Forum troll suspends critics' Google Accounts?
May 16, 2011 11:53 AM   Subscribe

Ann Althouse's blog, a blog which was featured in the New York Times last month, recently disappeared. When Althouse posted on Google's support forum, she met with abuse from "nitecruzer," someone apparently speaking on Google's behalf. Many of nitecruzer's more offensive posts were subsequently deleted from the thread; some are archived here. Several people who criticized nitecruzer on that Google support thread subsequently had their Google Accounts flagged as needing ‘verification’ due to ‘unusual activity’, meaning that they were immediately locked out of their Google Accounts, losing access to gmail, blogger, docs, etc.

Those who were locked out of their accounts were required to provide Google with a cell phone number in order to receive a verification code by voice or text.

Right wing bloggers suspected that there was a conspiracy against Althouse due to the content of her blog. Were you aware that 98% of Google's employees donated money to the Democratic party in 2004?

Google's response:
Google has apologized to Althouse, stating that the cause of the problem was that "last week during scheduled maintenance we experienced data corruption that impacted Blogger’s behavior." At this time, Althouse's blog is back online, though her archive is still missing for what appear to be technical reasons. Google is “reviewing nitecruzr’s privileges on the forums following this incident.” Google asserts that "“Top contributors’ only additional privileges are the ability to delete posts in the forums – which Nitecruzr did not do in this instance – and escalate posts of a technical nature for the Google team to investigate further." It has not been explained how or why critics of nitecruzer were locked out of their gmail accounts.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow (36 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: This seems like it's kind of running pretty freely with a narrative in a way that's not so great for a mefi post. If there's substantially a thing worth posting about here, maybe someone can find a better way to do it? -- cortex



 
justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow: " Right wing bloggers suspected that there was a conspiracy against Althouse due to the content of her blog. Were you aware that 98% of Google's employees donated money to the Democratic party in 2004?"

No, what it says is: "98% of the Google employees who made political donations, donated to Democrats. Presumably, not all employees made donations."
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on May 16, 2011 [11 favorites]


Is anyone saying nitecruzr is a Google employee? The links above read like he's a regular on the Blogger forum who is sometimes helpful and has "top contributer" status. Still a douchebag and a failure of community status.

The underlying problem here is that Google's support for its free products is limited; there's a lot of "support yourselves in our forum!" at Google. Increasingly, I'd rather pay real money for a real supported commercial product.

(Also note how Blogger support doesn't use Google Groups. Does anyone serious use Google Groups?)
posted by Nelson at 11:59 AM on May 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


You don't need Google to have access to:
email
Blog software
Storing and creating docs

In fact, all of those functions can be done with either open source, so if money is your issue you don't have to pay thousands in commercial fees just to get the software.

The "losing access to gmail, blogger, docs" list are things you are not paying for and exist with a one sided contract.

If you don't like the terms of the contract - don't agree to it.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:01 PM on May 16, 2011


I heard this mentioned on a few left wing blogs. The fact that pretty much of all of blogger was down is a big clue that this wasn't about her. Ann Althouse has a reputation has something of a paranoid nutcase.
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM on May 16, 2011 [2 favorites]


Google technical support is arguably the worst in the world but reading that patterico.com link does not dispose me to take its author's side. Time Cube is more coherent than that post. Obviously this is a case of paranoid people being paranoid.
posted by enn at 12:03 PM on May 16, 2011


If you look at the thread, Google employees are identified as such, and nitecruzer is not.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:05 PM on May 16, 2011


The Cloud. From where I stand I can just make out fleecy white lambs hopping from one to another up there. Looks reliable to me.
posted by jfuller at 12:05 PM on May 16, 2011


Althouse's blog is up and she gives no indication there that she thinks Google did anything untoward.
posted by escabeche at 12:06 PM on May 16, 2011


almost like some kind of vast left-wing conspiracy.
posted by 2bucksplus at 12:06 PM on May 16, 2011


If you don't like the terms of the contract - don't agree to it.

This is so simplistic. If I get locked out of my google accounts today I'm locked out of my facebook, work etc RIGHT NOW. It's important that someone providing services like this at least on a huge worldwide level be held to some measure of responsibility
posted by the mad poster! at 12:06 PM on May 16, 2011


I was looking for posts on liberal blogs about this in order to give "the other side" but all I can find are people making fun of her. here's one example and another one if you care.
posted by delmoi at 12:08 PM on May 16, 2011


Google technical support is arguably the worst in the world

Is that the same for people who are exchanging Federal Reserve Notes with Google?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:08 PM on May 16, 2011


This is so simplistic. If I get locked out of my google accounts today I'm locked out of my facebook, work etc RIGHT NOW. It's important that someone providing services like this at least on a huge worldwide level be held to some measure of responsibility
Yeah, I kind of agree with this. If google is providing a service that tens or even hundreds of millions of people use or even depend on then they have a responsibility to do it right.
posted by delmoi at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2011


Were you aware that 98% of Google's employees donated money to the Democratic party in 2004?

Were you aware you're using incorrect statistics to editorialize in your post?
posted by kmz at 12:10 PM on May 16, 2011 [8 favorites]


Lessons We All Should Learn From This:

1) You get what you pay for.
2) Sometimes, people who can otherwise seem relatively sane even if you mostly politically disagree with them (which is basically what I know of Althouse up until this post) can end up getting painted as paranoid nutjobs in the right light -- that right light being their supporters revving up the crazy paranoia on their behalf. So in other words, be careful who you get into bed with.

