Hacker News Reader

Comment by criley2 | Hacker News Reader

I reject that they ban "literally on a whim". I get that people do get banned, but clearly they aren't in the business of banning people based even on the number of people in this very thread with Google accounts. You don't have to exaggerate to make a point.

(And now I'm being downvoted for pointing out the Google One support product. What a lovely community we've got here!)

View on HN

> 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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com