6 ms·

God, this is a real nightmare. I'm pretty reticent to rush to regulation, but I really don't know what other solution is even possible here. The average person

by troad 7mo ago

God, this is a real nightmare. I'm pretty reticent to rush to regulation, but I really don't know what other solution is even possible here. The average person cannot realistically exist in a digital vacuum, self-hosting their entire online world. Google should not be able to do this to them. No one should have to rely on trying to whip up public mobs on Reddit or HN to get Google to give them access to their own freaking tax spreadsheets.

eviks 7mo ago
Are you not aware of a million of dedicated competitive services for each of this to jump to "self-hosting" as the only alternative? > All my emails, all my documents saved in Google Drive.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- simonw 7mo ago
  How many of those competitive services would also lock the account if something like this happened?
  - ryandrake 7mo ago
    Yes, these stories should scare you off of cloud services in general, not one particular vendor. The root problem is that you're storing valuable information on "someone else's computer." And that someone can decide to stop serving you for any or no reason at all, and you are without recourse. This should be totally unacceptable, but somehow the world has normalized it. Don't keep anything in a cloud service that you couldn't live with losing, unless you keep a local backup. Including and especially your identity (E-mail) which unlocks all your accounts.
    - eviks 7mo ago
      No, the root problem is you put all the eggs in one basket ignoring the folk wisdom that predates anything digital > Don't keep anything in a cloud service that you couldn't live with losing, unless you keep a local backup. Translated: so do keep everything in a cloud service, just backup it at a fraction of the effort with / insecurity / unreliability / unavailability of your own computer
      - ryandrake 7mo ago
        Yes, and, importantly, have a plan to be able to log in to and reset your passwords through e-mail, on all your other services, if you suddenly lose you@yourcloudemail.com I consider “cloud” to be a single (unreliable) basket. If you have your online stuff spread across 5 cloud providers, than any of them locking you out will disrupt you in some way.
        eviks 7mo ago
        This broad reclassification makes no sense. If you put literal eggs in 5 baskets, then any of them falling down will disrupt your eggs in some way. You're missing the whole point of the principle, which is that it will not disrupt you in the same big way of blocking all your digital life like in the example from the post!
  - eviks 7mo ago
    None: your me@NonSelf-HostedMail.com simply wouldn't know about your account at AI.com, so you'd only have your AI account banned
DesaiAshu 7mo ago
I think raising public awareness is a great escalation channel for severe (and complicated) cases that require bureaucratic help from senior people. We do this for other things (like screaming fire, finding lost kids, or finding organ donors)
- troad 7mo ago
  And for the vast majority of people who don't have access to some kind of megaphone?
- idle_zealot 7mo ago
  > We do this for other things (like screaming fire, finding lost kids, or finding organ donors) Also we have public fire departments, police and amber alerts, and official organ donor registration systems. This isn't really the a case against state intervention you seem to be going for.
deaux 7mo ago
> The average person cannot realistically exist in a digital vacuum This alone is enough to see that regulation is what is needed. It's completely crooked that the average person is forced to maintain good standing with a single particular NASDAQ corporation to participate in society. Those here who might think "it's very possible to do so without Google" are not the average person, living in an average place in an average bubble. The solution is breaking up Google. This remains the case even if this particular story is exaggerated.
- Henchman21 7mo ago
  At some point we're going to see the real solution is to burn all this to the ground. I know, I know, hyperbole, etc. We cannot continue to allow the worst among us -- those who by definition want more than everyone else and can seemingly never be satified -- to run the entire world. A lack of morality is what gets you to the top. We must end this for the good of us all.
  - TheScaryOne 7mo ago
    >those who by definition want more than everyone else and can seemingly never be satified There's a medical word for things like that. Schmancer?
Aurornis 7mo ago
> I'm pretty reticent to rush to regulation, but I really don't know what other solution is even possible here. Before rushing to assume regulation is necessary, we should question if this story is real at all. It has a lot of signs of being a creative writing exercise like the conflicting details about all of their accounts being banned, including recovery emails, but then later they received an email explaining the reason for the ban. How did they receive that email?
- adrianN 7mo ago
  Even if it is fiction it is certainly possible for Google to get people into serious trouble by blocking their accounts.
  - Aurornis 7mo ago
    Then let’s discuss those real stories, not someone’s Reddit fake posts with crucial details that make it a very different story (all linked accounts got banned)
- troad 7mo ago
  > but then later they received an email explaining the reason for the ban Presumably this was in response to an appeal, which would have required an email, which would obviously have been a non-Google email given the wider context? I'm not seeing the inconsistency.
  - Aurornis 7mo ago
    I think you’re stretching. You can’t just send an email to Google from a new email address claiming you were associated with an unrelated Google account and then receive information about that account.
    - troad 7mo ago
      Who said it's a new email? Most people have preexisting alternative emails - work emails, college emails, etc. I personally have a non-Google email in the recovery email list, and I don't think that's uncommon. They also have access to easy means of verification - phone numbers that are linked to the account, etc. Hell, you could just call Google from your own Google Fi number, just as one example. I think you're hanging your hat on a pretty absurd theory, whereby it becomes factually impossible to contact Google ever again if they freeze your email, and it's prima facie evidence that you're lying if you claim to have done so.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
kshacker 7mo ago
Remember EU classified some companies as gatekeepers. Call them gatekeepers, monopolies, whatever - some companies are like "essential workers". They need to be available as much as essential workers were needed during covid. Which means at some point we need regulation that if you are an essential company, if you are a gatekeeper, you need to have a physical grievance office in your county if not the city, or you need to have a call center to resolve such issues. Might as well create some (local) jobs while we are solving this so I would prefer a local office.
- MichaelRo 7mo ago
  Question is weather the guy who got his account banned and lost access to all his data, was paying Google for cloud / hosting services or not. If it was on the free plan then all bets are off. If he was paying for a service, I believe there is enough case for a lawsuit where Google pays through their teeth for basically taking the client's data hostage. At some point I'll move my hosted services to one or more companies, which for a cost - essential point if you want legal protection - offer me their services. And if shit happens, I get my data back. And there is someone, a physical person that I can call when shit happens and they can't hide behind AI and automated replies. Otherwise I have real leverage to sue their ass and settle for mucho dinero so they learn to behave. Seems to me Google is not such a "service provider" company, so it's naive to let them hold your data, with zero legal protection if they decide to take it hostage.
- Wicher 7mo ago
  Totally. Ideally it'd go like this: Offer services for free (eg cross-subsidized by another business arm) in order to carve out a gigantic kingdom with millions of users, smothering any competition (only few use an indie email provider when there's "free" email, only few try to make a stand not using Whatsapp in whatsapp-saturated locales), and... Congratulations, now you've become too big too fail! And now you'll be treated as such. You're a critical part of society's functioning, and are to be regulated as such. Whether by accident, whether intentionally, whether it's because you're simply awesomely innovative or maybe you just massively cross-subsidized from another business branch, is irrelevant. Once market capture has reached a certain point, yes, you need a physical grievance office, with state-backed arbitration/escalation. For instance. Maybe you also can't just change the TOS anymore just like that, making people choose between coordinating a hasty move of the families' 4 TB of photos to... ? and being slowly boiled while $BIGBOY AI-trains on the family photos. As a big boy, don't like this kind of regulation? Just shrink by selling off some business arms. Or stop hooking people by giving out "free" stuff. Or maybe don't base your growth strategy on gatekeepership and moats. I surmise that big rules for big boys (while not burdening small players, thus, differential legislation) will actually massively help competition and innovation. But even if it doesn't — government, by the people, for the people, should get the final say in how we let citizens be treated. People with beating hearts over emotionless corps, always.
aaron695 7mo ago
[dead]

