3 ms·

Google might not actually be interested in customers who may be trying to game the system. Easily revealing the violation would give people like the author reas

by req2 17y ago

Google might not actually be interested in customers who may be trying to game the system. Easily revealing the violation would give people like the author reason to try various manipulations to just barely follow TOS and keep the normal AdSense.

branden 17y ago
You solve that by fixing the TOS, not jerking your customers around.
- req2 17y ago
  TOS 1.0 Play nice, and have fun! TOS 1.1 Play nice (no links to shock sites), and have fun! TOS 1.2 Play nice (no links to shock sites, no embedded images of shock sites), and have fun! TOS 2.0 Play nice on our text only boards. Have fun! TOS 2.1 Play nice and do not try to evade the ASCII image filters. Have fun! TOS 3.0 <Insert 30 pages of legalese> Customer 3.0 "Aw, I hate when they jerk you around with 30 pages of legalese."
  - branden 17y ago
    Is that really worse than a service with a simple TOS that can be pulled for no specific reason? I'd prefer to have all the rules on the table, even if the result is a stack of legalese. At least then I know the nature of what I'm dealing with.
jm4 17y ago
By that logic would it be acceptable for a government to not inform citizens of the laws which they are bound by in order to prevent them from finding loopholes? Yeah, I know we're talking about a corporation and not a government, but I just want to put this in a different perspective. Opacity is not the solution and neither is a policy of permanently banning customers at the first sign of trouble. Besides, a customer gaming the system by barely operating within the rules is still following the rules. Of course, he or she may be in complete violation of the spirit of the rules, but it's technically not a violation. It's likely a flaw in rules. I'm well aware that there are lots of people out there who are looking to take advantage of the system, but when Google goes around banning anyone who violates a rule or operates on the fringe without any kind of appeal process they're bound to catch someone who just made an honest mistake.
- req2 17y ago
  I mostly agree, but a few points... Governments don't have the right to refuse service that corporations do. I'm fine with corporations improving the experience of everyone but those who consider how nearly to approach 'pick a link' text, but it might be nice if an independent arbiter could determine if these bans actually follow the spirit of the rules before enforcing them. Google has restored accounts that have been wrongly disabled. The length of time that it takes to do this does seem unbearable.

by req2 17y ago

branden 17y ago

You solve that by fixing the TOS, not jerking your customers around.

req2 17y ago
TOS 1.0 Play nice, and have fun! TOS 1.1 Play nice (no links to shock sites), and have fun! TOS 1.2 Play nice (no links to shock sites, no embedded images of shock sites), and have fun! TOS 2.0 Play nice on our text only boards. Have fun! TOS 2.1 Play nice and do not try to evade the ASCII image filters. Have fun! TOS 3.0 <Insert 30 pages of legalese> Customer 3.0 "Aw, I hate when they jerk you around with 30 pages of legalese."
- branden 17y ago
  Is that really worse than a service with a simple TOS that can be pulled for no specific reason? I'd prefer to have all the rules on the table, even if the result is a stack of legalese. At least then I know the nature of what I'm dealing with.

jm4 17y ago

By that logic would it be acceptable for a government to not inform citizens of the laws which they are bound by in order to prevent them from finding loopholes? Yeah, I know we're talking about a corporation and not a government, but I just want to put this in a different perspective. Opacity is not the solution and neither is a policy of permanently banning customers at the first sign of trouble. Besides, a customer gaming the system by barely operating within the rules is still following the rules. Of course, he or she may be in complete violation of the spirit of the rules, but it's technically not a violation. It's likely a flaw in rules. I'm well aware that there are lots of people out there who are looking to take advantage of the system, but when Google goes around banning anyone who violates a rule or operates on the fringe without any kind of appeal process they're bound to catch someone who just made an honest mistake.

req2 17y ago
I mostly agree, but a few points... Governments don't have the right to refuse service that corporations do. I'm fine with corporations improving the experience of everyone but those who consider how nearly to approach 'pick a link' text, but it might be nice if an independent arbiter could determine if these bans actually follow the spirit of the rules before enforcing them. Google has restored accounts that have been wrongly disabled. The length of time that it takes to do this does seem unbearable.