Google+ Account Suspensions Over ToS Drawing Fire

ideonexus writes "Reports of Google+ deleting user accounts are all over, including Limor Fried — AKA Lady Ada / Adafruit Industries (recently featured in Wired Magazine) and former Google employee Kirrily 'Skud' Robert for violating Google's identity ToS. Other users are finding themselves locked out of their accounts without an explanation of how they violated the ToS. The worst part for these individuals is that a lock-out of Google+ includes being locked out of all Google services, including email, calendar, and documents."

This wouldn't be a big deal except

[JoshuaZ]

There have been some claims that this is an example Google being evil but this seems more like incompetence and hamfistedness than evil. This would be silly and minor if not for the reports that some of these people can't access their other Google products they use. Many people use gmail for their primary email. If any of these people use it for business they could be actively losing money from this. But this does lead to two basic lessons which are apparently not repeated enough: First, when you use a free service you get what you paid for. Second, backing things up is always a good idea.

Facebook Vs. Google+

[Nukedoom]

You know for all of Facebook's privacy infringement, there is one ace in the sleeve Google+ has over their users that Facebook does not: Gmail.

All from one company....

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting all your services from one company sure is convenient until you have problems with one part of their service but not the other.

Like getting you Internet shut off because you are in dispute with the cell phone devision. We don't learn shit from history.

Numbers

[petteyg359]

Kobnyc in TFA comments:
"The article refers to deletions "en masse" and "striking number" and "dam had burst" etc but nowhere provides any hard or soft numbers to go with these clearly inflammatory adjectives."

I, too, want some numbers.

Morons. let me deactivate my account.

[unity100]

its a good way to lose business. google should congratulate the morons running these policies. they killed google+ before it started for me.

and on another note, this situation basically drew my attention to the fact that relying on google is not a good thing.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except

[David Gerard]

The trouble is you are debating "being evil" over "doing evil". That is, "Don't Be Evil" rather than "Don't Do Evil" is a distraction - it means that when Google does something that's just fucking obnoxious, people start debating the inner content of their hearts rather than that they're doing something they should damn well stop doing. Excellent piece of derailing, that slogan.

Re:Mark Twain...

[MrEricSir]

Or (more appropriately) George Orwell.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except

[doomy]

The problem is that El Goog has almost no existing customer support service. If your account is compromised and or disabled by Google itself, there is no place to seek help. The only place you could ask for help would be the Google support forum, which is actually run by users, no one hangs around there that can do administrative level work. The next issue is that G+ has automated real name identification system and account an suspension system based on several automated features, currently due there is almost no way to appeal an account suspension due to a non-existing customer support system. To test this system try changing your name (preferably on a throwaway account) multiple times, you'd find out that it would automatically suspend access to your account once that passes a certain threshold. The biggest issue is that once someone creates a G+ account, all their existing Google content comes under that account, thus a suspension of the G+ account means goodbye to gmail, YouTube, blogger, Calendar and so on.. all content is disabled and it's almost impossible to get it back (unless you are a celebrity or your story gets published in media).

Is it time to disconnect from Google services?

[JakFrost]

I read the article and the biggest and most fearful thing that many people who were affected by this was that all of their Google services, including Gmail were affected and disabled.

I only use Gmail for e-mail functionality because it is free and convenient and it is my primary e-mail address that has stayed universal through ISP changes and moves. I was quite well aware of Google's privacy policy and advertisement angle along with the fact that all of them will be available forever to Google, before I signed up to Gmail and have been weary every since. The offer of convenient, free, reliable, spam-free, managed by someone else, and universally accepted Gmail account had a lot of benefits since I didn't have to buy my own domain, maintain my own e-mail server, and deal with spam filtering

I still haven't been burned by Gmail but I'm now wondering that since Google has become such a large entity it is surely going to suffer the fate of a behemoth afflicted by blind bureaucracy and the e-mails that they have forever will somehow get out to agencies, companies, or people who I don't want them to see.

I'm going to seriously look into the technical and logical feasibility of install a mail server on my Linux box in my house which is going to require that I manage my own services and spam filtering along with dealing with the hoops of trying to run a mail server behind an ISP with my own domain name.

Re:So they create a rule....

[VortexCortex]

This is not what Google is doing. They allow multiple people with the same name, it's just underage or fraudulent info gets you banned.

I removed all of my "correct, yet questionable" data, eg: Location: Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy (A suburb of the Virgo Galactic Cluster) -- just in case. Actually, I removed ALL of the optional data about me, except for my name. Way to fail at your core competency Google (that is, getting me to allow them to aggregate my data).

With all the fucking automated badassery that is google, why do they not simply send you a notice or email:

ATTENTION! We are assholes, and thus this is your first and final warning before we lock you out of your account for-fucking-ever!

Please be advised, there is some questionable material that we do not think is correct on your profile (but we really don't know, someone probably just reported you, so we sent you this letter).

If you do not dispute this within 3 days access to your account will be denied, but we'll keep aggegating data about you when you search or use Youtube, etc.

