Edit: Access to other projects & domains was apparently restored some time after: https://twitter.com/thmsmlr/status/1719480558932148272
I think it’s quite reasonable that they blocked the account rather than the project. You wouldn’t have got that level of service from big tech.
I’m just responding to your last sentence: why would you go out of your way to say it is reasonable to block the account rather than the project?
I can understand locking the account just as the “lazy default” but I would not call it in any way reasonable - but you did, so I’m curious.
If that is reasonable, what would you consider unreasonable?
(Because to me, the obviously reasonable thing to do would be to block the project and not his entire account.)
Just because it's their right to conduct this way, doesn't mean it's not everyone elses exactly equal right to judge that and avoid.
After digging upwards, additional support seems like an option delivered too late, and too outside of 'proper' channels - if you want a sanitized rant I can probably deliver it tomorrow, but too-little too-late is where vercel has landed in the operations team.
> Hey Thomas. Your paywall-bypassing site broke our ToS and created hundreds of hours of support time spent on all the outreach from the impacted businesses.
> Our support team reached out to you on Oct 14th to let you know this was unsustainable and to try to work with you.
Mischaracterization much? He was on Vacation.
How many of us read every email for personal projects that comes in when you're half way across the world and supposed to be relaxing.
> I’m sympathetic to vercel here. Honestly very reasonable to take down 12ft with no response in 2 weeks.
> Taking everything else is the weird part.
“Other than the completely unreasonable thing, they seemed pretty reasonable”.
I mean he's not being a complete asshole in the discussion here[1], but nuking the entire customer's account for a ToS violation on one specific product still isn't a reasonable move. Yes Google and Amazon do it routinely, but if you're not a trillion dollar monopoly and you care about your business' reputation, you shouldn't behave like those.
[1] CEOs behaving like assholes in Twitter discussions isn't supposed to be the norm.
Also, the “offending part” has been well known from them for several years (they even claim it costed them a lot in support over the years) so it's not like they received a DMCA and had to take everything down in a hurry, they knew exactly what product they wanted to stop because they did stop it because it was too costly. The fact that it violated their TOS is just the legal justification for the closure, not its source.