When Google Cuts Off Access: Poland and the World(dossier.reasoner.pl) |
When Google Cuts Off Access: Poland and the World(dossier.reasoner.pl) |
- 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!
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.
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.
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?
So what? They will ignore the decision of the court, just like the author explains they did.
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.
So a spammer spammed and got his just deserts. Good.
... 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.
100 emails to every 'media company' you can think of is textbook spam. No shit your account got banned, lol.
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.
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.
Oh it absolutely is. Yes it would cost money, as do other tasks a company has at hands.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Seeing LLMs everywhere is another kind of AI psychosis.
A bit of cheeky botting? AI agent training mayhaps?
Training checkpoint complete.
Segment 3 of 26.
/s
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.
also a skill issue