zlacker

Hey Google here is a feature: account reputation, anyone doing business with you, has that flag enabled and human reviewers will be supporting them

>>spicyr+(OP)
and pretty soon google is charging 'protection money' to all the victims of a hack.

>>spicyr+(OP)
> anyone doing business with you

If they did this, how would you prevent people from saying that is unfair, or making it seem like it is pay to play, or something like that?

Disclaimer: Work at Google (far from this space); opinions are my own.

>>spicyr+(OP)
This is the exact opposite of what Google/Apple want to do. Why pay a human to do something? Let the computer do the thing, and a Google-human will listen only of the victim-human will yell loud enough. This is their tiering system.

On the other side though, Google cannot have 1 FTE per 1000 'clients' (paying-humans and/or product-humans). As a 'father' here wrote, you stay or you go. Or at least keep the personal stuff out ('15years of gmail' - WHY???) and leave the app-stuff within Google (or Apple for that matter).

>>spicyr+(OP)
It's like page rank but even worse?

>>spicyr+(OP)
China has this for its citizens already

>>spicyr+(OP)
The implication here is that the fix for this problem is to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone who does business with Google, as if other people aren't important enough to concern yourself about. That is 1000% the wrong approach, and exactly the sort of thinking that gets tech businesses in to this sort of mess.

The correct approach is to make sure it doesn't happen incorrectly in the first place, and that it can be resolved quickly and easily if it ever does.

>>HenryB+I1
>Why pay a human to do something? Let the computer do the thing

This is why I think Google/Twitter/FB were not that vocal about the section 230 business. Honestly if they got brought through it would be expensive for them but they have the money and tech potential to automate any problems that arise from it which would just extends their moat from any potential competitors even more.

>>peterk+W3
Noting the reputation of your clients is powerful and ethical - the Chinese government is a monopolistic violent organisation, which makes its power evil

>>onion2+k4
> The correct approach is to make sure it doesn't happen incorrectly in the first place, and that it can be resolved quickly and easily if it ever does.

...and if you can't make it work at a given scale, don't do your business at this scale until you can. But that would be leaving money on the table now, wouldn't it? So, with no outside pressure, the companies at the top are the ones who don't care about making things work right.

>>onion2+k4
Two wrongs sometimes make a right. So 10 wrongs make 5 rights?

There is no more than 100% wrong. Saying it is 1000% wrong implies that you are arguing emotionally, not rationally.

Rationally, it doesn't matter how google reacts to their non-customers. There is no obligation to treat them well. The correct approach for non-customers is to either become a customer or to switch to another provider.

If somebody is wrong it is the non-customers who could fix the situation. Their unwillingness to change email providers is what enables google to keep on providing that bad service.

>>deadmu+f1
It's SUPPOSED TO BE pay-to-play. Google is a business. That's how businesses work. That's the entire point.

>>birdsb+77
Saying it is 1000% wrong implies that you are arguing emotionally, not rationally.

It means I was employing the common rhetorical device of exaggeration.

>>agilob+u3
I can see the Black Mirror episode already...

"In the case of Johnson v Esposito where the defendant is claimed to have sent an email to the plaintiff wherein this created a detrimental page rank effect due to defendant's low score..."

>>spicyr+(OP)
100% agree. They just keep shooting themselves in the foot. Unbelievable.

>>onion2+k4
I think "not treating business partners like trash" is the absolute base minimum. If they can't get that right, what hope do customers have? Feels like that needs to be solved first — particularly if it's an issue of scale — then the customer issue dealt with afterwards, if it remains an issue.

>>spicyr+(OP)
Google already kind of practices this feature, it's just that the "reputation" part is external:

Is the public reputation of the owner of this account high enough that the ban will make the news?

>>PixyMi+Y7
Exactly. I pay for internet, water and power - I happily pay for my Google account if that means I'm treated as a customer.

In fact, you can pay for your Google account with Google One, and I do, but it may or may not stop The Machine from accidentally banning my account.

>>peterk+W3
China has rather the reverse.

>>deadmu+f1
It is unfair from a consumer standpoint, but at least it would avoid Google's self-dug grave from getting deeper.

From a B2B standpoint, it's just the name of the game. If a partner business is a strategic asset, you fast-track them. Imagine an advertising firm treating a multi-national corporation at the same (crappy) level as a small, family-owned company. Or, imagine Microsoft treating the US government and an ordinary Windows user alike. That's bonkers, and yet it's an apt description of how Google does business right now.

>>2pEXgD+4c
Unfortunately for Google's products- sorry, users, the machines doing the bans don't give a damn for reputation in the eyes of humans.

>>lima+ac
Good point! I also subscribe to Google One; does that in any kind of fashion lower the chances of being hit by an auto ban?

>>whywhy+m4
Yeah, this has been one criticism of EU's Article 22...

>>deadmu+f1
> If they did this, how would you prevent people from saying that is unfair, or making it seem like it is pay to play, or something like that?

You can't please everyone; here is how I would frame it.

Stadia developers and business partners receive Enterprise Support.

It's absurd that they aren't already doing something like this.

>>sundvo+HL
I would hope so, it would certainly be a "probably legit" signal. I'm annoyed I have to consider the possibility at all.