zlacker

[parent] [thread] 9 comments
1. krajze+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-02-08 10:35:53
I just wish that regulation would step in and make behavior like this illegal for the corporate giants. It is definitely possible to limit the power of the TOS, and it's already done in some cases in Europe (certain common TOS clauses are just void and do nothing).

One simple thing I'd really like to see is forbidding companies from terminating service without stating a reason, which seems like a really basic requirement. Once you have that, the next step could be legislating that there has to be a way to appeal service termination.

But right now, we're in the middle ages with this. "You're in jail, no we won't tell you why, no, there is nobody you can ask why and no process to revert it".

replies(3): >>sofixa+h4 >>swiley+hA >>xondon+1L
2. sofixa+h4[view] [source] 2021-02-08 11:16:29
>>krajze+(OP)
> One simple thing I'd really like to see is forbidding companies from terminating service without stating a reason, which seems like a really basic requirement. Once you have that, the next step could be legislating that there has to be a way to appeal service termination

In this case Google provided a reason - a ToS violation. If you want to get in the details ( action X on date Y violates ToS section Z), that might be pretty useful to bots and spam accounts ( know which actions get caught and what to avoid), which are probably the vast majority of what is getting banned.

replies(3): >>cf0ed2+u7 >>PixyMi+Qa >>krajze+wZ
◧◩
3. cf0ed2+u7[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-08 11:50:46
>>sofixa+h4
> In this case Google provided a reason - a ToS violation.

When the ToS are 15 pages long this is about as useful as hearing "You're being arrested for breaking the law" when you're in the back of a cop car. Doesn't really narrow it down and provides you no way of actually defending yourself.

I agree that being too specific can help bots but the current way of handling these things is obviously flawed.

replies(1): >>Sohcah+932
◧◩
4. PixyMi+Qa[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-08 12:21:36
>>sofixa+h4
Kafka approves.
5. swiley+hA[view] [source] 2021-02-08 14:44:39
>>krajze+(OP)
I'm hoping they don't and Google just dies.
6. xondon+1L[view] [source] 2021-02-08 15:27:58
>>krajze+(OP)
Please don't, the only thing worse than no response is a byzantine system that makes you think there's a path and becomes the biggest time sinkhole of your life.

Just vote with your feet and move out of their services, life on the outside is just fine.

replies(1): >>ncann+nd1
◧◩
7. krajze+wZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-08 16:32:45
>>sofixa+h4
It needs to be enough information so that it can be either remedied (if the violation is real) or disputed (if it isn't).

I agree that currently, "you violated the ToS" is legally enough reason and enough information. I don't think it should be.

I also don't think we want the fight against bots and spam to justify taking inscrutable actions against real customers.

◧◩
8. ncann+nd1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-08 17:34:41
>>xondon+1L
You can't just hand wave it away like that. Having regulation on a resolution process for account recovery is absolutely needed. You can't just tell people to move away from Google where their entire digital life is on it. At the very least, it should restrict your account to a read-only state and make it possible to download your data.
◧◩◪
9. Sohcah+932[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-08 21:57:03
>>cf0ed2+u7
> When the ToS are 15 pages long

You're off by at least 1 order of magnitude.

replies(1): >>cf0ed2+vI2
◧◩◪◨
10. cf0ed2+vI2[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-02-09 02:47:13
>>Sohcah+932
At least the pdf version of the ToS for users in Germany is exactly 15 pages long: https://www.gstatic.com/policies/terms/pdf/20200331/ba461e2f...

Can't check other countries since Google automatically adjusts the country version to your location but you can check yours here: https://policies.google.com/terms

//edit: but you're correct considering this doesn't contain any service-specific ToS.

[go to top]