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
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)

>>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.

>>_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.

>>Ashame+6r
> they don't give away these explanations because such explanation would hint the spammer to what they should _not_ do next time

We've heard this excuse countless times, but it's simply not acceptable. The foundation of our legal system is that it's better to let a criminal go than to punish an innocent person. How many innocents have to get caught in the crossfire before we start protecting them?

>>_qulr+Pr
This isnt criminal law. This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out. There are some limits on that (e.g. a restaurant can't kick black people out) but for the most part a business that doesnt want your business doesnt have to serve you, right or wrong.

>>PaulHo+6u
The reason people are incensed about FAANGMP doing so is because, in their respective markets, they're monopolies.

No one would care if Google banning a developer meant they could list their app through a non-Play app store with decent exposure, or a non-App Store at all.

But that's not the reality we live in.

So it's more like if Walmart moved into my podunk town, put all the local shops out of business, and then banned me.

>>ethbr0+lv
Hmmmm. I thought it was Apple that banned sideloading.

Maybe Google kicked this guy out for the same reason they fired off their own Stadia devs.

>>PaulHo+Uv
There is speculation that Google will ban sideloading in the near future, too. That is, it will extend its Advanced Protection model to mass-market Android. Then, sideloading will only be possible for that tiny minority of nerds like us who know how to use ADB and install an .apk over the command line.

>>Medite+4G
Well, and Huawei users.