Fake Review counts?

[Cozume]

Ummm, the "all" in "you all" is collective, so I assumed that you were referring to us all.

I was referring to Johnly and Puzzlegal, who are the two I was conversing with.

Having said that, I totally agree with your premise that many here have no idea how the Law works when it comes to online account management.

It's all light hearted and friendly here from my standpoint.

Ok. My point was that Google isn't going to do jack about people using fake names. For them to open themselves up to a class action lawsuit interpreting their TOS would be crazy from a legal cost standpoint not to mention the harm they would do to their brand from all of us who would be disgusted by that. I would flee google's ecosystem if they ever went after the little guy to enforce their TOS as would every other person I know. They have built a multi-billion dollar international business on advertising and data mining people's personal information. But that business could vaporize if they lost the trust of their victims, er, I mean customers.

I have 4 gmail accounts, btw. And only 1 uses my real name. Google couldn't care less about it and won't do jack about it.

 

[PiggyMiddle]

Ha! Talk about timing. Look what I serendipitously bumped into.

NHS patient data to be made available for sale to drug and insurance firms | Society | The Guardian

The NHS is the British equivalent of the Obama thing.

 

[Cozume]

The NHS is the British equivalent of the Obama thing.

No, not even close. The NHS is a single payer government run medical care delivery system. The doctors, nurses and other medical workers are employed by the NHS to work in NHS run hospitals and clinics and the care at these facilities is free at the point of service.

All the Obama thing does is expand medicaid, which is government health insurance for the poor, and provide exchanges for people to buy private health insurance through as well as subsidies to those who qualify for subsidized private health insurance. Doctors/nurses, etc. aren't government employees and hospitals and clinics aren't government owned by and large in the US.

There are of course military and VA hospitals, which are federal government entities. Some of the larger metro areas have city or county owned facilities, but those are few and far between and people still get billed for the services they receive there; it is just that they may waive the fees for indigent uninsured patients.

Many large state universities also have medical schools and their associated faculty and hospitals/clinics are university owned, and since the universities are state institutions, you could call those government run entities. But they don't give out free care - people are charged for it and either their insurance pays for the care or they are billed for the care. Some of these universities do have indigent care programs and If someone is poor, they will reduce the bill or even waive it entirely if the person is poor enough.

The care is not free here, either, just because you have insurance. You still have deductibles, copays and coinsurance here to pay as well as annual and lifetime caps on certain services. And you get sent to collections if you don't pay.

 

[PiggyMiddle]

Woah back, by my statement I meant that the DATA was going to be freely splashed around not that the medical systems were identical.

I think I will pass on further comment to this thread it is getting waaaay off topic.

 

[Cozume]

Woah back, by my statement I meant that the DATA was going to be freely splashed around not that the medical systems were identical.

Well you sure couldn't tell that by what you wrote:

The NHS is the British equivalent of the Obama thing.

But yes, you are getting waaaaay off topic as were others on this thread.

 

[Johnly]

Because google is going to do what to you if you do?

Clearly you all don't understand the realities of the law.

I never brought up law. That is your debate. Anyone can read terms and conditions. I won't tell people what Google will or will not do. That is stupid.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Johnly]

Ummm, the "all" in "you all" is collective, so I assumed that you were referring to us all.

Had you written "clearly you don't.." I would never have commented as it would have been obvious that you were referring to the quoted section.

Having said that, I totally agree with your premise that many here have no idea how the Law works when it comes to online account management.

It's all light hearted and friendly here from my standpoint.

You have great English skills. Golf clap for miles.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Cozume]

I never brought up law. That is your debate. Anyone can read terms and conditions.

That is exactly the problem. You think the TOS controls and it doesn't. The law controls. And beyond that, plain old common sense controls.

You may not be able to figure out what Google - a company that makes its money off of advertising and data mining people's personal communications/browsing history to more precisely target ads to people and thus increase their ad revenues - would do if someone used a fake name, but anyone who knows anything about the business world and the costs of a class action lawsuit can tell you. They ain't gonna do jack.

 

[Ry]

All - Please stay on topic.

 

[Johnly]

All - Please stay on topic.

Had to log into the site. You sounded like a mod, was about to congratulate you good sir!


It has to be complicated for some people and that is fine, they can even take responsibility for what a cooperation like Google may or may not do, but Google provides a service as long as the terms are agreed with. If those are broke, they don't have to provide said service. If someone has a fake account on AC, they can be banned without question for breaking terms of the service. It is simple.

If someone wants to guarantee people what a cooperation may or may not do for violating those terms.....fine. But I will be the reasonable super hero protecting the innocent by insuring they are aware that they don't *rely* on a fraudulent account, especially for sensitive data. I think that is a respectable service and advice that would suit someone new to this site or Google for that matter.

I had an account under Johnly on Google +. I was contacted by Google about it when it was in beta. Changed my name to keep my account.

If someone wants to make fake accounts, that is fine. But for some one to speak on Google's behalf that they won't do anything and without providing any guarantee is ludacris.

