Hacker News Reader

Comment by sequoia | Hacker News Reader

> ...after taking into consideration the information that you have provided, we have confirmed that we are unable to reinstate your publisher account.

I hate when using euphemism slides into flat out lying like this. They are not "unable" to reinstate the account, in fact they are the only party able to reinstate the account, that's why the account holder was contacting them instead of someone else. They are "unwilling" to reinstate the account.

I know it's all just bullshit but it bothers me anyway.

View on HN

It's not lying because there is some implicit information in the "we are unable" statement. What is implied in statements like this is that they're unable due to their policies.

If not for implications like this, almost every single use of "unable" (or "can't", for that matter) ever in a sentence would be "lying" unless something is against the laws of physics.

I disagree. If you buy a product from me with 30 day warranty and it breaks on day 31 and you contact me, I will not give you a refund because: a) I haven't agreed to do so b) I'm not bound to do so c) I don't think it's warranted in this case.

But I'm not "unable" to issue a refund.

In another case I may say "hm it's out of warranty but you know what, it really shouldn't have broken like that and you're a good customer, so I'll give a refund anyway." I can do that because I am able to issue a refund.

As for their policy, they are both the authors and interpreters of their own policy, so the "my hands are tied" argument is pure BS. If they are unable to reinstate accounts, why do they have an appeals process at all?

"I can't agree with you"

"I cannot continue this relationship"

"I can't kill this guy"

"I just can't eat meat anymore"

"I cannot continue like this"

These are all examples where someone clearly could for physical reasons, but they can't for other reasons they are bound to, whatever these reasons are.

Technically you are right.

However the key here is exploiting the ambiguity.

‘We are unable to’ is a cowardly way of saying ‘we choose not to’, or ‘our policy dictates’.

If Google chose to use the "uncowardly" wording, I'm sure someone would just post saying Google is arrogant and cocky bastard. No matter what someone will find some point to complain. Human nature.

That seems like a dismissal that could be applied to any criticism of any corporation.

Can you explain what value it adds in this specific case?

What value to add to criticize this specific case?

Whether they use "unable" or "choose not too" shouldn't matter.

Just treat it the same.

Holding companies to the basic standard of good customer service like we used to.

"People will criticize no matter what you do" is a great line. It gets used a lot - not so much here, I've noticed. Probably because it doesn't address the particulars of any criticism, and instead provides a nihilistic view of the world where "real improvement" is impossible.

"We're unable to" shifts responsibility to something vague, unspecific. It's like the "run around" only with this phrase you've been redirected to /dev/null. I'm glad the OP said something.

It's shifting the blame to you - something in their policies prevents them from reinstating your account without allowing you to break the contract. There's no ulterior motive, it's simply the best wording for saying that you still violate some policy.

If they want to say that they won't reinstate your account because you're violating a policy, they should say as much.

The original email is context for the review rejection email by saying

> In your case, we have detected invalid traffic or activity on your account

The rejection email isn't isolated, so when it says "unable" it's conveying the implied message "unable to reinstate your publisher account <without bending the rules because we think our ad fraud detection systems were correct>".

You all make good points in favour of both sides of the argument, so I upvoted every post in this thread.

The only takeaway is that there is no obviously correct wording for google to make when wielding the banhammer.

>The only takeaway...

Well, that is, strictly speaking, a false statement. I agree the discussion has been civil; but consider that the support to Google's position requires adding phrases to their statement which fundamentally change the statements meaning.

I'm not sure what it's called, something like the opposite of a strawman attack. It is indeed simple to defend a statement when you give yourself permission to rewrite it in a post hoc fashion. It's an argument I find uncompelling, no matter how civilly it's presented.

> The only takeaway is that there is no obviously correct wording for google to make when wielding the banhammer.

This is true on kh because ‘correct’ is both a relative term and a black and white one, which doesn’t apply to the situation we are discussing. You have to decide what you value, and perfection is not an option, so there is indeed no ‘correct’ wording, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t better wordings, nor does it make the one they chose ok.

It seems to me that there are many ways Google could be more honest and less opaque.

It seems like quite a few people here (myself included) value those traits and would like to see Google adopt them.

That won’t immunize them from criticism or make everyone agree with their judgements, but it would still be better.

Here, I think the concern is that the alternative wordings considered/proposed are possibly open to just as much criticism and negative readings as the original. That is, others consider it difficult to improve here.

> No matter what someone will find some point to complain

I don't think there would be many complaints if Google didn't take down apps for vague reasons.

