Hacker News Reader

Comment by alacode | Hacker News Reader

I was curious what the context of "grace period" is for Google Drive and found this:

https://support.google.com/drive/thread/13321050/what-will-h...

"If I cancel my additional storage, will all the files/documents that took up the additional space, be deleted? Or will I still have access to them?"

"You will still have access to all your files but, if you have used all storage you won't be able to add or create NEW files until you have space available."

Which sounds like you're right, unless the Product Expert was wrong.

View on HN

The fact that this comment chain is about 7 deep trying to figure out whether the customer was given enough notice or not I think is also evidence that Google has a terrible UX for this anyway.

If your data is going to be deleted, it should be painfully obvious well in advance.

I don't think the depth of this comment chain has anything to do with the UX design. The words on that warning are unequivocally interpretable as "the data will not be deleted."

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter if hidden in the terms of service or somewhere if it is made clear that the data will be deleted. It doesn't even matter if it is clear to @andrewmutz and @garblegarble that the data will be deleted[0]. What matters is if not thinking the data would be deleted is a reasonable interpretation. Full stop. It also matters that when explicit communication (unequivocally interpreted as slated for deletion) that the user was given 7 days, which was not even enough time, especially considering Google's egress rates.

There's a lot of this on HN lately and I'm not sure why. Communication is fuzzy people, I'm not sure why that's surprising. But when there's disagreement don't ask yourself which is right or wrong, but if a reasonable interpretation was made. Because communication is like an autoencoder: there's what's in your head (input), what you say (lossy compressed intermediate latent), and what is received (decompressed information with imputation). There's too many attempts to defend a believed objective reality which just is absurd (ironically making the view less objective).

And, importantly, RTFA

[0] Obviously these two are reading between the lines. It is not a bad interpretation and we often should practice this, especially to be on the safe side, but it's clear that there is inference, so what's wrong with the comments is their strong assertions that the communication was obvious. One may also make the argument that Techdirt isn't telling the full story or timeline, but that's also a different issue and inferential.

> What matters is if not thinking the data would be deleted is a reasonable interpretation. Full stop.

In what world would it be reasonable to expect Google to pay thousands of dollars per year indefinitely to store your data for free?

In the world where Google says they will.

This conversation cannot be had unless you will read the article and look at the screenshots.

> to store your data for free?

Where was it said that this was free? Per the article

> So I paid Google a lot of money for a long time for a plan that included unlimited storage

Please RTFA before responding. It really isn't that long. Maybe 1.5 TikTok videos for the attention impaired.

"google product experts" aren't generally google employees and aren't speaking for google.

i.e. that support site is mostly user to user help, which is perhaps an indictment on google in general, but sadly in this case can't be used for saying "where google says".

> sadly in this case can't be used for saying "where google says".

I think we're looking at very different things.... there's a screenshot of a literal official email from Google, under the Google Workspace Team. Not sure where you're getting "Google product experts". Did you mean to reply to a different comment?

aren't we referring to the ancestor comment of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38629510

if you're referring to something else, I missed that reference, so my apologies then.

I do think google gave sufficient time to move off. I also don't think a "workspace" being in read only mode was ever meant to be a permanent position for that google workspace. i.e. it was meant that "we weren't going to suddenly delete you data if you were over quota, but its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk".

though if you can point to the official email from google (I'd have to find the ones they sent me, unsure if I kept or deleted them).

I apologize, I forgot that was in a comment above. Personally I'm not concerned with what the product experts said but rather the official from Google emails I'm talking about are in the screenshot of the article where it doesn't say anything about removing or deleting data. I'm also not concerned if you have to click links for more information or Google to figure out Google's policy. What matters is what's in the direct email.

> i.e. it was meant that "...its your responsibility to get under quota or your account will be at risk".

In person to person language I think we can rely on inference because there's good feedback mechanisms to resolve (like was done here). But in corporate communication I don't think you have the same luxury. Especially when you're a corporation that has no person to talk to to resolve misunderstandings. Instructions must be explicit and to such a degree that no reasonable person could misinterpret. It's why they hire all those lawyers and that's what a court of law would hold them to. I think given the emails shown that there's reason to believe his data would not be deleted until the explicit 7 day notice.

> I do think google gave sufficient time to move off.

The account was given 60 days grace on May 11, 2023.

It’s currently December 15, 2023.

Google Enterprise (Unlimited) accounts are subject to the same 750GB/day limits (I have one of these accounts, my account has also gone RO).

As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period.

In 218 days, you can download (assuming 100% efficiency) 163TB.

The user has >200TB stored in their drive.

The math doesn’t check out.

EDIT: > As of today, it’s been 218 days since the notice that the account was over quota and in grace period.

Up until that point, the user was still contracted to, and paying for, an unlimited storage solution. Any suggestions that the onus is on the user to be migrating their data out while still paying for a working solution is insane. The onus is on the provider to give the user time to migrate after the terms have changed. Unless we consider Google to be the Sith, in which case, yes, pray they don’t change the terms of the deal any more.

you can upload 750GB a day, you can download 10TB a day.

in about 2 months, I was able to get out over 100TB a data (using a 500mbps connection, wasn't downloading 24/7 but close to somewhere in the 25-50% of the time, and that math does check out).

I respectfully disagree. They were clearly given enough notice - from personal experience as I’ve commented already, as well as from sibling comments.

If you are still “figuring this out”, I daresay it is simply because you haven’t used the paid service and seen the frequent nagging emails about the transition.

They were given 7 days notice. How is this "enough notice" for 200+ TB?

> unless the Product Expert was wrong.

Which is entirely likely, given that Google's "Product Experts" aren't employees with access to internal communication channels, they're just volunteers working for internet points.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com