by troad 7mo ago

eviks 7mo ago

Are you not aware of a million of dedicated competitive services for each of this to jump to "self-hosting" as the only alternative? > All my emails, all my documents saved in Google Drive.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
simonw 7mo ago
How many of those competitive services would also lock the account if something like this happened?
- ryandrake 7mo ago
  Yes, these stories should scare you off of cloud services in general, not one particular vendor. The root problem is that you're storing valuable information on "someone else's computer." And that someone can decide to stop serving you for any or no reason at all, and you are without recourse. This should be totally unacceptable, but somehow the world has normalized it. Don't keep anything in a cloud service that you couldn't live with losing, unless you keep a local backup. Including and especially your identity (E-mail) which unlocks all your accounts.
  - eviks 7mo ago
    No, the root problem is you put all the eggs in one basket ignoring the folk wisdom that predates anything digital > Don't keep anything in a cloud service that you couldn't live with losing, unless you keep a local backup. Translated: so do keep everything in a cloud service, just backup it at a fraction of the effort with / insecurity / unreliability / unavailability of your own computer
    - ryandrake 7mo ago
      Yes, and, importantly, have a plan to be able to log in to and reset your passwords through e-mail, on all your other services, if you suddenly lose you@yourcloudemail.com I consider “cloud” to be a single (unreliable) basket. If you have your online stuff spread across 5 cloud providers, than any of them locking you out will disrupt you in some way.
      - eviks 7mo ago
        This broad reclassification makes no sense. If you put literal eggs in 5 baskets, then any of them falling down will disrupt your eggs in some way. You're missing the whole point of the principle, which is that it will not disrupt you in the same big way of blocking all your digital life like in the example from the post!
- eviks 7mo ago
  None: your me@NonSelf-HostedMail.com simply wouldn't know about your account at AI.com, so you'd only have your AI account banned

DesaiAshu 7mo ago

I think raising public awareness is a great escalation channel for severe (and complicated) cases that require bureaucratic help from senior people. We do this for other things (like screaming fire, finding lost kids, or finding organ donors)

troad 7mo ago
And for the vast majority of people who don't have access to some kind of megaphone?
idle_zealot 7mo ago
> We do this for other things (like screaming fire, finding lost kids, or finding organ donors) Also we have public fire departments, police and amber alerts, and official organ donor registration systems. This isn't really the a case against state intervention you seem to be going for.

deaux 7mo ago

> The average person cannot realistically exist in a digital vacuum This alone is enough to see that regulation is what is needed. It's completely crooked that the average person is forced to maintain good standing with a single particular NASDAQ corporation to participate in society. Those here who might think "it's very possible to do so without Google" are not the average person, living in an average place in an average bubble. The solution is breaking up Google. This remains the case even if this particular story is exaggerated.

