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.

Google is a private company who offers free internet services in exchange for your privacy being violated. They have no customer service because you are not a customer as customers pay. You have no rights on their platform because again, you are not a paying customer. And you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up. They don't owe you anything at that pont.

So stop expecting "paying customer" treatment from a shady adware dealer who gives you "free" "integrated platform" stuff to get you hooked. That's an old drug dealer tactic anyway.

Want to be treated like a person? You have to pay for that. Otherwise stop whining about the tyranny of "free" platforms such as google, twitter, facebook, etc.

The only thing the government should do is fund PSA's to warn people of the rights and privacy hazards of free internet platforms.

>>Mister+tz
> Want to be treated like a person? You have to pay for that.

Andrew Spinks, the author of the linked tweet, was a business partner of Google's. That didn't save him.

>>_qulr+yC
Partner is not a customer. They don't care about any human on their platform because their platform is not designed to care about humans, only exploit them.