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.
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 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.
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’.
Can you explain what value it adds in this specific case?
Whether they use "unable" or "choose not too" shouldn't matter.
Just treat it the same.
"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.
> 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>".
The only takeaway is that there is no obviously correct wording for google to make when wielding the banhammer.
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.
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.
I don't think there would be many complaints if Google didn't take down apps for vague reasons.
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.
A policy is just their way of doing things, written down.
It’s not magic.
> someone -including you- could then actually sue us for unfair business practices
To reiterate, "policy" is just explicitly specifying "that's just the way we do things around here"
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.
In this particular case, the ambiguity is exactly that - Google didn't say what what real policy was broken or how.
You’d think there would be examples of people doing this, but so far I haven’t heard of them.
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."
"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."
That we are aware they are dishonest does not make them less so.
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 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'.
I'd personally call it an 'absuse' or 'misuse' or... 'misleading use' of language, but you do you.
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.
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.
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.
Notice that the policy is clearly stated in the rejection and there is no ambiguity.
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.
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.
"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.
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."
I'm amazed at the people defending this type of verbiage... like at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!"
“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.
Hell, they can even change their policies if they want, so they aren't really "unable".
If you tried hard enough, you could probably manage this.
You can do it if you are stonger than the other person. You may not do it, according to the law.
Were the implied statement made explicit, then yes it'd be accurate.
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.
https://youtu.be/Y1QQSFlm0dI?t=81
The audience is laughing because this notion is ridiculous.