zlacker

I think this is a balancing act of risks, and I wanted to bring up what I believe to be a success story when it comes to handling suspensions: Microsoft.

One thing I believe Microsoft gets right is that suspensions are isolated to the service whose TOS was violated. I.e. violating the hotmail TOS doesn't suspend you from their other services. I think this makes the impact of a false positive less catastrophic, while still removing actual problematic users from the service. This may be an artifact of how teams work together at Microsoft.

>>mooman+(OP)
Yup, I agree this is the better solution. The monolithic "one account rules everything" approach just increases the user's vulnerability.

It's largely what made Facebook's forcing usage of their account for Oculus users so ass-backwards.

>>mooman+(OP)
> This may be an artifact of how teams work together at Microsoft.

It may be an artifact of Microsoft actually being regulated for monopolistic practices.

>>lwansb+xc
There's nothing at all in the old DOJ settlement that imposes anything like this.

>>nl+nj
That isn’t what they’re asserting.

I worked there for more than a decade. The settlement changed behavior - you thought about how to avoid future trust-like behavior.

>>mooman+(OP)
If we did that at Microsoft when we were bringing Hotmail under the MS umbrella, DOJ would have ripped the company into 10 pieces