The thing is that at scale your “edge” cases are still millions of people. Companies love the benefits that come from scale, like having a billion people use their service, but they never seem to be capable of handling the other parts that come with it :(
It seems instead that they just don't even want to touch it.
I once lost a Google account because of their "the password is not enough, we'll randomly decide what is" policy. It's very unpleasant to get to that "make another account" page, and realise it's all gone.
I'd have happily paid money to go through identity verification and so on to get it back. Its sad they're just leaving this money on the table, hurting both themselves and their customers.
I can't believe I'm writing this, but this is where a middleman could help. Companies can pay a fixed subscription to become "Google Gold Partners" and get privileged access to tech support resources. Users with issues don't pay Google directly, they pay those companies to solve their issues with Google products. In this way Google is still incentivized to solve problems as quickly as possible.
Very simply, Google and the like should be required by law to have customer service adequate to support user needs in every language they operate. Problem solved.
In all seriousness, how does it even make sense to regulate expensive customer support for a free product?
If you do, you may not have any free products anymore. But perhaps we'd be better off having decent customer support with no free products.
As for paid products, it does make some sense to have some minimum customer support, but I'll be surprised if there's a proper way to word the legislation to achieve what we want it to achieve.
Such legislation isn't theoretical or difficult, India already has their new IT law rules:
>The IT rules 2021 provide for creating avenues for grievance redressal apart from Courts and ensure that the Constitutional rights of Indian citizens are not contravened by any Big-tech Platform by ensuring new accountability standards for SSMIs.
>During the extensive public consultations on the ITRules, the Minister of State for Electronics & Information Technology and Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar had articulated the stand of the Government that - safety and trust of every Digital Nagrik, and robust grievance redressal system to ensure accountability of all Internet platforms offering a service or product, was an unambiguous goal and that all grievances must be 100% addressed.
>The Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) is a critical piece of overall policy and legal framework to ensure that Internet in India is Open, Safe & Trusted and Accountable. The need for GAC was created due to large numbers of grievances being left unaddressed or unsatisfactorily addressed by Internet Intermediaries. GAC is expected to create a culture of responsiveness amongst all Internet Platforms and Intermediaries towards their consumers.
Not only this, but most banks have to be members of a consumer arbitration body, or need to be overseen by an ombudsman.
But this still wouldn't stop any bank from using their contractual rights to terminate a relationship if it may be unprofitable or risky to them.
And to be blunt: Considering the vital nature of email to modern communications and livelihood, if free email cannot include a method to regain access, free email should not exist. The amount of damage Google just not caring about people's problems causes is immense.
We actually do need to demand customer service for free services.
They're exploiting our information, and using the fact that they're exploiting us "for free" to give nothing back.
Problem solved then. Companies giving away things "for free" is the original dark pattern.
It makes sense because email addresses have become the defacto gateway to our entire digital lives. Losing access to an email causes significant financial and emotional stress. It should be treated like an essential utility. There needs to be a minimum level of service even if the product is free.
Truth. People using Gmail can pick one of the options below:
A) "If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product"
B) "If you’re not paying for it; you are the product"
And that’s why this happens.
Maybe Google had some of that savvy and that's why they instituted "Don't Be Evil".
With all the supposedly smart people and resources that Google has, you'd think they could somehow figure out how not to be the cause of marginalizing people while dismissing them as "edge cases".
Its possible there's more of a business reason. Was it in response to censorship in repressive countries, or a response to concern about tracking, data etc.
I’m sure that you don’t see people looking out for users for the simple reason that the money guys won and the way you get rewarded is by viewing your customers as cattle.