You can Fuck Right off Human Slime,
Google's Faceless Automated Android Systems.

IMHO, this would be much better than what they are currently doing...

Re:So they create a rule....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Google is attempting to woo celebrities to their platform, such as Lady Gaga.

The irony is that Lady Gaga isn't her actual name.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except

[mr_lizard13]

With Google, the user is not the customer. Those placing ads are the customers, the user is the product.

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+

[mr_lizard13]

Which is turning out to be a big issue for those whose accounts are being deleted/suspended.

Examples like this show why it's important not to concentrate services with one provider.

Re:So they create a rule....

[sjames]

That would be fine except that some have apparently either broken a rule without knowing it and can't find out what it was, they have no way to get re-instated even where it is reasonably clear that the violation was unintentional and won't be repeated, and they lose other services they have been using without incident for some time as well.

There is also room for interpretation as to what exactly is a pseudonym. In many cases of a famous nickname, using one's actual legal name would be an obfuscation of identity. Many have used a nickname for so long that it's the one they have internally connected to self and the legal name seems like someone else.

Well that serttles it...

[cbope]

I won't be getting a Google+ account. I don't care whether this is doing evil or sheer incompetence (I'm betting on the latter), but to lose access to all Google-related services especially Gmail, is complete and utter BS. The fact that a company the size of Google can get by without any sort of customer service is beyond me.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except

[asdf7890]

This is the same for any free-to-use ad-sponsored system. I don't have a problem with it, though I do wish more people were wise to it as they'd understand the dynamics of the online world better if they were and be less surprised by certain happenings when they occur.

Google do sometimes show a lack of care for their product though. Yes they provide us with a collection of very useful tools and some fun toys too which is great when it all works, but they should try make a little more effort to provide speedy methods of resolution when mistakes are made.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except

[Rockoon]

Exactly. Stop listening and start watching.

Its true at the poker tables. Its true in politics. Its true in business.

Stop listening to what they say and start watching what they do. You will find, especially with politics, that what they are most vocal about (ex: Democrats always making tax-the-rich statements) is exactly the opposite of what they do (ex: Democrats had unchallenged power but amazingly found an excuse not to raise taxes on anyone.)

In poker you nearly always find a person at the poker table talking about how great a player he or she is.. but when you watch what they actually do at the table (instead of listening to them talk,) you see a whole different thing than what they are saying.

So now we have Google again messing up their "social" services (remember what happened with Google Buzz?) in different (but no-less-evil) ways.

Google also starting blatantly copying copyrighted works without permission in order to force a lawsuit they could use to get the government to give them carte-blanch on any works they claim that they cannot contact the owner of.

Then of course Google was driving vans up and down nearly every street in the western world and packet sniffing wireless networks, capturing emails and other assorted stuff. Half a terabyte of this data is in Googles hands right now.

..and lest we not forget the extremely extensive amount of tracking Google does.

(no need to mention Google's actions in China!)

They say "Don't be evil" but they seem to do a hell of a lot of it.

Re:LOCKED OUT!?

[alcmena]

As someone who had my Android developer account down without explanation, I can attest to the lack of redress. They shut down my developer account for "violating the Terms of Service." I had a banking application and when I asked what I did that violated their ToS, they replied back with (emphasis mine):

Thank you for your replies. We have completed the review of your appeal. Your Android Market Publisher account has been suspended due to repeat violations of our Terms of Service. You may view these terms here: http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html [android.com] http://www.android.com/market/terms/developer-content-policy.html [android.com] We will not be restoring your account at this time. Please note that Android Market Publisher suspensions may span multiple account registrations and related Google services. Should your account become reinstated, we will notify you. We are unable to provide further details regarding this issue . Please do not register another new developer account. We recommend your utilizing an alternative application distribution system and payment method for future orders.

So basically, they shut down my account, but are unable to provide any details why. In speaking with lawyers, it is simply not cost effective to try to sue them. I would spend far more in lawyer fees than I could ever hope to earn back. Verizon and Amazon both specifically requested my application for their stores, and it is still happily listed and selling in them.

Re:LOCKED OUT!?

[alcmena]

I guess my point was simply that "important enough" is a bar so high, virtually no one is likely to meet it. In my own case, my application was making just shy of $50k/yr when it was shut down without expressed reason, notice, or appeals process. Even in that situation, the lawyers said it wasn't worth it. Given the lost income, I was probably at the top 5% of people for a potential claim for damages, so what chance does the super majority of people really have if Google gives them the middle finger?

I'm really not anti-Google, and I hope I don't read like I am. In general, I do really like their services, technologies, etc. My sole complaint is simply that if you have a problem with them, they flip the bird and disappear. You have no ability to even try to reason with them. They are like the "Judge Dredd" of internet services. Once they decided on something (completely without any input from you), it's done and you're f---ed. They don't even bother to pretend otherwise, the "We are unable to provide further details regarding this issue" pretty much proves that.