thinking the data would be deleted is a reasonable interpretation. Full stop. In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to

> What matters is if not thinking the data would be deleted is a reasonable interpretation. Full stop. In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to pay thousands of dollars per year indefinitely to store your data for free?

godelski 3y ago
In the world where Google says they will. This conversation cannot be had unless you will read the article and look at the screenshots. > to store your data for free? Where was it said that this was free? Per the article > So I paid Google a lot of money for a long time for a plan that included unlimited storage Please RTFA before responding. It really isn't that long. Maybe 1.5 TikTok videos for the attention impaired.
- compsciphd 3y ago
  "google product experts" aren't generally google employees and aren't speaking for google. i.e. that support site is mostly user to user help, which is perhaps an indictment on google in general, but sadly in this case can't be used for saying "where google says".
  - godelski 3y ago
    > sadly in this case can't be used for saying "where google says". I think we're looking at very different things.... there's a screenshot of a literal official email from Google, under the Google Workspace Team. Not sure where you're getting "Google product experts". Did you mean to reply to a different comment?
    - compsciphd 3y ago
      aren't we referring to the ancestor comment of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38629510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38629510 if you're referring to something else, I missed that reference, so my apologies then. I do think google gave sufficient time to move off. I also don't think a "workspace" being in read only mode was ever meant to be a permanent position for that google workspace. i.e. it was meant that "we weren't going to suddenly delete you data if you were over quota, but its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk". though if you can point to the official email from google (I'd have to find the ones they sent me, unsure if I kept or deleted them).
      - godelski 3y ago
        I apologize, I forgot that was in a comment above. Personally I'm not concerned with what the product experts said but rather the official from Google emails I'm talking about are in the screenshot of the article where it doesn't say anything about removing or deleting data. I'm also not concerned if you have to click links for more information or Google to figure out Google's policy. What matters is what's in the direct email. > i.e. it was meant that "...its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk". In person to person language I think we can rely on inference because there's good feedback mechanisms to resolve (like was done here). But in corporate communication I don't think you have the same luxury. Especially when you're a corporation that has no person to talk to to resolve misunderstandings. Instructions must be explicit and to such a degree that no reasonable person could misinterpret. It's why they hire all those lawyers and that's what a court of law would hold them to. I think given the emails shown that there's reason to believe his data would not be deleted until the explicit 7 day notice.
      - oarsinsync 3y ago
        > I do think google gave sufficient time to move off. The account was given 60 days grace on May 11, 2023. It’s currently December 15, 2023. Google Enterprise (Unlimited) accounts are subject to the same 750GB/day limits (I have one of these accounts, my account has also gone RO). As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period. In 218 days, you can download (assuming 100% efficiency) 163TB. The user has >200TB stored in their drive. The math doesn’t check out. EDIT: > As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period. Up until that point, the user was still contracted to, and paying for, an unlimited storage solution. Any suggestions that the onus is on the user to be migrating their data out while still paying for a working solution is insane. The onus is on the provider to give the user time to migrate after the terms have changed. Unless we consider Google to be the Sith, in which case, yes, pray they don’t change the terms of the deal any more.
        compsciphd 3y ago
        you can upload 750GB a day, you can download 10TB a day. in about 2 months, I was able to get out over 100TB a data (using a 500mbps connection, wasn't downloading 24/7 but close to somewhere in the 25-50% of the time, and that math does check out).
- shwouchk 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - godelski 3y ago
    > Where was it said that this was free? >> In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to pay thousands of dollars per year indefinitely to store your data for free? Expect condescending comments when if you state things that are outrageous. Especially after responding to a comment that actively demonstrated that they did not read the article. If you disagree that this is a reasonable interpretation maybe clarify that. But this is also all you said, so I'm not sure what you expect me to read it as. I think there is also sufficient reason to believe you did not read the chain of comments either. This is kinda like jumping into the middle of a conversation while having been zoned out. Sufficient evidence because you are revisiting something already discussed. If you would like to argue that his interpretation was unreasonable you should have provided reasoning to it. Don't play the victim here. You gave a low quality, emotional, and exaggeratory comment. No matter how good the argument is in your head, you can't expect a high quality response nor be upset when someone makes a quip remark. (idk why I'm even responding this one tbh) __There was no ad hominem attack.__ I responded to your claim, and by quoting the article. I have not dismissed your claim based on your character nor even attacked your character. But I'll concede that I made a slight and my comment was condescending (see above for reasons). Additionally, my slights are not subverting the argument nor detracting from it. If you need clarification, an ad hominem attack is "you should ignore anything [insert user] has to say because they are dumb and voted for [insert political enemy]". See how it doesn't respond to what you said, moves the conversation away, and now places a new standard which must be rebutted which is not actually related to the subject matter? That's what makes it a logical fallacy. We have none of those qualities. Yet now here we are, not talking about the article or the contents... You, on the other hand, did in fact make a logical fallacy. But that's already been addressed and we need not be more explicit nor derail the conversation further. > This is not mentioned in the article but it is mentioned in other comments Pro tip: do not assume the person you are replying to has read every comment under a post. You may assume they have read the direct chain of comments leading to the current point, but no more. If you are tired of saying the same thing maybe instead of saying "as I've already commented" maybe link your comment. Or chill, because frankly this isn't an issue of high importance and you don't have to really defend either situation because none of have a real horse in the race so idk why emotion is high. You should also only assume the context of the direct thread. If you want to claim that the author is hiding truth and that there was in fact clearer explicit ample warnings given, do so here, or provide a reference to your other comment. You cannot assume I am going to read through or search all >500 comments or search your username. Because frankly, I'm responding to what you said, not who you are. If your context is everything you said, including other comments unrelated to this direct chain, the contextual issue is with you not me. tldr: low quality replies don't get high quality responses and I'm not going to search for every comment you made

godelski 3y ago

In the world where Google says they will. This conversation cannot be had unless you will read the article and look at the screenshots. > to store your data for free? Where was it said that this was free? Per the article > So I paid Google a lot of money for a long time for a plan that included unlimited storage Please RTFA before responding. It really isn't that long. Maybe 1.5 TikTok videos for the attention impaired.

