zlacker

> 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.

>>sofixa+(OP)
> 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.

>>sofixa+(OP)
Kafka approves.

>>sofixa+(OP)
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.

>>cf0ed2+d3
> When the ToS are 15 pages long

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

>>Sohcah+SY1
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.