zlacker

[return to "Terraria on Stadia cancelled after developer's Google account gets locked"]
1. _qulr+em[view] [source] 2021-02-08 11:49:03
>>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.

◧◩
2. anthon+dn[view] [source] 2021-02-08 11:59:40
>>_qulr+em
You're not seeing the other side of the coin - the huge amount of spam and abuse that such systems correctly identify and remove. If every abuser requests those explanations (which they will) there will be far more spam going around the Internet.

Just think about the army of "Facebook content moderators" who were a popular topic on HN recently due to the concerns over their mental health.

(I am offering no solutions here, for I know none)

◧◩◪
3. _qulr+Cn[view] [source] 2021-02-08 12:04:34
>>anthon+dn
> If every abuser requests those explanations (which they will)

It's not a request, it's a requirement. If your account is suspended, you deserve an explanation. You should get one without having to request it.

I'm not saying that companies shouldn't be able to suspend accounts temporarily. I'm simply saying that there needs to be a way to get your account unsuspended if you're innocent. The way it "works" now is that innocent consumers are without any recourse whatsoever.

◧◩◪◨
4. Ashame+6r[view] [source] 2021-02-08 12:32:06
>>_qulr+Cn
For the record, they don't give away these explanations because such explanation would hint the spammer to what they should _not_ do next time, to avoid getting caught. Same as with anticheat software.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. AlfeG+ju[view] [source] 2021-02-08 12:56:15
>>Ashame+6r
I imagine if that happen in real courts. And You got jail without any info on why on how to evade - or You will behave properly on not go in jail
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. _flux+cC[view] [source] 2021-02-08 13:44:11
>>AlfeG+ju
Well it would still be better, because it's at least documented what kind of activity will lead into that.
[go to top]