There's an appeals process, and she's linked to her website and Facebook profile and submitted a photocopy of her passport to prove her name. Does anybody here know how long this is likely to take, or the chances of it being successful?
edit: s/password/passport/
Chinese censorship is another issue, of course. But there's no need to post blatant lies about stuff you seemingly have no experience about.
I suppose you mean passport?
I posted this comment in another thread, it might be of value to you:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6732852
It was before, when Google had a very strict "real name" policy they were actively and aggressively policing. The actual name review process probably hasn't changed much since then though.
That's not going to happen. The day they cancel my account is the day they can say goodby to all that lovely data they have on me since I'm not making another one.
You might expect a driver's license, but keep in mind that some people may prefer to provide:
- state ID card - state-issued driver's license - US passport
Only one of those is proof that you're allowed to _drive_, but I'm pretty sure you can use any of those to prove identity.
Usual complaints, but it's weird how people expect corporations to somehow adopt a charter of rights like "the right to a fair trial for your corporate ban-hammer". Much like complaints about "free speech" when reddit bans some subreddit.
There's no obligation for Google to prove anything (until you start paying for something, in which case you start entering contract law issues).
There's a lot of value-add in offering a minimum of customer service nowadays, considering the complete lack of service by most companies.
Considering this message is not plastered on the front page of the NYT, I don't think it could go far.
Obviously, Google can afford to piss off a few people without dying out, but good copywriting is probably worth it, in terms of avoiding bad press (and generally creating nice UX).
Beyond that, if it's true that Google has no obligations to users, it's equally true that users have no obligations to Google. So they can go ahead and be as irrationally angry about any Google decision as they want. That's how the market works--it does not care whether your anger is rational or not.
I agree that it's really bad press though (especially given how this has been a consistent issue ever since G+ appeared).
Companies have plenty of legal obligations towards their clients, especially outside the US where consumer protection is actually a thing. And "free" users are clients as well (no such thing as a free lunch, there's a reason why Google wants you to agree to a very long legal document before signing up, you're entering into a business arrangement where you pay with your data).
It's weird how people expect there to be no laws concerning corporations and their clients.
By which I'm not saying that the OP has any recourse in this particular case. But corporations do not have the absolute right to arbitrarily refuse or suspend services.
"My company, my rules" is an ideology, not the law.
Generally an EULA specifies that a company has the right to suspend an account without cause (leading to termination of obligations on both sides, so you don't have to pay for a service anymore). I'm not sure how valid that has held up in courts, but the notion of ending a contract is not a new one.
>But corporations do not have the absolute right to arbitrarily refuse or suspend services.
I agree they can't arbitrarily suspend services if there's some sort of agreement, but I thought that , by default, they can refuse. There are exceptions but they have to be codified (healthcare, for example).
The company can distinguish spam from legit messages pretty well from what I hear so there's clearly corporate knowledge of the notion of false positives and false negatives. But seemingly none of that made it from the gmail division over to the G+ division.
It's the difference between a car accident, and murder by car.
To me the actual problem is not the error message though (which is fairly straightforward and informative) but rather the fact that there seems to be no recourse or ways to contest that. But then again, in my opinion, if you outsource your identity online by having it managed by a third party like google, facebook or twitter you deserve everything you get. That seems to be a fairly unpopular opinion however.
Back to the topic at hand: writing "appears to impersonate" wouldn't have been so much extra effort, would it?
1. appeal 2. change name
I forget the third... The appeal asks for links to prove your name like other social profiles, plus an option to upload 1 document (e.g. photo ID / passport). After submitting you're told to wait and find out the outcome of the appeal. They also link to the rabbit hole that is Google "help" pages.
I don't think this message is really horrible. The fact that they suspend your account is kind of weird, but IMO, you shouldn't be using G+ as your "home" on the web. I don't think it's meant to be that way. I've been using it since beta, and I've found that joining relevant communities and following certain people makes it an awesome mix of reddit (sans-comments) and twitter. My home feed has all the stuff I want to see from G+, and I will look into new communities once every few months.
I would never send anyone to my G+ profile. There's nothing really on it. I don't use it as if it were Facebook and load my history with vapid statements or "inspirational" quotes.
I think now, more than ever, it's easy to get your own "destination" site up and running with minimal effort. The social stuff? It's just a way to kill time. It shouldn't be everything.
And why is that? Probably because some algorithm thought his profile impersonates someone else, which is apparently not the case.
And the way Google choose to communicate their suspicion and the actions that followed it to their user was by (practically) saying:
"You did bad thing x, and now you have to pay the consequences for it."
Can you see his point better now? (Personally I can fully understand him)
EDIT: Oh, and a better approach is mentioned in this HN-comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6732820
I assume the author wasn't pretending to be any of those other David Bushells.
Just for clarity: A few of the Dan Beales, or DanBCs, that show up on Google searches are not me. I've never worked in radio, for example.
Your profile "Your Name" has been temporarily suspended because it appears confusingly similar to <a href="...">Other User</a>. We do not allow profiles that appear to impersonate another user. If this is not correct, please <a href="...contact form that works with suspended profile...">contact us</a>.
Of course, having a "contact us" link would break Google's usual support policy (namely, don't offer any).
In retrospect: April 2013 - they butchered Adsense YT reporting by removing the real-time reports from your Adsense profile and moving them to YT. There was a massive drop in earnings afterwards! Instead of aiming for transparency they gave their users the finger.
Then comes the constant harassment with this G+ thing. I've gotten the popup message around 50 times.
Should I discuss Gmail redesign - hidden interfaces, new sorting system. Absurd things!
And the latest - G+ comments on YT. Yeah, that improved the comment quality.
I am wondering who's fault that is. There probably is a committee of managers who come up with these "changes".
</rant>
I come off as too negative, but I am just mad at them. That's why I've stopped using gmail, gtalk, hangouts, etc.
This message is wrong because it asserts something which isn't true. That is, you are clearly not impersonating somebody else, right?
If it was a copy writer I’ve lost all hope.
Copywriters aren't responsible for this type of mistake.
A copywriter transforms a message into coherent language. The language here is clear and readable. The message is the problem.
A straight up accusation of potentially illegal acts.
This message is not accusing you of fraud, that's your own hyperbole.
http://tipmra.com/new_tipmra/presumption_of_innocence.htm
"It is not that you are innocent until proven guilty as many believe. It is that you are assumed guilty because of the assertion made and until your presumption of innocence prevails your protestation of innocence is simply the challenge to the prosecution to prove its case...With the presumption is innocence you do not have to prove innocence as it is a given. The burden of proving otherwise is upon the party making the assertion."
So the Presumption of Innocence is simply placing the burden of proof on the accuser and therefore any lightening of the burden of proof is effectively an erosion of the Presumption of Innocence.
Is it really a right if local jurisdictions can simply decide to erode it?
Now, certainly there is another side to the story. The argument made in rape and sexual assault cases is that, "Of course, the defendant is going to claim consensuality." The position that mens rea is impractical in cases of rape and sexual assault is not entirely unreasonable. My point is that the commonly held view that US citizens have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty isn't so assured and cut and dry as most of us believe.