If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here. "We reviewed your case, and based on our policy, we cannot reinstate your account. Because if we did, we'd be the ones violating our policy, and someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices, rather than merely complaining about overly restrictive policies that are blindly enforced through a system that is hard to penetrate".

No lying, no ambiguity. They can't reinstate this account.

Should they change their policy so that after that change, they can? Maybe, but good luck getting them to.

They can always either change or make an exception to the policy.

A policy is just their way of doing things, written down.

It’s not magic.

That's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement, which can be a problem, especially when contracts reference the policy.

To clarify your comment, this is exactly what OP was referring to with

> someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices

That doesn’t really change anything. It’s still their policy to change. They still decide when to review the policy.

Changing your policy to be more friendly to all users moving forward isn't selective enforcement.

To reiterate, "policy" is just explicitly specifying "that's just the way we do things around here"

They can certainly change it, thus changing what they can do, in the future, but they can't make exceptions. A policy, written down, becomes a contract as far as the law's concerned. Contract changes are fine (provided all parties involved are then allowed to cancel the contract), but contract violation is not.

This isn’t accurate.

There are plenty of policies that state that they may be changed by one side or that exceptions may be made in cases where the wording doesn’t cover the intent.

The Apple store policy for example says this.

the first sensible and rational comment I see here (I hope more comment like this in this post).

> If it's based on a real policy that can be verified by others, then there is no ambiguity here.

In this particular case, the ambiguity is exactly that - Google didn't say what what real policy was broken or how.

Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question. The downside of business in the US: companies are by law required to make documents available on request, but they are in no way required to make that easy.

> Pretty sure if you file the proper paperwork with google's legal department, you can get a copy of the exact text in question

You’d think there would be examples of people doing this, but so far I haven’t heard of them.

Getting the text of the policy isn't the whole issue. As you pointed out both the policy and method of verification need to exist, or there is ambiguity.

Given the information in the article, you can't verify any of the traffic or actions that were supposed to break policy. After all Google wrote, "We understand that you may want to know more about the issues that we’ve detected. Because this information could be used to circumvent our proprietary detection system, we’re unable to provide our publishers with information about specific account activity."

Imagine if the justice system worked this way.

"We understand that you may want to know more about the crimes that we’ve detected. Because this information could be used to circumvent our proprietary policing system, we’re unable to provide defendants with information about alleged criminal activity."

"We refuse to" might be clearest of all.

And yet no one, including people in this thread who are claiming that the intent of Google's wording is to deceive, are actually the slightest bit unclear about what Google means.

It isn't about wanting to deceive, it is about their seemingly unwillingness to admit; these are related, but not at all the same. It is the same kind of semantic difference people think is really important when discussing scenarios like "you didn't misplace my item on accident, you discarded it on purpose and we both know that: I want to hear you say it out loud".

But, as others have mentioned, it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that" like this. It's simply not reasonable to interpret this messaging as intended to claim that it's physically impossible to do the thing. I totally understand being upset with Google's policy and decision here, but this particular criticism about the wording they used is simply disingenuous.

We all know what it means because we are familiar with numerous other cases of such dissembling. That does not make it any less dishonest; it just means they are members of a big, dishonest club.

It’s not dishonest when it’s how everyone uses language and how everyone else understands the language.

It is not how everyone uses language. I do not use language that way. If you used language that way, you would be dishonest. It is how dishonest corporations use language.

That we are aware they are dishonest does not make them less so.

It’s not dishonest because it is language used with a certain intended meaning and that intended meaning is clear to everyone including the people complaining about it. That’s precisely what normal, honest usage of language is: you have an intended meaning and you effectively convey the intended meaning.

Brazen lying does convey an intended meaning; an action that speaks louder than words, it always conveys the same meaning: "You're a fucking peasant who has to take what you get."

Sometimes that's true. Most times they hope you will believe it's true. Many people have been trained to believe it, true or not.

A business concerned you may take your custom elsewhere will not insult you this way. It is the mark of a monopolist or a crook.

I will make a point of remembering your relationship with truth.

> It is the mark of a monopolist or a crook.

It could just be that they know every other option will treat you in the same shitty way. I suppose you could stick that under 'crook'.

This is how corporations use language. It's about "optics".

I'd personally call it an 'absuse' or 'misuse' or... 'misleading use' of language, but you do you.

> it's extremely standard to use phrasing like "can't do that" and "unable to do that"

It’s standard corporate doublespeak. Just because a lot of corporations do something by habit, doesn’t make it disingenuous to critique.

