[zadokshi]

The problem with making it a crime (it probably already is a crime) is that the blame will be placed on the developer when it probably was not the fault of the developer.

In these types of situations I’ve been in, usually the developers already complained, and it’s really not the fault of the developers.

This creates this weird situation where developers have to do more and more to protect themselves from situations like this.

It doesn’t take more than a few seconds of thinking to realise that google should have made some kind of way for authentication to be transitioned over. Even something as simple as sending out a “transfer” email link or even just an api that squat space could have called to allow customer transfer verification.

[CydeWeys]

It doesn't matter what Google did or wanted to do if Squarespace wasn't going to actually support it.

[account42]

If the developer agreed to implement it then it is the fault of the developer. Making the developer liable both motivates the developer to not agree to things that are illegal and provides them with an argument for pushing back.

[kayodelycaon]

Simply making something illegal does not change culture. The lowest guy on the payroll has no leverage beyond leaving. Companies have no reason to change what they are doing.

[account42]

> Simply making something illegal does not change culture.

Correct, you also need enforcement.

> The lowest guy on the payroll has no leverage beyond leaving. Companies have no reason to change what they are doing.

Leaving is a huge leverage. Even easily replacable corporate drones cost a lot to replace. If a company needs to find someone willing to risk going to prison they will are much less likely to be successful.

[immibis]

If it's illegal, the lowest guy has the leverage of putting his boss in jail. The boss has the leverage of putting his boss in jail, and so on.