"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’.
"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.
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.
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.
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."
You’d think there would be examples of people doing this, but so far I haven’t heard of them.
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.
I'd personally call it an 'absuse' or 'misuse' or... 'misleading use' of language, but you do you.
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'.
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.
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.