Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think this is a convenient narrative for an abusive pattern of behavior by Google. The company is infamous for having non-existent customer service. It's not a matter of their AI having too many false positives, it's that when there is a false positive you have literally no recourse even if you're a well known business partner.

Are we really going to believe that Google, one of the highest grossing companies in the world, doesn't have the money to provide even basic level customer service? If it were really a matter of not being able to afford it, certainly they could offer it for a fee. No, they're stubbornly refusing to address the issues, relying on this lie, and using their market dominance to avoid having to answer for it.



Technically they do offer customer service if you pay them with their Google One product. I have phone numbers and human access very quickly, because I pay for it.

Although obviously if they banned me, I wouldn't have access to my direct support line anymore.


> Although obviously if they banned me, I wouldn't have access to my direct support line anymore.

Which they will do literally on a whim. Who are you going to call then?


Ghost busters


I know HN doesn't like these types of comments, but I genuinely laughed.


[flagged]


> on a whim: because of a sudden decision

How was them banning Terraria's accounts not a sudden decision? How about any of the other stories posted in this thread? They literally ban accounts on a whim, usually with no warnings issued.


You're being downvoted for unintentionally agreeing with the main point: Even if you are paying for support, you have no recourse if they decide to arbitrarily lock your account.


I think you’re being downvoted because you’re rejecting reality, ie. The literal topic being talked about that literally happened to a person.


Literal topic?


People are talking a bit past each other here, but inexplicable arbitrary machine learning false positives are anthropomorphized as whims of the algorithm. Without any explanation as to why the false positive occurred, the effect is indistinguishable from the whims of a person pulling a lever behind a curtain.


> I reject that they ban "literally on a whim".

They reject based on complex statistical models of behavior with so many variables that no individual understands how the whole thing fits together.

And as a developer, you're constantly doing all sorts of unusual things that might be perfectly reasonable but still trigger a warning.

And then - no recourse. I'm backed up pretty recently with Google but what about this week's email? What about all the people who have that address?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: