[fc417fc802]

Fair point.

However that invites those bad scenarios where someone gets blacklisted by BigTech in some manner, later gets hired by a small business, the new employer adds an association to the blacklisted account, and suddenly the company app is banned from the app store seemingly without reason. At least a few such stories have appeared on HN over the years.

I feel like pay to play ought to be sufficient because in addition to being a barrier to entry it also provides funds for moderation efforts.

[kube-system]

There are better ways to do it but Google has long demonstrated they’re not primarily concerned with accuracy or user experience, but instead, whichever solution can be automated and effective.

[Muromec]

>suddenly the company app is banned from the app store seemingly without reason. At least a few such stories have appeared on HN over the years.

Which is not that unreasonable even. If a person is flagged for making scam apps, them having publishing rights in a reputable place makes taints the reputation of such place.

You should be able to appeal of course and the oauth should not be towards google in the first place, but being associated with known fraudsters and scammers is not what you want.

[fc417fc802]

That seems at odds with how our society is structured. We treat employees as interchangeable cogs. If someone commits a crime they are tried but their family, friends, and coworkers are not. Guilt by association without any act having been committed seems wholly incompatible with both our principles and common practices.

It's even more nefarious when it comes to BigTech because you can be blacklisted without having committed any actual crime and without anything resembling a trial.

Individual accounts and employee accounts are conceptually distinct. Permitting anything less gives large companies free reign to run roughshod over the individual by unilaterally depriving him of his livelihood.

[iamnothere]

> If someone commits a crime they are tried but their family, friends, and coworkers are not. Guilt by association without any act having been committed seems wholly incompatible with both our principles and common practices.

This is no longer the case, see the example of Hüseyin Dogru, a journalist who faces political EU sanctions (no trial) and now cannot transact with EU citizens or travel. Authorities have now siezed the bank account of his wife and are treating her as if she is sanctioned, even though she is not, so their family is now broke and cannot even pay for food. Because they are not allowed to travel they cannot return to Switzerland.

This kind of blacklisting also comes up in non-sanctioned contexts with de-banking and political de-platforming based on government pressure. The world is headed to a very dark place.

[Muromec]

>It's even more nefarious when it comes to BigTech because you can be blacklisted without having committed any actual crime and without anything resembling a trial.

Crime is not the only thing that exists in a law. One can work in a regulated profession and lose a license for not adhering to the rules. Such person can in theory go and do something that doesn't affect the society negatively and this isn't exactly a punishment for a crime. Now if someone employs such person again after they lost their license, that new employer maybe be sanctioned as well. All of that usually comes with some kind of appeal mechanism.