When Google Cuts Off Access: Poland and the World | Hacker News Reader

When Google Cuts Off Access: Poland and the World

dossier.reasoner.pl

39 pointsmarekfocus40 comments

This is exceessively verbose, repetitive and ai-written (translated?). I got lost half-way through because it keeps going on random, barely-related tangents.

- What do I care about your problems with Anthropic? It's not even a good comparison because apparently the bank did everything.

- What does it matter who owns how many shares of Google in Poland, or who used to be in charge of it? What does it matter that she apparently is in the "Forbes 50 after 50 list", and that she left "voluntarily and with honours"??

- Why randomly insult Ireland? "(...) and the Irish company replies at an Irish company’s pace, if at all." As if going at a snail's pace was a problem of being Irish, and not a global conglomerate.

- Why describe in intricate detail how European laws are (going to be) implemented in Poland? And how the President can (and did) veto their implementation??

Having skimmed the last half of the post, I ultimately see this as fundamentally righteous, but also obsessive and borderline autistic crusade against big corpo.

Besides, sending 100 mails in four minutes is extreme. 99 media addresses? I doubt I could even find that many media organizations that care about someone getting their Google account blocked!

This is not the first time someone has experienced this and written or generated an article on the Internet which made front-page HN. Nor is it the one hundred thousandth time this someone has experienced this and not written or generated an article, or had the article not reach front-page HN.

At least this person is suing Google for it. Under EU law, they might actually win.

But why is the article AI-written? That is not helping your case.

Probably not a native speaker.

> why is the article AI-written?

Can you share what the tells are?

I am not seeing obvious tells. And I see multiple tells that clearly are NOT AI, like imperfect sentence structure.

It seems information dense, and doesn't seem like an obviously shit article?

If you're going to complain, can you explain what you're complaining about?

At a certain point you need to develop your own media literacy. The article is literally dripping with Claudisms in every line.

Examples?

Your media literacy training can start with skimming headings. When every heading sounds like Buzzfeed clickbait, emphasizing and contrasting numbers with a sort of faux-punchiness to them, or overusing "the" to make things sound more definitive than they actually are, or... on and on, it really couldn't be more obvious.

> Six emails, one button

> The hotline sends you to the office. The office sends you to the hotline.

> The bank could. Google couldn't.

> Three companies at one address

> A company wih 105 million in capital, five employees and zero website

> The address Google did not show its customers for two and a half years

> People who left, and people who came

> Germany: the court that ordered the data to be returned

> Ireland: where the other party to the agreement lives

> What disappears with the inbox

Or the "in brief" at the top, which is spamming numbers as though they add dramatic tension. Or, just like, every. fucking. sentence. You know, years of reading this shit can't be distilled into a comment. Have you not been reading articles for the last three years? LLMs have very distinct voices.

Jesus fuck, would you get off your high horse already? This is every investigative article heading since before Dario or Sam even finished high school.

Seeing LLMs everywhere is another kind of AI psychosis.

Can you show me one long-form investigative article from, let's say before 2020, that is nearly this dense with this BS? A single headline or a punchline here or there doesn't count; what makes it an LLM tell is that it's fucking constant, being abused and misused to add dramatic tension to things that aren't dramatic. The "humans do this too" defense is so tiring because you people never draw a distinction between a human doing something correctly as a rhetorical flourish and a bot spamming a learned trope over and over and over and over again in every single sentence without any regard for whether it makes sense to.

Or, maybe, people have skill issues?

A class of skill issues that never manifested a few years ago but which now manifest 30 times a day on the front page of HN. Riiiiight.

Hard to say what you're trying to get at here - are you saying people are shit writers and thus write in a shitty, LLM-sounding way, or that people are shitty writers and use LLMs to do the writing for them.

The latter is pretty inexcusable intellectually and disrespectful of people who will read the slop, and as the other guy said, it's incomprehensible (to everybody but you apparently) that shit writing would suddenly, in just the last few years and entirely by coincidence, mirror the shit writing shat out by LLMs.

> as the other guy said, it's incomprehensible (to everybody but you apparently)

also a skill issue

Additionally:

> The phone sent me to the address. The address sent me back to the phone. The loop closed in one day.

> This is not a mess. A mess looks different. This is a design (...)

> One account, four companies. Each does exactly what it was created to do, and each is fully within the law. (...) Nobody here breaks the law. And that is exactly why there is no one to go to. (Attempted conclusion)

> One empty chair remains in this puzzle. (???)

> The eloquent individual history comes from India. (eloquent???)

> What does this mean for the user? Simply that when the inbox was disabled on September 1 (...) (Talking in third person about himself?)

> Google can be sued in Poland. (No shit)

> Google itself publishes the rules for such an eventuality, which sounds almost like politeness. (WDYM it "sounds like politeness"??)

It's so bad how hard AIs try to sound smart.

You asked for examples multiple times, got a plethora of them, and then went silent. Profile is old but the entire 1st page of comments relate to LLM language use and in particular how to sound like a human being and not a large language model.

A bit of cheeky botting? AI agent training mayhaps?

Milestone achieved: I got accused of being a LLM for the first time!

Training checkpoint complete.

Segment 3 of 26.

It's pretty blatant, but just have a glance at the subheadings to remove any doubt.

Examples?

I just gave them to you. I'm not gonna copy paste shit you can easily find yourself on the page, bud.