compsciphd 3y ago
"google product experts" aren't generally google employees and aren't speaking for google. i.e. that support site is mostly user to user help, which is perhaps an indictment on google in general, but sadly in this case can't be used for saying "where google says".
- godelski 3y ago
  > sadly in this case can't be used for saying "where google says". I think we're looking at very different things.... there's a screenshot of a literal official email from Google, under the Google Workspace Team. Not sure where you're getting "Google product experts". Did you mean to reply to a different comment?
  - compsciphd 3y ago
    aren't we referring to the ancestor comment of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38629510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38629510 if you're referring to something else, I missed that reference, so my apologies then. I do think google gave sufficient time to move off. I also don't think a "workspace" being in read only mode was ever meant to be a permanent position for that google workspace. i.e. it was meant that "we weren't going to suddenly delete you data if you were over quota, but its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk". though if you can point to the official email from google (I'd have to find the ones they sent me, unsure if I kept or deleted them).
    - godelski 3y ago
      I apologize, I forgot that was in a comment above. Personally I'm not concerned with what the product experts said but rather the official from Google emails I'm talking about are in the screenshot of the article where it doesn't say anything about removing or deleting data. I'm also not concerned if you have to click links for more information or Google to figure out Google's policy. What matters is what's in the direct email. > i.e. it was meant that "...its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk". In person to person language I think we can rely on inference because there's good feedback mechanisms to resolve (like was done here). But in corporate communication I don't think you have the same luxury. Especially when you're a corporation that has no person to talk to to resolve misunderstandings. Instructions must be explicit and to such a degree that no reasonable person could misinterpret. It's why they hire all those lawyers and that's what a court of law would hold them to. I think given the emails shown that there's reason to believe his data would not be deleted until the explicit 7 day notice.
    - oarsinsync 3y ago
      > I do think google gave sufficient time to move off. The account was given 60 days grace on May 11, 2023. It’s currently December 15, 2023. Google Enterprise (Unlimited) accounts are subject to the same 750GB/day limits (I have one of these accounts, my account has also gone RO). As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period. In 218 days, you can download (assuming 100% efficiency) 163TB. The user has >200TB stored in their drive. The math doesn’t check out. EDIT: > As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period. Up until that point, the user was still contracted to, and paying for, an unlimited storage solution. Any suggestions that the onus is on the user to be migrating their data out while still paying for a working solution is insane. The onus is on the provider to give the user time to migrate after the terms have changed. Unless we consider Google to be the Sith, in which case, yes, pray they don’t change the terms of the deal any more.
      - compsciphd 3y ago
        you can upload 750GB a day, you can download 10TB a day. in about 2 months, I was able to get out over 100TB a data (using a 500mbps connection, wasn't downloading 24/7 but close to somewhere in the 25-50% of the time, and that math does check out).
shwouchk 3y ago
[flagged]
- godelski 3y ago
  > Where was it said that this was free? >> In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to pay thousands of dollars per year indefinitely to store your data for free? Expect condescending comments when if you state things that are outrageous. Especially after responding to a comment that actively demonstrated that they did not read the article. If you disagree that this is a reasonable interpretation maybe clarify that. But this is also all you said, so I'm not sure what you expect me to read it as. I think there is also sufficient reason to believe you did not read the chain of comments either. This is kinda like jumping into the middle of a conversation while having been zoned out. Sufficient evidence because you are revisiting something already discussed. If you would like to argue that his interpretation was unreasonable you should have provided reasoning to it. Don't play the victim here. You gave a low quality, emotional, and exaggeratory comment. No matter how good the argument is in your head, you can't expect a high quality response nor be upset when someone makes a quip remark. (idk why I'm even responding this one tbh) __There was no ad hominem attack.__ I responded to your claim, and by quoting the article. I have not dismissed your claim based on your character nor even attacked your character. But I'll concede that I made a slight and my comment was condescending (see above for reasons). Additionally, my slights are not subverting the argument nor detracting from it. If you need clarification, an ad hominem attack is "you should ignore anything [insert user] has to say because they are dumb and voted for [insert political enemy]". See how it doesn't respond to what you said, moves the conversation away, and now places a new standard which must be rebutted which is not actually related to the subject matter? That's what makes it a logical fallacy. We have none of those qualities. Yet now here we are, not talking about the article or the contents... You, on the other hand, did in fact make a logical fallacy. But that's already been addressed and we need not be more explicit nor derail the conversation further. > This is not mentioned in the article but it is mentioned in other comments Pro tip: do not assume the person you are replying to has read every comment under a post. You may assume they have read the direct chain of comments leading to the current point, but no more. If you are tired of saying the same thing maybe instead of saying "as I've already commented" maybe link your comment. Or chill, because frankly this isn't an issue of high importance and you don't have to really defend either situation because none of have a real horse in the race so idk why emotion is high. You should also only assume the context of the direct thread. If you want to claim that the author is hiding truth and that there was in fact clearer explicit ample warnings given, do so here, or provide a reference to your other comment. You cannot assume I am going to read through or search all >500 comments or search your username. Because frankly, I'm responding to what you said, not who you are. If your context is everything you said, including other comments unrelated to this direct chain, the contextual issue is with you not me. tldr: low quality replies don't get high quality responses and I'm not going to search for every comment you made