zlacker

>>benhur+(OP)
Google uses non-human automation to make some decisions, including banning accounts. As others have mentioned, this is not unreasonable as long as there is a reasonable (in terms of time and effort) path to disputing a ban - i.e., speaking to a human about the issue.

But Google (and Facebook, and probably some other companies) don't have reasonable processes for disputing or resolving these situations.

Some have said that we should consider Google's challenge: lots of users/activities that need to be monitored and policed. The assumption is that Google could not afford to do this "reasonably" with humans instead of automated systems because the volume is high.

But Google certainly could hire and train humans to follow a process for reviewing and assisting in resolving these cases. They don't. It is doubtful that they cannot afford to do this; I haven't checked their annual report lately, but I'm guessing they still have a healthy profit.

In the unlikely event that involving more humans would be too expensive, then Google should raise their prices (or stop giving so much away for free).

To summarize, there is no excuse for Google to operate this way. They do because they can, and because the damage still falls into the "acceptable losses" column.

>>blunte+xU
I'd bet Amazon has more retail customers trying to get disputes resolved, than Google has business customers attempting to do the same, yet Amazon manages to get a human on the other end of the line. And I'd bet that Amazon's disputes have far less monetary value per incident. Maybe apples to oranges, but it's impressive from a customer service perspective.

>>strong+hY
Microsoft and IBM are also companies with a lot more humans available. I have solved lots of things with phonecalls be business or as a customer. You need to be really big to get humans on Google side.

>>a1o+p21
And it absolutely bites them in the ass. Google's awful reputation at the enterprise level is probably why GCP is struggling to make it among that sector.

>>whimsi+o31
It's in Google's culture, too. A few years ago when I was learning GCP for a role and wanted to know if they had an AWS Firehose equivalent, I asked on their Slack and the response I got from a GCP rep was "just make a process in Dataflow." Doing that would have cost far, far more than Firehose costs, not to mention the dev/troubleshooting time.

>>castle+Z61
What did you expect the response to be. Should they have said, "No we don't have that, you should probably just use AWS"?

They didn't have exactly what you wanted so provided a workaround that would solve the problem.

>>oillio+bM1
I think the point is obvious, that AWS is far more customer-centric than GCP. Google's gotten better at this but at the time, it seemed to me that GCP was more an amalgam of individual projects developed separately while AWS approached it more from the user's perspective, and that showed in the toolsets available.