Google in particular tried to be a different and less evil kind of company.

We know that ship has sailed, but it doesn’t mean the values that it spoke to are any less important.

And deliberately so, to defuse the situation and not anger the customer further. The "we are" is of the same origin. It creates the assumption that the customer is dealing with "some Google team" that made the decision, when in fact it was one person or even just a stupid algorithm.

"Computer says no" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds

Yep they are all lies. I _almost_ can't agree with you more.

This all depends on having free will. Otherwise, those statements could all be literally true.

Yes, but without those reasons these are just ambiguous unprovable statements.

Without reasoning we cannot tell if the auxiliary verb is even correct.

“I can’t eat meat anymore because it’s illegal”, really should read “I shouldn’t eat meat anymore” as although it’s a bad idea you’re still physically capable of eating meat.

I think the issue we’re talking about is ambiguity, and this really just emphasises the point.

Those express moral convictions or imminent psychological crises. A corporation experiences neither.

cannot != unable

All of the sentences you give would be quite different if “can not” were replaced with “to be unable to”.

There's an important distinction between externally and internally imposed restrictions. (In the case of killing, hopefully both restrictions are in play.)

The language is intentionally deflecting responsibility by obscuring the source of the restriction. They're trying to reduce argument by giving the impression responsibility exists in some other unidentified channel.

If I were to ask you if I could get a refund for an item out of warranty, what language would you use to refuse me? I'm struggling to come up with a response that doesn't use the terms "unable" or "can't" that wouldn't come across as fairly rude.

"We do not issue refunds for items with expired warranties"

Notice that the policy is clearly stated in the rejection and there is no ambiguity.

You would be lying - and people will call you out on this, because they will find out that you have in fact issued refunds for products with expired warranties.

This level of semantics is pointless.

They could write "We generally do not issue refunds for items outside of warranty" and they're back to the statement being just one level more vague, and thus more true.

But in reality, both of those mean the same thing. Writing "We don't issue refunds outside of warranty periods" has an understood "excluding exceptional circumstances". Everyone knows it's there. Only people who are pedantic to the point of uselessness will argue about this, and you'll find out that the courts generally have little sympathy for that.

All human languages so far are inexact. Math is probably the most exact language we've invented for communicating ideas, but languages that the general public knows are all inexact.

If the correct thing is communicated unambiguously, that's already a success, even if a pedantic person can say "I know you mean that you don't 'generally' do it, so the absolute there is a lie", the fact that the pedant can point it out means they absolutely understood what was being conveyed correctly.

This level of semantics is indeed pointless - to clarify, your comment supports both what you wrote and Google's use of the "unable" wording in their response; they are unable to reinstate your account <without introducing liability to lawsuits regarding unfair business practices> <and except in exceptional circumstances>.

The person responding at a big corporation is often unable to, for practical purposes as a result of policies other than in exceptional circumstances.

When you write in and ask them, please steal a million dollars and give it to me, while they might be able to figure out a way to steal and give it to you, for policy and job performance reasons they are unable to. They say - "I'm unable to do that for you". Who cares if they somehow could - we all understand they have chosen not to.

We are unable to reinstate your account = person responding does not have policy authority to reinstate your account and the exceptional circumstance was not identified.

That feeling is specifically because we all know that depersonalizing and speaking passively 'softens' the blow.

"As your product is out of warranty we will not be issuing a refund."

Sounds rude, right? Because it draws attention to the fact that the decision is, at some level, completely arbitrary. But if you have your left hand write the policy and your right hand enforce it then you can say.

"I'm sorry but I'm unable to issue a refund because your product is out of warranty."

Makes it sound like that's just how the world works, doesn't it? And you come away feeling like "aww man they can't" instead of "they won't, money grubbing assholes." Customer service is, at its core, about managing emotions and often delivering bad news in a way that preserves the company's image.

> Unfortunately the warranty on your product has expired and we do not issue refunds for products outside the warranty period.

If you pressed me I would admit that yes, in some exceptional cases we issue refunds for products outside of warranty but we're not doing so in this case because [whatever, the product broken due to misuse, etc.].

To say I am not issuing a refund or that I do not issue refunds on out-of-warranty is truthful or reasonably so. It's perfectly possible to communicate that without being rude or claiming to be "unable."

How about "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave"?

computer says no

A better and more honest answer than so much of the apologetics spouted in this thread.

I'm amazed at the people defending this type of verbiage... like at all.

You are not eligible for a refund under our warranty. Let us know if you have any more questions.

It isn't really lying from a personal perspective either. The "person" writing the response is unable to reinstate the account as a matter of policy, which is a valid reason forbidding something in a civilized society. Likewise, by matter of a different policy the author is unable to comment on the specifics of the suspension.

It could be as simple as "Google management reviewed this app and decided it cuts into the bottom line of some service offered by Google." If the low-level person writing emails is aware of this fact then it would be reasonable to understand why they are unable to share the true motivation for suspension. What is more likely is the low level email writer looks up the account and the reason for suspension listed is, verbatim "Ad fraud - <3 Mgmgt." Then the low-level person would not be stretching the truth at all when they say they are unable to reinstate the account and are unable to provide more information.

> It isn't really lying from a personal perspective either. The "person" writing the response

I agree that the person writing isn't lying, but the language is deflecting responsibility away from management choices. The clearest wording from the prospective of the writer would be "I am unable because we are unwilling...".

I agree with those who feel it's important to keep a distinction between externally imposed limitations and internally imposed limitations.

They are speaking on behalf of Google. So what is effectively said is "Google is unable to ..." which is clearly BS.

I mean it is like "I'm unable to return the money [as it would be against my policy to do so]".

Though it is even worse than that as Google wouldn't even say which policy was violated. Full Kafka. The fact that people still put up with this is a clear evidence of Google's monopoly position.

You make valid points. I believe the contradiction here lies in the exact context. The individual shop employee might be "unable" to issue a refund, due to the policy set in place by the managers of the shop. The shop as a whole is certainly able to change the policy and provide refund (unless it is out of money, of course). The individual --- phrasing the message --- might be accurate. But the customer is not interested whether the person in front of him is able to issue the refund. He is usually interested in getting the refund from the shop as a whole.

Similar arguments apply to the Google store the person or more likely the software system that composed that email might be unable to reinstate the account, but Google most definitely is. But Google is merely unwilling to do so.

This is like being pedantic about usage of the word "literally"...

Just because this usage of "unable" doesn't match your strict personal definition doesn't mean they are wrong. People generally agree and understand what "unable" means in this context, so you're kinda SOL.

Yes, but it is a dodge. Like an apology wrapped in an excuse. I read this post and I made a mental note to try to never say I am "unable" when I am unwilling. It's corporate speak that I have used myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRgsfHc8kqU&ab_channel=Harry...

https://youtu.be/Y1QQSFlm0dI?t=81

The audience is laughing because this notion is ridiculous.

Usually when I say that I can’t do something I mean it’s not within my power to do it.

> They are unable due to their policies

Unable due to their policies, which they wrote and they can change (and which they often choose not to follow anyway).

I agree with OP - it’s not that Google isn’t able to do this, it’s that Google doesn’t want to.

Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it. Google can do it, they just don't want to.

Hell, they can even change their policies if they want, so they aren't really "unable".

> Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it.

If you tried hard enough, you could probably manage this.

Stainless Steel Rat comes to mind. :-)

> Well, I am unable to give someone your money because you won't agree. It's not against the laws of physics, but I still can't do it.

You can do it if you are stonger than the other person. You may not do it, according to the law.

And because an outside force compels me, I am unable to.

Using a less accurate phrase instead of a more accurate one because it benefits/shields you is a dark pattern.

Were the implied statement made explicit, then yes it'd be accurate.

A pet peeve of mine is the deferral and personification of "policy". Policy is just your opinion that you happen to have written down in the past. It holds no power over you, you write the policy! It's not like the US law, which while also just words on paper, is enforced (and often chosen by) other people over you. Me deferring to the law (vs. my own opinion) has meaning because they can be different. The way we really know this is that we repeatedly see policy broken all the time -- again, because it's just a pretend separate agent, not an actual entity that wields power over you. It does in fact ultimately just serve to disguise an active action as a passive one "Oh, I checked the book of rules (that I wrote) and it said I can't let you do that. Shucks. Man, that book, its a tough negotiator. Nothing we can do I'm afraid." I think it is their right to write the rules, but just own up to it. Say "we aren't doing it because we don't want to," that's the truth, because if they did want to, they would, regardless of the "policy".

The "policy" is indeed the law, in the form of a contract - you or Google breaking that contract could mean you end up in a civil lawsuit that would cost you tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars assuming it isn't frivolous. Instead of actually taking everyone to court and scaring off developers, they simply give themselves the option to terminate the contract if you break it instead of going to court.

