|
|
|
|
|
|
by brudgers
810 days ago
|
|
|
I agree it depends. Everything is that way. But statistically ordinary people are not active Youtubers, don’t heavily collaborate through drive, and don’t publish apps. And statistically, I would expect a vast preponderance of Google bans are justified by the specifics of the “it depends.” |
|
|
From a risk perspective, it is highly beneficial to limit the use of Google services to the really important things without which life online is very uncomfortable.
That would probably be identity/Gmail, Play Store access, Pay, and maybe Drive.
For almost all other major risk vectors (especially anything where you would publish content), it is just an obvious and dreadful uncertainty with little data to make a proper case. It's just smart to hedge against Googles all-or-nothing-ban attitude by using a multitude of service providers.
My grandfather digitized all of his family photo negatives (thousands), and wanted to upload them to Google Photos, which would have been an awful idea, given the huge differences in tolerance of nudity between Germany in the 50s to 80s and the US today.
I once bought a device through the Google Store, and Google said they'd send me a box to return my old device. For sending back my old device, Google was going to give me some money (as a discount for buying a new device).
The box never arrived and I asked Google Store support about it twice. I didn't dare ask a third time because, after all, it's Google. It's just not worth $140 to look like someone who might be a scammer, and I felt throughout the conversation that the other side seemed to see it that way. I would have insisted on the return box if I had bought it at Saturn or MediaMarkt, because what would they do if they don't like me? Power matters.