

What is wrong with this message? - dbushell
http://dbushell.com/2013/11/14/what-is-wrong-with-this-message/

======
ryanbrunner
That is some distracting ad placement, particularly given the content of the
blog post. I spent a good couple of minutes trying to figure out what was
wrong with the copy on the "Heart Internet" ad before I realized that it had
nothing to do with the blog post.

~~~
sillysaurus2
Why should I want to disable Adblock, given horror stories like this one?

~~~
elwell
Yeah, "what ad?"

------
JoshTriplett
Leaving aside the question of whether this message should even _exist_ ,
here's a somewhat better approach:

Your profile "Your Name" has been temporarily suspended because it appears
confusingly similar to <a href="...">Other User</a>. We do not allow profiles
that appear to impersonate another user. If this is not correct, please <a
href="...contact form that works with suspended profile...">contact us</a>.

Of course, having a "contact us" link would break Google's usual support
policy (namely, don't offer any).

------
msandford
Google has gotten big enough to where "don't be evil" is just a cute saying
that people mouth with absolutely no conviction whatsoever.

The company can distinguish spam from legit messages pretty well from what I
hear so there's clearly corporate knowledge of the notion of false positives
and false negatives. But seemingly none of that made it from the gmail
division over to the G+ division.

~~~
true_religion
Not being evil doesn't mean that you're an angel incapable of doing harm. It
just means you're not malicious.

It's the difference between a car accident, and murder by car.

~~~
maaaats
And they are malicious. For instance they are forcing removal YouTube apps on
WP by revoking their API keys, simply for being on the wrong OS. They also
removed mail features out of the blue to hamper WP users. By malice they also
make it as hard as possible to select which calendars to sync (they hide the
option when the browser is on a WP) and force phones to use legacy google
maps. Luckily Nokia's HERE is much better.

~~~
skj
"simply for being on the wrong OS"?!?

I was under the impression that the youtube app was revoked because it
displayed videos without the requisite ads. That is, Microsoft was using
Google as an unpaid content-hosting service.

~~~
AaronFriel
Not for lack of trying - Google and Microsoft would on-again off-again "work
together" and suddenly the requirements would be different or the result would
be insufficient. Most recently, they decided that the Windows Phone app must
be an HTML5 application even though it isn't on iOS or Android. Microsoft
expressed interest in using the advertising APIs to adhere to Google's
requirements, but for whatever reason those were never made available.

The whole Terms of Service for YouTube is very _anti_ open web - everything
about it screams distinguishing between privileged and unprivileged user
agents. Now, of course neither Google nor any other company is beholden to
making their platform work on every platform, but these actions seem
deliberate.

For more on this, look into the blocking of Google Maps on Windows Phone,
which was based solely on the user agent string sent to Google's servers. Or
look into the curious case of IE11 receiving a different search page on the
date of Windows 8.1's general availability, making it appear as though the
update "broke" Google. Curiously, for weeks before Windows 8.1's general
availability people using pre-release versions and MSDN/Technet versions had
no problems whatsoever.

It's not clearly deliberate, malicious evil, and I'm perpetually a fan of
Hanlon's Razor; but it definitely gives me pause every time I hear another one
of the stories of Google's interoperability with Windows and Windows Phone.

------
lmm
I was expecting a complaint about a difficult-to-debug DBUS message.

~~~
nathancahill
No, that would mean "Hacker" was back in "Hacker News". Of course it's a post
about Google+.

~~~
simias
That's a bit uncalled for, this story is really not the worse "off topic"
story we've seen on the frontpage lately, even though I agree it's a bit short
on actual content.

