zlacker

>>benhur+(OP)
It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. At the very least, companies must be legally required to present you in writing with the so-called violation of terms they're accusing you of, evidence of the violation, and a phone # or other immediate contact so that you can dispute the accusations. It's insane that these basic legal rights don't even exist.

You could of course sue Google, but that's an extremely expensive and time-consuming option, rarely worth it for a mere consumer. Going to court certainly won't make your suspended account become unsuspended any quicker.

>>_qulr+em
> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies

I get where you're going, but I think far more costly to them and advantageous for us is to simply show them that they are unnecessary.

If we can drop them so easily, they can't pull stuff like this anymore. It is possible to drop Google and Facebook.

They do this stuff because people _need_ them and they know that people won't just drop them en mass.

>>nvahal+8v
> drop them en mass

The libertarian in me wants to believe that reputation is enough to make business act in the interests of the consumers and that personal responsibility would prevent customers from acting in their best interests: but we all know this is not true.

And, I know enough to know that any public policy that essentially says “Everything will be fine if everyone just does [X]” is bad policy, regardless of what ‘X’ is.