A straight up accusation of potentially illegal acts. There’s no ambiguity, I’m guilty until proven innocent
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.
The point isn't entirely about rights: corporations have users and they don't like to piss them off.
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.
Why do people keep confusing the law with their own personal ultra-libertarian ideology?
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.
I am generally pro-consumer protection, but filling in a sign-up form is in most cases not binding the company to much. Data protection laws is one thing, but obligation for eternal service isn't.
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).
I see your point, but I sure wouldn't want someone to expect me to not make decisions that best meet the needs of my business, and that would include discontinuing or changing my products or services.
However, I can see how when you are a company the size of Google that there should be some kind of responsibility to those that utilize your services, particularly since there is an exchange happening that benefits both parties.
Comments
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.
Effectively accusing someone of fraud is generally not wise, even if you're a giant corporation.
You can sue them for libel, but I only think that charge can go anywhere if you show material harm done due to their actions.
Considering this message is not plastered on the front page of the NYT, I don't think it could go far.
It can't really go anywhere. It's not a published statement. It's supplied to the owner of the account in privacy.
What I assume is the "impersonated" identity also appears to be in roughly the same business as this "David Bushell".
https://plus.google.com/117339560374768937720/posts
What if it is the producer/production manager?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0124239/
The point isn't entirely about rights: corporations have users and they don't like to piss them off.
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.
Using "Guilty until proven otherwise" implies a rights-based discussion, or else it wouldn't be used.
I agree that it's really bad press though (especially given how this has been a consistent issue ever since G+ appeared).
Why do people keep confusing the law with their own personal ultra-libertarian ideology?
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.
I am generally pro-consumer protection, but filling in a sign-up form is in most cases not binding the company to much. Data protection laws is one thing, but obligation for eternal service isn't.
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.
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).
I see your point, but I sure wouldn't want someone to expect me to not make decisions that best meet the needs of my business, and that would include discontinuing or changing my products or services. However, I can see how when you are a company the size of Google that there should be some kind of responsibility to those that utilize your services, particularly since there is an exchange happening that benefits both parties.