To me the actual problem is not the error message though (which is fairly
straightforward and informative) but rather the fact that there seems to be no
recourse or ways to contest that. But then again, in my opinion, if you
outsource your identity online by having it managed by a third party like
google, facebook or twitter you deserve everything you get. That seems to be a
fairly unpopular opinion however.

~~~
nathancahill
Eh, we share the same sentiment.

I don't think people should be surprised when (and these are all examples from
the front page over the past couple days) the terms and conditions change, the
URLs might start costing money or Youtube merges with G+. It's not news and it
shouldn't be surprising.

If you want to own your online identity, buy a domain name instead of trusting
a third party to manage it.

------
purringmeow
<rant> The question I am going to ask is - What's wrong with Google? They had
solid services, great reputation, every techie loved them. Now they fit
perfectly in the stereotype for a big, bad and greedy corporation.

In retrospect: April 2013 - they butchered Adsense YT reporting by removing
the real-time reports from your Adsense profile and moving them to YT. There
was a massive drop in earnings afterwards! Instead of aiming for transparency
they gave their users the finger.

Then comes the constant harassment with this G+ thing. I've gotten the popup
message around 50 times.

Should I discuss Gmail redesign - hidden interfaces, new sorting system.
Absurd things!

And the latest - G+ comments on YT. Yeah, that improved the comment quality.

I am wondering who's fault that is. There probably is a committee of managers
who come up with these "changes".

</rant>

I come off as too negative, but I am just mad at them. That's why I've stopped
using gmail, gtalk, hangouts, etc.

------
inglesp
My wife has had the same thing happen to her today. Her Google+, and by
extension, her YouTube account through which she promotes her work (she's a
musician) were suspended, apparently without any notification.

There's an appeals process, and she's linked to her website and Facebook
profile and submitted a photocopy of her passport to prove her name. Does
anybody here know how long this is likely to take, or the chances of it being
successful?

edit: s/password/passport/

~~~
astrodust
Ah, just like China where you need to hand over identification before using
the internet at a cafe. You know, so you can be a "good citizen".

~~~
joosters
In my experience, Chinese wifi operates the same as in most other countries.
Either no password, or the password is written on the menu or freely offered
when asked for.

Chinese censorship is another issue, of course. But there's no need to post
blatant lies about stuff you seemingly have no experience about.

~~~
pyre
How long ago was your experience? IIRC, they've been cracking down on this in
more recent times. I guess it's possible that these crack-downs are temporary
or regional though.

~~~
joosters
Two weeks ago. The situation seemed the same in a couple of cities. There were
no restrictions at any shop or cafe that I came across.

WIFI access at Beijing airport did require a passport, though.

------
tantalor
_Your profile has been suspended because it impersonates someone._

This message is wrong because it asserts something which isn't true. That is,
you are clearly not impersonating somebody else, right?

 _If it was a copy writer I’ve lost all hope._

Copywriters aren't responsible for this type of mistake.

A copywriter transforms a message into coherent language. The language here is
clear and readable. The message is the problem.

 _A straight up accusation of potentially illegal acts._

This message is not accusing you of fraud, that's your own hyperbole.

------
rtpg
>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.

~~~
bowlofpetunias
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.

~~~
rtpg
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).

------
stcredzero
_Presumption of Innocence_ is not directly enshrined in the US constitution.
It is implied by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. However, it is acceptable
practice in the US for local jurisdictions to relax aspects of the Presumption
of Innocence. For example, for rape cases in some jurisdictions, it is not
necessary to address the _mens rea_.

[http://tipmra.com/new_tipmra/presumption_of_innocence.htm](http://tipmra.com/new_tipmra/presumption_of_innocence.htm)

 _" It is not that you are innocent until proven guilty as many believe. It is
that you are assumed guilty because of the assertion made and until your
presumption of innocence prevails your protestation of innocence is simply the
challenge to the prosecution to prove its case...With the presumption is
innocence you do not have to prove innocence as it is a given. The burden of
proving otherwise is upon the party making the assertion."_

So the _Presumption of Innocence_ is simply placing the burden of proof on the
accuser and therefore any lightening of the burden of proof is effectively an
erosion of the _Presumption of Innocence_.

Is it really a right if local jurisdictions can simply decide to erode it?

Now, certainly there is another side to the story. The argument made in rape
and sexual assault cases is that, "Of course, the defendant is going to claim
consensuality." The position that _mens rea_ is impractical in cases of rape
and sexual assault is not entirely unreasonable. My point is that the commonly
held view that US citizens have a right to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty isn't so assured and cut and dry as most of us believe.

------
randyrand
How should it be phrased? Honestly I see nothing wrong with this wording. Talk
about an overreaction.