It doesn't read as AI generated at all, it's got distinct Polish style. It could have been AI-reviewed, judging by the ugly Oxford commas.

Moral of the story is not simply "don't use free accounts". His account was not free, he had a paid Google Workspace. The moral of the story Google and other big American corporations are absolutely unaccountable in Europe. We should stop using their services and switch to our European sovereign service providers. Big American corporations can block even business accounts as they please and ignore European laws and courts.

> Under EU law, they might actually win.

So what? They will ignore the decision of the court, just like the author explains they did.

I'd say it's totally immaterial how it was written

I'm not saying Google doesn't have too much power, but I'm also not saying it isn't hilarious to see someone let an OpenClaw instance go wild on their main e-mail account and rightfully get banned for spam.

So the author actually sent more than 100 automated emails about how Anthropic wronged him to some people and that’s actually spam. He already disputed the payments for Anthropic with his bank and got the money, so I have no idea why he spammed other people with his problems.

Also, he is adamant that re-instating his gmail account is like his birth right and at the same time has a lot of examples of how different countries fined Google/Alphabet and saying it’s evil, which is irrelevant to his spamming issue.

>That day I sent six complaints about Anthropic, the maker of Claude, to 107 recipients.

So a spammer spammed and got his just deserts. Good.

Legit I laughed so hard when I got to that point and closed the tab.

100 emails to every 'media company' you can think of is textbook spam. No shit your account got banned, lol.

> 100 emails to every 'media company' you can think of is textbook spam

Really.

Pushing out tens of millions emails a day for years - no, that's creative.

Sending one email to a hundred media companies - a textbook spam.

Spamming is defined as sending a single message indiscriminately to a bunch of recipients. Old mate sent a single message indiscriminately to a bunch of media companies hoping to get publicity for his personal cause. Yeah, that's textbook spam.

> Pushing out tens of millions emails a day for years - no, that's creative.

No clue what kind of whataboutism you're trying to bring into the conversation here but it's irrelevant.

I have a press-release. How do I contact a hundred media companies?

You can’t tell the difference between an established company or individual (like Gates or Musk, who literally have their own family companies with dozens of staff - not to mention direct media contacts and access), and some random Polish guy who is butthurt about something. The media doesn’t want random QQing from the public. Again, if he’d sent it to one or two stations he prob wouldn’t have been banned, but sending it indiscriminately to a hundred is asinine. Ask an LLM to explain this to you if you still don’t understand.

> On September 1, 2026, between 15:49 and 15:53, I sent six messages from my private Gmail account to a total of 107 different addresses: 99 media addresses, four public authorities, two Anthropic addresses, and two private addresses. They were complaints about Anthropic, the maker of the Claude assistant and Claude Code tool, which had disabled services I paid for and answered my complaints with a bot.

... Eeeeeesh. 99 media addresses, and I guarantee at least several of them probably smacked the "report spam" button to the massive email they've been CC'd on.

Spam is defined as Bulk Unsolicited Commercial Email.

> The decision to close the account is made by the system, not the human

Someone from Apple here once told that they close millions of accounts daily. How many accounts does Google close? It's unfeasible to expect any company to do a human review at this scale.

Not that I like it, but that's the way it is.

> It's unfeasible to expect any company to do a human review at this scale.

Oh it absolutely is. Yes it would cost money, as do other tasks a company has at hands.

Okay. Let's try to figure out how possible it is. Let's say a company closes 10m accounts daily (however based on public accounts the actual number is way more than that).

Let's say a human can review the account in about a minute. 8 working hours a day = 480m. 10000000/480 = 20,833 people to review one account per minute 8 hours a day straight.

Now take in consideration that:

* many accounts could not be reviewed in a minute;

* people do not produce 8h of uninterrupted performance;

* there are much, much more accounts to be closed daily.

And the figure quickly approaches 100,000 people online daily, meaning five times as much in human resources, so about half a million.

So, no.

It is not feasible to expect any company to do a human review at this scale.

If you can't do it propper, then don't offer it.

This is a short thesis saying you shouldn't use a personal email account for marketing, ad, or press campaigns. Doing so places that personal email account at risk of closure.

As far as I remember Google will ban all accounts associated with the one their "AI" finds "reason" to ban. So if you make a business account besides your personal, both will be banned.

If you work at a company, that publishes an app, it will be pulled from the Google Play store. This has happened before.

lmao the author's response makes it even funnier. The entire comment reeks of AI with every sentence.

> Let me read the rest for you.

You keep repeating what was already discussed.

> You did in one afternoon what Google refused to do in two weeks: you named the messages. You just guessed.

Fella, you mentioned the mails first. If you thought that wasn't relevant, you wouldn't have mentioned it. And any reader would assume that you pointed at it being the culprit.

> "Why is Anthropic in there, why the Forbes lady, why Ireland."

You know, the issue is the lack of connection with the remainder of the test. You only explained the reason for the context. You barely touched my actual complaints: Again, why insult Ireland? Why mention the Forbes list?

> You would know, had you read past the headings.

None of those things are part of any heading. I even provided half a dozen quotes from all over the article talking about AI tells.

> This article was not written for you.

Then don't share it.

> The front page was a bonus.

Clearly it wasn't lmao.

> Thank you for the demonstration.

Hahaha, someone is malding.

As I already said, fundamentally righteous. Doesn't mean I can't find your attitude just as shitty as the company.

I pity the judges who will have to read it all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com