Henchman21 7mo ago
At some point we're going to see the real solution is to burn all this to the ground. I know, I know, hyperbole, etc. We cannot continue to allow the worst among us -- those who by definition want more than everyone else and can seemingly never be satified -- to run the entire world. A lack of morality is what gets you to the top. We must end this for the good of us all.
- TheScaryOne 7mo ago
  >those who by definition want more than everyone else and can seemingly never be satified There's a medical word for things like that. Schmancer?

Aurornis 7mo ago

> I'm pretty reticent to rush to regulation, but I really don't know what other solution is even possible here. Before rushing to assume regulation is necessary, we should question if this story is real at all. It has a lot of signs of being a creative writing exercise like the conflicting details about all of their accounts being banned, including recovery emails, but then later they received an email explaining the reason for the ban. How did they receive that email?

adrianN 7mo ago
Even if it is fiction it is certainly possible for Google to get people into serious trouble by blocking their accounts.
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  Then let’s discuss those real stories, not someone’s Reddit fake posts with crucial details that make it a very different story (all linked accounts got banned)
troad 7mo ago
> but then later they received an email explaining the reason for the ban Presumably this was in response to an appeal, which would have required an email, which would obviously have been a non-Google email given the wider context? I'm not seeing the inconsistency.
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  I think you’re stretching. You can’t just send an email to Google from a new email address claiming you were associated with an unrelated Google account and then receive information about that account.
  - troad 7mo ago
    Who said it's a new email? Most people have preexisting alternative emails - work emails, college emails, etc. I personally have a non-Google email in the recovery email list, and I don't think that's uncommon. They also have access to easy means of verification - phone numbers that are linked to the account, etc. Hell, you could just call Google from your own Google Fi number, just as one example. I think you're hanging your hat on a pretty absurd theory, whereby it becomes factually impossible to contact Google ever again if they freeze your email, and it's prima facie evidence that you're lying if you claim to have done so.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

kshacker 7mo ago

Remember EU classified some companies as gatekeepers. Call them gatekeepers, monopolies, whatever - some companies are like "essential workers". They need to be available as much as essential workers were needed during covid. Which means at some point we need regulation that if you are an essential company, if you are a gatekeeper, you need to have a physical grievance office in your county if not the city, or you need to have a call center to resolve such issues. Might as well create some (local) jobs while we are solving this so I would prefer a local office.

MichaelRo 7mo ago
Question is weather the guy who got his account banned and lost access to all his data, was paying Google for cloud / hosting services or not. If it was on the free plan then all bets are off. If he was paying for a service, I believe there is enough case for a lawsuit where Google pays through their teeth for basically taking the client's data hostage. At some point I'll move my hosted services to one or more companies, which for a cost - essential point if you want legal protection - offer me their services. And if shit happens, I get my data back. And there is someone, a physical person that I can call when shit happens and they can't hide behind AI and automated replies. Otherwise I have real leverage to sue their ass and settle for mucho dinero so they learn to behave. Seems to me Google is not such a "service provider" company, so it's naive to let them hold your data, with zero legal protection if they decide to take it hostage.
Wicher 7mo ago
Totally. Ideally it'd go like this: Offer services for free (eg cross-subsidized by another business arm) in order to carve out a gigantic kingdom with millions of users, smothering any competition (only few use an indie email provider when there's "free" email, only few try to make a stand not using Whatsapp in whatsapp-saturated locales), and... Congratulations, now you've become too big too fail! And now you'll be treated as such. You're a critical part of society's functioning, and are to be regulated as such. Whether by accident, whether intentionally, whether it's because you're simply awesomely innovative or maybe you just massively cross-subsidized from another business branch, is irrelevant. Once market capture has reached a certain point, yes, you need a physical grievance office, with state-backed arbitration/escalation. For instance. Maybe you also can't just change the TOS anymore just like that, making people choose between coordinating a hasty move of the families' 4 TB of photos to... ? and being slowly boiled while $BIGBOY AI-trains on the family photos. As a big boy, don't like this kind of regulation? Just shrink by selling off some business arms. Or stop hooking people by giving out "free" stuff. Or maybe don't base your growth strategy on gatekeepership and moats. I surmise that big rules for big boys (while not burdening small players, thus, differential legislation) will actually massively help competition and innovation. But even if it doesn't — government, by the people, for the people, should get the final say in how we let citizens be treated. People with beating hearts over emotionless corps, always.

aaron695 7mo ago

[dead]