The thing is that they can't bend the policy for certain players without being sued for unfair business practices/anti-competitive behavior, which is why Google has to enforce it on everyone if they want to enforce it on anyone.

Plenty of companies get sweetheart deals from Google and Apple. Your contract has no bearing on another company’s. That’s why I can’t sue Apple for giving Netflix and Amazon a more favorable deal than 30%. It’s also why I can’t sue Target for making an exception and letting someone else return something one day later than their return policy explicitly allows but not doing that for me. Furthermore, most contracts you sign (click) with Google and such usually have a catch-all clause that says everything is up to their discretion and they can change their minds on most of these subjective judgement calls.

You're right, but I think you're not doing justice to the OP's complaint.

You're right that this isn't solely a faceless corporate thing. People say "I can't" when "I won't" for the same reasons Google did. We even ask "can you watch my kids?" Again, the same reasons drive the language. It lets a false but face-saving implication stand: You will pick up my kids if you can and if you won't than I'll assume you couldn't.

We also "ask" our employees or waitresses to do things, even though it's technically an order.

All this is good and fine. Language is supposed to embed cultural niceties that speak to our values and smooth relations between people.

The Orwellian shit comes in when it comes in. These cross from figures of speech into euphemization and the Orwellian point is that these things run deep. A bank manager is literally unaware of where her own prerogatives, organisational norms, hard corporate policies and regulatory rules begin and end. They are constantly implying (and thinking) that whatever is annoying/abusing their customers is not because of them. Usually it is.

Is "can you watch my kids?" really the same as "are you able to watch my kids?" or an idiom in which "can" does not have precisely its stand-alone meaning?

Well... I don't think you can nail down language, especially idiomatic phrases, to that level of specificity.

"Can you X" literally/etymologically means "are you able." If you were to translate, you'd translate to "will you." I don't think the etymology is coincidence, or lost on an average speaker. "Can you" feels softer and more polite. It reflects something about how people want to interact with each other. You have to leave work early because your mom "couldn't" watch your kids, not because she refused to.

Incidentally, in Ireland we do say "will you," "would you" and "are you able to" more commonly than "can you," which sounds slightly american/international to my ear. Oddly (or not), "will you" is (IMO, locally) more informal. You'd say it to friends, when making trivial (pass the salt) requests. "Would you not" is also (I think) an irish choice of words. It's used to make suggestions, rather than requests.

These things don't bother us until/unless they're coopted into a different context, and used tactically. Going back to the original point about corporate-drone speak.... The "can't" vs "won't" language is used in the first person to obscure responsibility. I didn't call it Orwellian because it's evil or onerous. I called it Orwellian because it affects culture/thought deeply. The language helps maintain an impenetrable ambiguity, implying that every contentious decision is actually not a decision. It's dictated by regulators, or at least by "corporate."

Also, in context... it's an (passive?) aggressive way to cut off a conversation. The equivalent of "Good day Sir!"

You aren’t wrong, but (taking the corporate entity in question as a monolith, which is fair from the outside) “unwilling” is a much more honest word choice in cases like this since it clearly communicates that there was a real practical decision that could feasibly have gone either way. “Unable” lines up better with things that are infeasible, e.g. Apple can’t recover the data on an encrypted hard drive without the password or recovery key because it’s literally impossible or would at least require nation-state level computing resources to have a realistic shot at cracking even a weak password.

“Unable” is dishonest because it passes responsibility beyond the veil of the typical user’s ignorance. We’re so used to this sort of language that we’re conditioned to allow it even when we know it’s bullshit. It shuts down discussion and allows its wielder (inevitably a corporation) to avoid explaining itself. In the developed Western world we have a big problem with letting corporations do whatever the hell they want without explaining themselves, so I don’t think we should let them get away with this sort of thing anymore, and not being satisfied with mealy-mouthed evasion is one of the first steps down that road.

It is still "unwilling". "Unable" implies a capacity to do a thing which they clearly can but they are "unwilling" to do so because of their policies.

But there lies the lie. When they use 'unable' they are implying that an external factor is blocking them, so arguing further is not possible and unfruitful.

As a cashier, I am certainly "able to" just hand you the goods and let you leave without paying, but in reality due to laws, regulations and good morals I am unable to do that.

It's reasonable to say you're unable to do something because it's against the law and doing it would make you a criminal. Equally its fair to say you 'can't' do something that would go against your morals.

That is not equivalent to what's happening here. There is no law preventing Google reinstating the account, and corporations don't have morals because they're not people. The only thing preventing them doing it is that the employees involved choose not to.

