[ImNotTheNSA]

I think part of their reasoning is that if they publish the rulebook, then people will find ways to misuse the services in a roundabout way. It’s easier to find bugs in source material you can see, than that you cannot.

I don’t agree with this, but I think it’s most likely the reasoning.

[pnw_hazor]

Also, they like to give special privileges to favored entities. Some of these special privileges would likely be counter to any published rules.

[brokenmachine]

True, I think this is likely the real reason.

[tptacek]

Because that sounds right, or because you have particularized knowledge to back that claim up?

[brokenmachine]

Because it sounds right and seems like common-sense. I did put "I think" and "likely" in there so I would have thought it was obvious I was speculating.

Do we need to ask everyone whether they have "particularized" knowledge for every comment they make?

[x0x0]

At least on ios, both uber [1] and facebook have clearly engaged in behavior that would get anyone else booted from the platform.

I would bet a week's salary that google play is the same.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ceo-tim-cook-threatene...

[brokenmachine]

They can have a catch-all at the end to cover those situations.

They make the rules, so the rules can include, "you can be removed at the discretion of google" at the end.

[OJFord]

If it makes you feel better, you could view the current rules as consisting solely of that line?

[brokenmachine]

Lol, true. I was just suggesting an option if they care about portraying a facade of fairness. Probably unnecessary though.