[littlestymaar]

> but otherwise Guillermo’s response in that thread seems pretty reasonable to me

“Other than the completely unreasonable thing, they seemed pretty reasonable”.

I mean he's not being a complete asshole in the discussion here[1], but nuking the entire customer's account for a ToS violation on one specific product still isn't a reasonable move. Yes Google and Amazon do it routinely, but if you're not a trillion dollar monopoly and you care about your business' reputation, you shouldn't behave like those.

[1] CEOs behaving like assholes in Twitter discussions isn't supposed to be the norm.

[paulgb]

If you violate the TOS of a free service, it’s not on them to surgically split your account into “offending” and “non-offending” parts, especially if they reach out to you to try to work with you to remove the offending parts and you don’t respond for two weeks.

[littlestymaar]

There's no surgery involved and yes it is on them. Actually they retroactively did so when he complained, and as such they agreed that nuking everything was the wrong move.

Also, the “offending part” has been well known from them for several years (they even claim it costed them a lot in support over the years) so it's not like they received a DMCA and had to take everything down in a hurry, they knew exactly what product they wanted to stop because they did stop it because it was too costly. The fact that it violated their TOS is just the legal justification for the closure, not its source.