[londons_explore]

At least ~half the 'BigCo is being unreasonable' stories here have another side where the poster was doing something terrible (eg. sharing child porn on their google drive account), and then complaining when their account gets blocked for 'no reason'.

The BigCo can't typically make any comment when this happens - merely say 'we have investigated and decided to uphold the ban', and then they look unreasonable.

Sometimes the unreasonable thing is done by malware on the users computer/phone, so even the user isn't aware, but from BigCo's perspective it all looks the same.

BigCo processes are still opaque, but often the outcomes aren't as unreasonable as they seem.

[Nicksil]

>At least ~half the 'BigCo is being unreasonable' stories here have another side where the poster was doing something terrible (eg. sharing child porn on their google drive account), ...

Where did "at least half" come from? Is this a statistic derived from factual information or just some gut feeling?

[londons_explore]

Knew someone who used to be involved in investigating these cases.

[candiodari]

You neglect to mention that this "child porn" example was private communication between child/parents and their doctor showing a medical issue, which (an algorithm of) Google had decided to upload, scan, and sent to the police.

It was never the intention of "the poster" to "share child porn". They never had any to begin with. It's just algorithms doing things, then blaming the owner of the device for what Google (incorrectly) perceived them to be doing.

[croes]

BigCo most of the times says we banned you but we don't tell you why.