[r0fl]

The fact that you can’t talk to a human about being locked out of Gmail which is used for millions of people’s entire lives is absolutely mind blowing

[benoau]

The fact that in 2025 there is still no "rights" or "due process" for users is astonishing, you can be banned by automated systems, refused any reason, refused any actual recourse, and it's just forever. Thoroughly inadequate for platforms that have become entrenched in modern life.

[tuckerman]

It’s also interesting to consider this in the context of some of the anti-trust litigation going on. I have complicated feelings overall but the fact that I might no longer be able to sync my Chrome settings because of automation applied to my YouTube account is not comforting. If these companies stay together there needs to be a change to how account banning is handled.

[JumpCrisscross]

> fact that in 2025 there is still no "rights" or "due process" for users is astonishing

Most Google users don’t pay a dime for their services. I don’t think it’s reasonable to mandate customer service for free users.

[josephcsible]

Google is making money off of you by selling your data and showing you ads. The fact that the money they're making off of you isn't coming directly from you is irrelevant.

[elzbardico]

If a small restaurant serves spoiled food to homeless people, and they get sick, the restaurant will be liable.

Nobody is forcing you to give things for free, so, you're responsible for those customers as much as you are for the paying ones.

And actually, it is not for free.

[benoau]

Google generates nearly $200 billion a year in ad revenue off those users so I don't think depicting them as a charity is accurate.

[JumpCrisscross]

> don't think depicting them as a charity is accurate

They’re not a charity. But they also don’t owe their users for what’s tendered for free.

Where I’d agree with OP is in requiring extensive CS for paying users.

[swat535]

> They’re not a charity. But they also don’t owe their users for what’s tendered for free.

It's not for free, why do you keep repeating this line? Google isn't offering charitable good and services to people.

[benoau]

Whenever a company has hundreds of billions in one hand and an excuse not to spend it it is usually a case of "privatize the profits, socialize the costs".

Ban gmail addresses being used for government services, banking, health, utilities etc if they don't want to dip into the staggering profits they generate off these "free" users to guarantee basic rights and recourse from their own systems.

[JumpCrisscross]

I’d expect Google would love such legislation as it effectively raises the bar on new-entrant competition.

[jillyboel3]

where do you think their billions come from?

[ukulele123]

I find it hard to understand your comment as you have put a banker title in your profile, but at the same you are out of sync that Google is already providing bank services...

[elzbardico]

That's the reason I hate to peek at people's profile when I don't agree with their comments. Now I know that OP is a banker and deals with private equity, I can't answer him, because I'd fatally slip into an ad hominem.

[op7]

Some people consider that a security feature.