4 ms·

Because it was obviously a creative writing exercise. I left another comment showing the contradictions in the post. The facts provided were self-contradicting

Because it was obviously a creative writing exercise. I left another comment showing the contradictions in the post. The facts provided were self-contradicting and the story was full of the usual tells for creative writing posts. It was also oddly focused on email access instead of the obvious legal problems that would come from having your account flagged for CSAM. It’s like what someone would write if they were trying to imagine a story about getting locked out of their email but didn’t realize that their CSAM and child endangerment plot point would trigger much bigger legal concerns and consequences

troad 7mo ago
You identify two inconsistencies, neither of which appear to actually be inconsistent. (One is just the observation that multiple accounts were banned, which is not actually an inconsistency? Just something you don't find likely?) It's possible that this is real, it's possible it's made up, but I'm not seeing much more evidence in your armchair scepticism than in the asserted facts. Last week everyone on HN was telling me that social media must immediately be regulated because it's 'directionally correct' to assert that teenagers are suffering, but this week we are to disbelieve that Google would ever arbitrarily close accounts, something it firmly asserts it has every right to do?
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  > (One is just the observation that multiple accounts were banned, which is not actually an inconsistency? Just something you don't find likely?) I think you misunderstood. In one post they said all accounts were banned including their recovery accounts. They also said they were forced to create a new account on a different service just to have email. In another comment they said Google sent them an email saying their accounts were banned for “child protection”. This supposedly occurred after the son admitted what he had done, which was a detail that supposedly occurred much later in the process. Where did they receive that message if all of their email accounts were banned? These Reddit stories always get some people invested in the story before the inconsistencies show up. You have to read them with some skepticism. You can do enough mental gymnastics to convince yourself that all of the Reddit posts are true and accurate if you try hard enough.
  - troad 7mo ago
    The story as OP tells it is that they appealed the ban, and the ban was upheld. Logically, they appealed the ban from an email address they had access to. I don't know how you get from 'all of their Google accounts were banned' to 'they had no possible way to send and receive email whatsoever'. > These Reddit stories always get some people invested in the story before the inconsistencies show up. You have to read them with some skepticism. You can do enough mental gymnastics to convince yourself that all of the Reddit posts are true and accurate if you try hard enough. I get the feeling you've concluded that the OP's claims are unlikely and are now rationalising that conclusion by trying to construct some arguments to that effect, but I find the specific arguments you're giving to be fairly weak. That doesn't speak to the veracity of the original story, it just makes your attempted debunking unconvincing.
    - Aurornis 7mo ago
      The mods of that subreddit appear to have come to the same conclusion. If you go into Reddit believing all of the posts by default and forgiving inconsistencies you’re going to be duped by a lot of fake stories. I think it’s interesting that someone posted a “my account just got busted for accidental CSAM” and nobody is concerned about the impending law enforcement consequences? Only about email access? If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process. They get escalated to law enforcement.
      - troad 7mo ago
        > If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts, and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience. If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes. The thing is, even if you do turn out to be right - which is entirely possible - there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it. The former is good science, the latter is high school debating. The latter is very easy to spot, and that's why I find your argument unconvincing. It would have been possible to make a much more convincing one, but it would have required a humbler approach.
el_duderino 7mo ago
Good call. Even Google commented about this: - https://www.androidauthority.com/google-account-bans-3654171/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-account-bans-3654171... - https://x.com/NewsFromGoogle/status/2039536001186414760?s=20 https://x.com/NewsFromGoogle/status/2039536001186414760?s=20

troad 7mo ago

You identify two inconsistencies, neither of which appear to actually be inconsistent. (One is just the observation that multiple accounts were banned, which is not actually an inconsistency? Just something you don't find likely?) It's possible that this is real, it's possible it's made up, but I'm not seeing much more evidence in your armchair scepticism than in the asserted facts. Last week everyone on HN was telling me that social media must immediately be regulated because it's 'directionally correct' to assert that teenagers are suffering, but this week we are to disbelieve that Google would ever arbitrarily close accounts, something it firmly asserts it has every right to do?

Aurornis 7mo ago
> (One is just the observation that multiple accounts were banned, which is not actually an inconsistency? Just something you don't find likely?) I think you misunderstood. In one post they said all accounts were banned including their recovery accounts. They also said they were forced to create a new account on a different service just to have email. In another comment they said Google sent them an email saying their accounts were banned for “child protection”. This supposedly occurred after the son admitted what he had done, which was a detail that supposedly occurred much later in the process. Where did they receive that message if all of their email accounts were banned? These Reddit stories always get some people invested in the story before the inconsistencies show up. You have to read them with some skepticism. You can do enough mental gymnastics to convince yourself that all of the Reddit posts are true and accurate if you try hard enough.
- troad 7mo ago
  The story as OP tells it is that they appealed the ban, and the ban was upheld. Logically, they appealed the ban from an email address they had access to. I don't know how you get from 'all of their Google accounts were banned' to 'they had no possible way to send and receive email whatsoever'. > These Reddit stories always get some people invested in the story before the inconsistencies show up. You have to read them with some skepticism. You can do enough mental gymnastics to convince yourself that all of the Reddit posts are true and accurate if you try hard enough. I get the feeling you've concluded that the OP's claims are unlikely and are now rationalising that conclusion by trying to construct some arguments to that effect, but I find the specific arguments you're giving to be fairly weak. That doesn't speak to the veracity of the original story, it just makes your attempted debunking unconvincing.
  - Aurornis 7mo ago
    The mods of that subreddit appear to have come to the same conclusion. If you go into Reddit believing all of the posts by default and forgiving inconsistencies you’re going to be duped by a lot of fake stories. I think it’s interesting that someone posted a “my account just got busted for accidental CSAM” and nobody is concerned about the impending law enforcement consequences? Only about email access? If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process. They get escalated to law enforcement.
    - troad 7mo ago
      > If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts, and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience. If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me. Which I do not intend as a slight at all, youth is great, but it does sort of explain your deep familiarity with Reddit and your absolutely unshakable confidence in your own takes. The thing is, even if you do turn out to be right - which is entirely possible - there's a big difference between (a) following the clues to reach a conclusion, and (b) reaching a conclusion and then gathering up some factoids to support it. The former is good science, the latter is high school debating. The latter is very easy to spot, and that's why I find your argument unconvincing. It would have been possible to make a much more convincing one, but it would have required a humbler approach.

el_duderino 7mo ago

Good call. Even Google commented about this: - https://www.androidauthority.com/google-account-bans-3654171/ https://www.androidauthority.com/google-account-bans-3654171... - https://x.com/NewsFromGoogle/status/2039536001186414760?s=20 https://x.com/NewsFromGoogle/status/2039536001186414760?s=20