all they did was write in a few extra clauses into their ToS. Nothing actually changed for you.
Those few clauses gave Google a kill switch to his site. If it stayed small Google wouldn't have done anything, if it succeeded they'd come after him for violating the terms, and probably end up acquiring it for little or nothing.
As far as I can see the only thing Google is "guilty" of is changing a few lines in their ToS, which is entirely in their right.
It is their right. It's also a change that nullified his business model, so letting him know about it would have been the non-evil thing to do, and that would have taken no additional effort since they were already communicating with him. It's possible that their failure to do so was incompetence rather than malice, but the result is the same.
Comments
all they did was write in a few extra clauses into their ToS. Nothing actually changed for you.
Those few clauses gave Google a kill switch to his site. If it stayed small Google wouldn't have done anything, if it succeeded they'd come after him for violating the terms, and probably end up acquiring it for little or nothing.
As far as I can see the only thing Google is "guilty" of is changing a few lines in their ToS, which is entirely in their right.
It is their right. It's also a change that nullified his business model, so letting him know about it would have been the non-evil thing to do, and that would have taken no additional effort since they were already communicating with him. It's possible that their failure to do so was incompetence rather than malice, but the result is the same.