> well because google is not really known to be friendly and i expected them to just close down my whole developer account if i don't follow.
and if their algorithm is in a bad mood that day, they'll shut down your personal account(s) as well, and possibly adjacent accounts. Hope you don't rely on personal email or Google Photos or Android if that happens.
This nuke-somebodys-life-from-orbit capability of such a gigantic company is IMHO one of the best arguments for regulatory limits on company size/scope. That's obviously easier said than done and comes with a whole column of cons, but the power imbalance is so unbelievably great and the reach so deep that in some cases I'd rather be on the wrong side of the state than on the wrong side of Google.
I tell people I left Google because of all the weird amount of data harvesting, and they always argue Apple's not any better, but I rarely hear of someone losing their iCloud to the level I hear of people losing their Google Account which is glued to too many damn things.
At this point I assume the only way Google will ever fix their ridiculous ban process is if someone passes a law that forces them to separate these comingled services from losing you access to your email, and essentially in some cases your personal business.
Well that's the reason why im running my private mailserver and the only thing im using google for is actual google services.
I always wondered why people would just give all their personal information to google in terms of mail and files (convenience i know but still..).
But than you see the posts of "google just shutdown my account without any reasoning and i lost everything help!!" here on hackernews and you know exactly why you don't use google for anything but their services.
and if their algorithm is in a bad mood that day, they'll shut down your personal account(s) as well, and possibly adjacent accounts. Hope you don't rely on personal email or Google Photos or Android if that happens.
This nuke-somebodys-life-from-orbit capability of such a gigantic company is IMHO one of the best arguments for regulatory limits on company size/scope. That's obviously easier said than done and comes with a whole column of cons, but the power imbalance is so unbelievably great and the reach so deep that in some cases I'd rather be on the wrong side of the state than on the wrong side of Google.