3 ms·
If Google and Facebook have clear TOS terms forbidding the middle figure and pseudonyms, then I don't see anything wrong with them enforcing those guidelines. (
by jarrett 14y ago
If Google and Facebook have clear TOS terms forbidding the middle figure and pseudonyms, then I don't see anything wrong with them enforcing those guidelines. (Provided of course they don't ban people who they incorrectly deem to be in violation, which is a whole other can of worms.)
Likewise, if you have clear TOS terms regarding prohibited activities like patent trolling, then patent trolls should just refrain from signing up. I don't see what would cause the "state of fear" provided customers are clear on what the rules are.
- the_bear 14y agoThis isn't a hypothetical situation. Google was actively banning accounts for using fake names during the early days of Google+. It was in their terms of service, but that didn't matter. People were outraged. The HackerNews community in particular was outraged. Sure they have the right to do it, but that's no way to treat your customers.
- jarrett 14y agoTrue. But I think the problem is that people weren't aware of the rule. I still support a company's right to impose these sorts of conditions. Perhaps when there is a non-common-sense restriction, it should be stated somewhere more prominent than the TOS.
- Dylan16807 14y agoWhat had me outraged was not the terms, but that google wasn't following them. They said to use the name most people knew you by in real life, and proceeded to ban people for doing so. They wouldn't accept extensive documentation of names, only government IDs. (They also accepted blatant photoshops of government IDs.)