> Do you think Google is going to do any better at this? They already have no customer support, close accounts without notice....etc... The article is right, this is about engagement.
Absolutely. I say this as someone who is still angry with them over Reader. I don't trust Google, but I trust them a hell of a lot more than Wells Fargo, Bank of America, et al.
I trust Google much as I trust the sun. I believe it’ll keep doing its thing, and that this will probably overall be beneficial. I’m glad there’s a sun. But the problem with the sun is that it doesn’t give a crap about me. If I have a problem I’m going to have a helluva time contacting the sun’s customer support people, and they’re not going to be well incentivised to take care of my problem if I do.
Perhaps that analogy had got away from me a little, but the point is: I like having a bank with branches where I can go in and talk to a person if I ever really have a serious problem. I feel confident that the bank isn’t going to accidentally swallow all my money and then become uncontactable, whereas I tend to worry that about big tech companies.
Really? Wells Fargo isn't mining my search history using a black-box algorithm to decide without transparency whether to close my account or decline a transaction because I might have become a risk of some sort.
You literally just described fraud protection, which is something most banks nowadays use. It might be opt-out (or even opt-in) but that's very much a thing that banks do, and they get plenty of false positives with it.
Well...latter is illegal and the former isn't (usually) so I think there's a bit of apples-to-oranges, but yeah you got me, as we've seen being a regulated institution isn't a guarantee of good behavior. I still think the incentive, opportunity and the inclination of Google to not act in my interest is pretty high.
Absolutely. I say this as someone who is still angry with them over Reader. I don't trust Google, but I trust them a hell of a lot more than Wells Fargo, Bank of America, et al.