Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Seriously. The first couple times I read it, anything about "anonymous" "encrypted" "finance" sounds like this is either going to lead to paying for drugs or it's going to steal your money. And Google bans certain types of cryptocurrency ads.

After reading it a third time, I realize I guess it's just an open-source version of Mint?

But the author provides zero evidence that Google bans ads for "privacy-first services". It was probably classified as a crypto scam or similar.

Just write a better ad that's clearer about what it's actually advertising, for goodness' sake. And make the product's website a bit more professional looking too -- it looks like a scam. There's no way I'd trust my finance credentials to anybody who built a site that looks like... a weirdly updated version of a GeoCities page?

View on HN

Hi there! I'm the founder of this app.

> After reading it a third time, I realize I guess it's just an open-source version of Mint?

Well, not a great sigh for us, but at least… you guessed right!

> But the author provides zero evidence that Google bans ads for "privacy-first services". It was probably classified as a crypto scam or similar.

I made this conclusion based on the information provided by my friends working in Google and Microsoft. Again, there's no way I can reliably say the _real_ reason because all Google said was "Unacceptable Business Practice" linking to this page. (https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/6020955?hl=en#36...)

That's actually more or less the point of the article: you get banned for life for no apparent reason. Is that how it's supposed to be?

> it looks like a scam

What is it that you don't like about the design? I just tried not to follow the common guidelines for the design and make the design more… developer friendly?

If it looks like a scam, then false positives are unavoidable. These companies are trying to protect average people from being scammed on their services, and I would honestly prefer they keep doing this. I do not want to spend hours on the phone to the bank with a shaken grandparent again (after they get cryptoscammed).

Claiming they are against "privacy-first services" is just creating a victim narrative where one does not exist. As people keep saying here on this very website, these platforms do not owe you a microphone.

Also, just one bit of advice, most developer types will have adblockers, so you're really not going to have a great time trying to target them with adverts.

>If it looks like a scam, then false positives are unavoidable.

Right, but this cannot be the end of the story. We cannot allow people's life chances getting crippled by an all powerful oligopoly for nothing more than clumsy choice of words.

>These companies are trying to protect average people from being scammed on their services, and I would honestly prefer they keep doing this

Really? That's what you wish for? Deplatforming for life without any due process to determine whether the person has actually done anything wrong? I cannot believe that anyone really wants this.

Is your point that they block privacy first applications?

Or that moderation is inconsistent?

Or that you get banned for life?

Make up your mind!

Why not all three? The latter two are particularly aggravating when they come together.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com