Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A lot of abuse is things like posted comments. The locks are retroactive and "account disabled" is a signal to each service to hide content generated by that user.

Read only mode would make sense for content that's truly private, or which can be made private. Nothing stops them allowing Google Takeout for disabled accounts, heck maybe they do these days.

Paid support:

1. the optics of false positives being held to ransom to get their account back is terrible. Giving the money back isn't always easy (credit cards support this sometimes but many users don't have them). And this is made worse by:

2. many accounts aren't easily verifiable. People imagine that every Google/FB user puts their entire life on these accounts. A very small number do. For those, expensive ad-hoc processes could maybe increase the account verification rate by a little bit. But most accounts that get disabled are accounts with fake names, that use exclusively one service, etc. It's extraordinarily difficult to come up with reliable ways to verify the identity of the holder of accounts that required no identity to sign up.



>A lot of abuse is things like posted comments.

Right, but removing an offending comment can easily be done indepenently of any other action against the account.

>the optics of false positives being held to ransom to get their account back is terrible.

That's true and I had that thought as well, but it's clearly the lesser evil compared to stories of people losing irreplaceable data.

>many accounts aren't easily verifiable.

True, but as I said, users could be given an option to make their account easily verifiable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: