3 ms·

You identify two inconsistencies, neither of which appear to actually be inconsistent. (One is just the observation that multiple accounts were banned, which is

by 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.
      - Aurornis 7mo ago
        > There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts, I was quoting the actual Reddit post. You were theorizing about recovery emails and other things that were contradicts by the Reddit post. > and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience. I do have experience in dealing with account policies for a product that hosted user data and some of the details that go into referring cases to law enforcement. Again, you are the one theorizing to support your story and getting it wrong. That said, you don’t need to have experience to know that child endangerment cases get referred to law enforcement. This is common sense > If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me If I’m being honest, this sounds like you’re so resistant to backing down that you’re turning toward personal insults based on top of your own incorrect theorizing. It’s pretty clear that you are determined to believe this story is true even after that subreddit’s mods caught on and others here have realized the problems with the story. If you’re determined to believe it then you don’t need to start inventing theories about me personally. > 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. I followed the clues in the original post and made a logical case based on them. All of your comments here trying to rebut it have been moving the goalposts each time I point out where you got the facts wrong. If you’re just trying to attack my construction of the argument for not being convincing enough to you, that seems more like a you problem at this point. I don’t see any reason to continue trying to discuss anything if you’re just going to go with this silly “you sound like a child because I didn’t understand your argument the first time” attempt to rebut.

by troad 7mo ago

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.
    - Aurornis 7mo ago
      > There's just an awful lot of armchair theorising in your posts, I was quoting the actual Reddit post. You were theorizing about recovery emails and other things that were contradicts by the Reddit post. > and a lot of it doesn't sound like it's backed by much actual experience. I do have experience in dealing with account policies for a product that hosted user data and some of the details that go into referring cases to law enforcement. Again, you are the one theorizing to support your story and getting it wrong. That said, you don’t need to have experience to know that child endangerment cases get referred to law enforcement. This is common sense > If I'm being honest, you sound very young to me If I’m being honest, this sounds like you’re so resistant to backing down that you’re turning toward personal insults based on top of your own incorrect theorizing. It’s pretty clear that you are determined to believe this story is true even after that subreddit’s mods caught on and others here have realized the problems with the story. If you’re determined to believe it then you don’t need to start inventing theories about me personally. > 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. I followed the clues in the original post and made a logical case based on them. All of your comments here trying to rebut it have been moving the goalposts each time I point out where you got the facts wrong. If you’re just trying to attack my construction of the argument for not being convincing enough to you, that seems more like a you problem at this point. I don’t see any reason to continue trying to discuss anything if you’re just going to go with this silly “you sound like a child because I didn’t understand your argument the first time” attempt to rebut.