As a cashier you are not empowered to make this decision. You are not "able to" violate store policy this way and keep your job. If a store owner or manager wishes to give someone a product for free or issue a full refund, yes they are "able to" do that.

The rep in TFA uses "we," referring to Google. Google is able to reinstate accounts, and The Google Ad Traffic Quality Team is able to reinstate accounts depending on their judgement of whether someone is violating policy. If they are not able to reinstate accounts, can you explain to me why they're adjudicating account ban appeals? Do they say "no" to everyone?

The key point here is that the agent(s) are responsible for interpreting the policy. They have decided that Droidscript violates their policy, and I personally have no opinion about that. But to imply that it's "out of [our] hands]" is dishonest.

Just say "upon review we've determined that your app violates our policies so we will not be reinstating your account."

I think you're overcomplicating things. Fine, substitute "business owner" for cashier, and the point stands. I am "able to" just hand you the goods, but my policies and morals prohibit me from doing so. They are abbreviating the longer statement, "we are unable to reinstate droidscript at this time without significantly redefining our policies"

No, you _will_ not do that, and made that decision so long ago it feels inviolable to you.

When someone points a gun at a cashier and says "this is a robbery and I'm gonna shoot you if you move a muscle," the cashier usually uses their ability to hold still out of concern for their safety.

The distinction matters.

It would be correct correct for the Google employee to say "I am unable to..." because that is against their employer's policies. But they say "We are unable to...". "We" meaning Google, and Google is certainly not unable to reinstate the dev's account because they are unwilling to do so, which is what "against Google's policy" means.

Companies should not be gatekeepers of computing.

We've gone from a world where we can run any software on our devices, to one where Apple and Google tell us how we can make money, what we can run, and what speech is permitted.

It's Orwellian, but with corporate greed instead of nation state fascism.

Seems like an extremely minor gripe (as you mention, it’s all just bullshit) to be the top comment.

Though FWIW I’m unable to disagree.

For a startup community, where founders will often be in a customer support role, the wording and tone of user communications (especially those with an unwelcome message) is often top-of-mind, so a language discussion can be relevant.

I’ve sometimes spent hours crafting a single reply to politely decline a request. It’s not even proportional to the prospective importance of the customer, it’s a matter of respect for all potential users.

Also, sometimes, investigating the issue to determine the right words has revealed hitherto unknown problems, uncovered new possibilities, highlighted alternative solutions that may be palatable, or even changed the outcome entirely.

Discussing the language used is actually thereby more productive & constructive than simply piling on Google for being careless, callous and pompous yet again.

Yeah I don’t get why it’s top comment either, I just meant to vent about an annoyance that’s frankly not material to the question at hand. I was unable to refrain from laughing at your quip incidentally.

Plain English is a wonderful thing. I wish it were used more often.

Non-plain English is usually a flag that the person you’re dealing with is not smart.

The usage of plain English words is something we do strive to see more often. We do hope that it can be utilised more often going forward. Unfortunately at this time we advise that the occurrence of non-plain English may indicate a violation of our MTC (minimal thought capacity) guidelines.

> Non-plain English is usually a flag that the person you’re dealing with is not smart.

I don't think it's that they're not smart. It's that they have a separate agenda, often deflecting responsibility. People often use this sort of indirect wording even without consciously realizing it.

This stuff is on the rise. I used to be able to resolve issues with customer service And they would admit fault. It’s becoming a liability shield where no one accepts fault.

The comments created by this “unable” vs. “unwilling” matter exemplifies but one reason I love HN. I know of nowhere else I can read intelligent back-and-forth arguments in Philosophy, Linguistics, Information about a Google Ads email—-one I find of importance as, I too have received such emails from big G over the past decade... And, like DroidScript, the experience was devastating for my business. But the more painful, the better. Failure is feedback. And because of my painful past experiences with Google, it’s impossible for me to forget. It’s a case study in Diversification vs. Focus. The downside of Focus is... “A business of one is a business of none.”

Reminds me of KBB.com who were "unable" to remove my personal data after they determined I'm not in California.

They share your phone/email with lots of dealers if you request a quote and don't read the fine print like I didn't...

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll be sure to think about my wordings on this in the future.

Yes the wording is intended to soften the interaction. They use “we” to refer to the team you are interacting with emphasis on bound by the company policy/process

You may see “we” as the company itself setting its own policy/ process

Agree. 100%.

new-speak

Reply on news.ycombinator.com