~~~
Joe-Z
If it was just the message, maybe you could argue that he overreacted. But it
isn't just the message, he can also no longer use his profile.

And why is that? Probably because some algorithm thought his profile
impersonates someone else, which is apparently not the case.

And the way Google choose to communicate their suspicion and the actions that
followed it to their user was by (practically) saying:

"You did bad thing x, and now you have to pay the consequences for it."

Can you see his point better now? (Personally I can fully understand him)

EDIT: Oh, and a better approach is mentioned in this HN-comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6732820](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6732820)

------
wambotron
I'm not on the google+ hate train.

I don't think this message is really horrible. The fact that they suspend your
account is kind of weird, but IMO, you shouldn't be using G+ as your "home" on
the web. I don't think it's meant to be that way. I've been using it since
beta, and I've found that joining relevant communities and following certain
people makes it an awesome mix of reddit (sans-comments) and twitter. My home
feed has all the stuff I want to see from G+, and I will look into new
communities once every few months.

I would never send anyone to my G+ profile. There's nothing really on it. I
don't use it as if it were Facebook and load my history with vapid statements
or "inspirational" quotes.

I think now, more than ever, it's easy to get your own "destination" site up
and running with minimal effort. The social stuff? It's just a way to kill
time. It shouldn't be everything.

~~~
sbhere
> ... you shouldn't be using G+ as your "home" on the web.

Just cross off everything after 'G+'...

~~~
wambotron
I'm not sure why you'd say that. G+ has some valuable communities. It's no
different than coming to this site or going to reddit, twitter, tumblr etc.

~~~
jol
Exactly, G+ Twitter, FB are content exchanges with value added in form of
comments and discovery in my opinion, not content creation places. P.s. Google
returns 404 on his G+ profile, is it correct http code? Shouldn't it be
something from 5 __while case is being resolved at least?

------
andrewaylett
I'm intrigued: what's the other side of the "Take Action" link? Not curious
enough to try to trigger the suspension, though.

Back to the topic at hand: writing "appears to impersonate" wouldn't have been
so much extra effort, would it?

~~~
dbushell
The "Take Action" link opens a modal giving three options:

1\. appeal 2\. change name

I forget the third... The appeal asks for links to prove your name like other
social profiles, plus an option to upload 1 document (e.g. photo ID /
passport). After submitting you're told to wait and find out the outcome of
the appeal. They also link to the rabbit hole that is Google "help" pages.

~~~
sillysaurus2
Is it possible to use G+ without my real name?

~~~
bjustin
No, G+ has always required your real name, whatever that means.

------
Zoomla
If Google would not require real names, it would not be an issue (I am not
saying that nobody share the same real name, like Google seem to imply).

------
pbreit
Maybe they forgot to include "seems". Doesn't appear like that big of a deal.
There's a "Take Action" button ready to fix the issue. Is such a thing illegal
in the UK?

------
joetech
The author left out a detail? Does his account impersonate someone else? I
think that's an important part of the conversation, even if the messaging is
presumptive.

~~~
DanBC
The author's name is David Bushell. There are 25 David Bushell's in the UK who
have accounts on LinkedIn. I have no idea how many David Bushell's there are
world wide.

I assume the author wasn't pretending to be any of those other David Bushells.

Just for clarity: A few of the Dan Beales, or DanBCs, that show up on Google
searches are not me. I've never worked in radio, for example.

------
alextingle
Out of interest - were you using your real name?

~~~
aestra
I never head of David Bushell before, but a Google search shows that he is a
producer and production manager. However the OP's website comes before the
IMDB site in the search. Interesting.

[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0124239/](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0124239/)

~~~
russum
I too share first and last name with some actor. This would be plain stupid of
Google to suspend accounts based on that.