All I have said all along is don't use a fake account for sensitive data. That is a great Johnly! ~spreads cape and flies to the next troubled and miss informed scape ha ha.....keep it light folks. We can agree to disagree, we can identify stupid ideas and advice, but we must always respect each other. We all reside on earth......stardate.....91719.72

 

[Cozume]

If someone has a fake account on AC, they can be banned without question for breaking terms of the service. It is simple.

Huh? Who the heck uses their real name on this site? Do you think my real name is Cozume?

 

[Jay Sacks]

Me.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Johnly]

Huh? Who the heck uses their real name on this site? Do you think my real name is Cozume?

You missed my point. One account is legitimate. 2 or more accounts are not allowed at AC, therfore in violation.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Cozume]

You missed my point. One account is legitimate. 2 or more accounts are not allowed at AC, therfore in violation.

lots of people on this site have multiple accounts. And AC isn't a multi-billion dollar international business so no plaintiff's class action lawyers will be suing AC if they do that anyhow. You missed my point I see.

 

[Johnly]

lots of people on this site have multiple accounts. And AC isn't a multi-billion dollar international business so no plaintiff's class action lawyers will be suing AC if they do that anyhow. You missed my point I see.

Mobile Nations is a large business. If you want to use multiple accounts to represent yourself several different ways that is on you man. I will just leave this here for the good people of AC. Here is a few words from mobile nations terms of use.


"You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead as to the origin of the information."

Having multiple user accounts means at least one is fraudulent, or missing clean contact information.

I am sure you will now lay down the law by section and title how mobile nations or google's terms of service mean nothing and they can't do anything about it if you break those terms. Help this thread understand those laws! That's what we do here, help.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Cozume]

Mobile Nations is a large business.

No plaintiff's class action lawyer gives a crap about Mobile Nations, lol! Too small of a fish to fry.

 

[Johnly]

No plaintiff's class action lawyer gives a crap about Mobile Nations, lol! Too small of a fish to fry.

You have beat me down with experience. I kindly bow out and tip my hat to your class action lawsuit. Good luck!




Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Cozume]

You have beat me down with experience. I kindly bow out and tip my hat to your class action lawsuit. Good luck!

There won't be any class action lawsuits against Google because Google won't ever try to enforce their TOS against their victims, er, customers because they aren't going to do anything that stupid. It would wreck their business.

Google's TOS exists for DEFENSIVE purposes not OFFENSIVE purposes. Google is too smart to be trying to enforce it's TOS against anyone unless they hack their system. They could give a crap about anyone using fake names. All they care about is advertising revenue.

 

[Johnly]

There won't be any class action lawsuits against Google because Google won't ever try to enforce their TOS against their victims, er, customers because they aren't going to do anything that stupid. It would wreck their business.

Google's TOS exists for DEFENSIVE purposes not OFFENSIVE purposes. Google is too smart to be trying to enforce it's TOS against anyone unless they hack their system. They could give a crap about anyone using fake names. All they care about is advertising revenue.

Oh my....the only person talking about a class action lawsuit and the the only person saying nobody knows anything about laws. You are saying "who the eff cares if you violate it anyhow." That debate is all you.

It is poor advice to say "eff the terms," and you haven't taken into context what Google has done to its users who broke those terms on google+. They did not want google+ to become a forum of fake names so they started suspending google+ accounts that violated terms.

For me to say, "if you break terms don't use said account for data that is important," is nothing aimed at your arguments of your laws, lawsuits, and eff the terms mantra. I am completely, 100% bored with the idea of debating about those arguments.

One more time....If someone wants to use fake accounts (I could care less, really, I don't care at all, zero, so please don't debate me on the issue like I care) just a friendly suggestion from me is to maybe think about what kind of data that account uses. That is it!



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Puzzlegal]

I don't believe that. That sort of sheet would make it into the paper if Google did something like that. In what court did your friend win the right to use his nickname?

Google suspended his account. He entered into a long negotiation with google, during which he presented evidence that he was generally known by his nickname, and not by his legal name. A few weeks later they gave him access to the account.

No, his nickname isn't "Jim", or some other obvious, common nickname. It is initials that don't match the initials of his name.

He had a friend with an even more uncommon nickname who was not allowed to use g+ in his name.

Google didn't try to prosecute either of them, it just said, "sorry, we believe you are in violation of the tos, so you can't use this service".

There won't be any class action lawsuits against Google because Google won't ever try to enforce their TOS against their victims, er, customers because they aren't going to do anything that stupid. It would wreck their business.

Google's TOS exists for DEFENSIVE purposes not OFFENSIVE purposes. Google is too smart to be trying to enforce it's TOS against anyone unless they hack their system. They could give a crap about anyone using fake names. All they care about is advertising revenue.

you are wrong. Except for the last part. Yes, they care about advertising revenue. But they also policed g+ fairly vigorously to keep it "real names", at least at the start. And yes, they revoked accounts from people who didn't hack anything, didn't offend other users, and generally did nothing wrong except for using fake names.

This was not a popular stance with all their market. I bet if you Google it you can still find articles about the controversy. ;-)