4 ms·
She downloaded an app from Google's store. Google is supposed to vet apps. Google may have even recommended that she download that app.
by umbra07 2y ago
She downloaded an app from Google's store. Google is supposed to vet apps. Google may have even recommended that she download that app.
- ethbr1 2y agoWhat level of financial protection does Google provide on apps in their store? Is there a GDIC clause I missed? "It was in the store" seem an unreasonably low bar for personal responsibility.
- umbra07 2y agoI have no idea - and it's not pertinent to my argument.
- ethbr1 2y agoYou're suggesting that Google's listing should take the place of due diligence? A financial guarantee seems the least I'd require for that, personally.
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoI would think vetting apps means that the apps work for their intended purposes. It was in the store seems a reasonably level bar for the app has been vetted to show it works for its intended purpose.
- mcosta 2y agoThe intended purpose for a "crypto app" is to scam its users. So it checks out.
- deanishe 2y agoIt was in their store. How is selling fake investment apps different to selling fake sneakers?
- ethbr1 2y agoBecause an app store will always be a bazaar. No one is doing full human code review on apps. To pretend otherwise is insane. (Even by appealing to app store monopolies or fees, which are immaterial to due diligence responsibility here) This wasn't a case of the lady giving $5M to Google for fake crypto. It was more like Google selling her a phone, then her dialing one of the preset numbers on that phone and getting scammed.
- Drakim 2y agoThe defense for Apple and Google taking their 30% cut is usually about how they do vetting and take responsibility for their app store being legitimate.
- ethbr1 2y agoThat's a bad argument to give someone hot coffee in lap money for, though. Google and Apple operate monopolistic app stores with predatory fees. This lady did something foolish. Redressing the former by removing responsibility for the latter doesn't make sense. I'm all for fining Google over this, but the money shouldn't go to the victim.
- me-vs-cat 2y ago> That's a bad argument to give someone hot coffee in lap money for, though. Are you sure? Didn't that coffee lady originally request just hospital expenses, and then her lawyer told the jury to award punitive damages equal to one day's worth of coffee sales? (Or was it one day's coffee profits?) Seems rather fitting that Google might pay one day's worth of app profits, if punitive damages are applied to their 3-month delay.
- SR2Z 2y agoDid Google take 30% of the money she lost?