Click fraud for $80 when 16yo does not warrant a lifetime ban.
Another example along your lines: many were quick to declare that the chess player Hans Niemann ought to be banned from the sport because he admitted to cheating at online no-stakes chess games when he was 16. He is accused (without evidence) of cheating again, and people are latching on to the "once a cheater, always a cheater" mentality.
At the very worst, I would say a more fair punishment would be a ban for a year or until they reach the age of 18 (whichever comes later out of those), especially given it was the first offence.
However in this case you don't even need to do that - just make it illegal for such services to keep information on minors for longer than $period. If they can't identify you they can't deny you service while still indiscriminately providing service to everyone else.
Reading at 16 years old is not that hard. I created that YouTube channel much earlier than that. I also don't believe that as I aged I have magically understood better the worlds boundaries and limits.
Mind you, 16 years old is enough to drive in some places. Enough to work in others. And also enough to drink in some others. It's just not that young and people should take responsibilities for their actions.
Principles and values are something that's established early on in someone's life. If someone doesn't care for defrauding a company of $80 when they are 16 years old, I don't honestly believe they deserve a second chance.
I spent 15 minutes or so reading a document which I'm obligated to read to sign a contract and discovered I myself couldn't do it and so passed that to someone else.
> lets not pretend he didn't make mistakes
That's true. I do have multiple regrets too. Reading terms of services isn't one though.
No.
> As well as the claim that any mistakes made at 16 means that the person will forever repeat those same mistakes for life?
No.
I said that since I didn't make that mistake much before 16 years old (13 or so) then it's possible for a 16 years old to not make the same mistake. That's about reading ToS, defrauding Google is a whole other can of worms.
I also didn't say they will make the same mistakes for life, only that they shouldn't get another chance. Google has no reason from their point of view to give access to their platform to someone who once tried to defraud them and put them in several liabilities related to child labor and exploitation.
> This kind of thinking is antisocial and serves no purpose other than some kind of revenge fantasy.
When it comes to putting someone in prison I agree 100%. When it comes to the right of a bussiness to reject a customer I disagree.
In fact when we were considering AdWords we got in touch with a local AdWords representative (yes, Google has support, but only for the business they care about) and we talked about a lot of this stuff.
Please tell me if I'm missing something and I'll be happy to retract what I've said.
If only corporations were held to such a rule..
I also get a letter every so often (this was 10+ years ago) from one of the big auditing firms that I have money in my google account and I just need to go claim it by logging into the account I can't login to anymore.