I doubt either lesson will be learned.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:10 PM on May 16, 2011


Option 1) a bunch of paranoid right wing bloggers think one of the largest tech companies in the world is conspiring to silence them

Option 2) a bunch of paranoid right wing bloggers don't understand how automated flagging systems work

1. It's definitely 1.
posted by ryoshu at 12:12 PM on May 16, 2011 [3 favorites]


A few other bits of info. Google's financial statements include headcount data, which is the number of employees they have.

2008: 20,222
2009: 19,835
2010: 24,400
2011: 26,316 (Q1 only, unaudited.)

Per USA Today, they had 3000 employees in 2004.

I can't believe I'm actually linking to WorldNetDaily, but:
Of approximately 200 individual Google employee political contributions to political candidates in 2004, 2002 and 2000, all but six went to Democrats, Democratic Party organizations and Democrat-supporting organizations such as MoveOn.org. One $250 contribution went to Ralph Nader, one went to President Bush's campaign and three went to Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch's campaigns.

Let's assume the batshitcrazy worldnetters are correct, and we're talking about 200 people who donated politically out of approximately 3000 employees. That's what, 15%?

Oh dear, Republicans. Lock up your daughters.
posted by zarq at 12:13 PM on May 16, 2011


Not sure why the wnd link didn't form correctly. Here it is.
posted by zarq at 12:15 PM on May 16, 2011


If I get locked out of my google accounts today I'm locked out of my facebook

The 1st misunderstanding is the "ownership" of what is "yours" here. "My" google and "My" facebook isn't 'yours'.

It is their sandbox and you are playing by their terms.

It's important that someone providing services like this at least on a huge worldwide level be held to some measure of responsibility

Do you have a contract that has them 'be responsible'?

AT&T is willing to have responsibility *IF* one pays for tariffed lines and QOS and they would qualify as a 'huge worldwide level' no? And who holds AT&T feet to the fire (snicker)? The FCC via the baragin "we'll take others land by the force of law so you can run your lines and you gotta agree to be watched over".

Google and Facebook owes 'ya nothing. You are giving 'em access to your personal information so they can take it and sell it off. To make that sale, it is in the Google/Facebook interest to make having you give up your data as painless as possible - but they owe 'ya 'bout as much as baseball player X owes an observer in the stands a home run.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:18 PM on May 16, 2011


is this were we say GYOB?

but, you might not want to use google for that, eh?
posted by tomswift at 12:20 PM on May 16, 2011


were=where, of course
posted by tomswift at 12:20 PM on May 16, 2011


look, I get that you're really smart and skeptical but my life is important to me and your snark isn't the arbitrar of whether arbitrarily locking people out of google accounts is problematic or not
posted by the mad poster! at 12:21 PM on May 16, 2011 [1 favorite]


"we're talking about 200 people who donated politically out of approximately 3000 employees. That's what, 15%?"

Closer to 7%.
posted by escabeche at 12:23 PM on May 16, 2011


Option 2) a bunch of paranoid right wing bloggers don't understand how automated flagging systems work

It's not even necessarily an automated flagging issue. Blogger in general was having technical issues last week; Alterdestiny (just as an example) also got taken down as a result.
posted by asterix at 12:25 PM on May 16, 2011


ashlar, why did you suddenly get folky in that last paragraph?
posted by maryr at 12:25 PM on May 16, 2011


Folksy, I mean.
posted by maryr at 12:26 PM on May 16, 2011


Reading the link to the Google support forums, it says there's a bunch of deleted stuff (and I have no idea what the content of those posts might be) but basically it looks like Althouse came in and preened about her importance as a Law Professor and Brand Name Blogger with Zillions of Posts and Zillions of Readers and New York Times Approval. This annoyed the tech support volunteer, who may have done something to flag people's accounts after they pissed him off. Or maybe it had something to do with the same problem that took down Blogger, or some other tech problem.

But even if nitecruzer or whatever his handle is flagged her cronies as spammers, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to do with her politics. There's a reason why you should always be nice to tech support/IT folks even above and beyond being nice to people; it's because they can make your life living hell if you don't. Unethically, sure, and if this guy locked people out of accounts for dissing him, he should lose privileges, or be fired if he works for Google, but there it is: don't screw with tech support.

And nthing that if Althouse's blog is as big of a part of her professional persona as she's making out, she should really be paying someone to run it. Even so it will have technical downtime, that being the nature of the internet, but at least then it won't be an unpaid volunteer dealing with her demands to get her poo poo patted.
posted by immlass at 12:28 PM on May 16, 2011


look, I get that you're really smart and skeptical but my life is important to me and your snark isn't the arbitrar of whether arbitrarily locking people out of google accounts is problematic or not

So exactly how are you going to force Google to do these things legally? Google doesn't guarantee uptime or access for a reason: it's expensive and especially so when you're offering a free service.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:28 PM on May 16, 2011


I just read the article, and am having a hard time identifying 'abuse'. Snarkiness? Maybe a little. From a volunteer helper. After getting dogpiled by people convinced his help isn't helpful enough and doesn't realize how important the lady using the free service is. It's all--how you say?-- 'weak sauce'. And her indignation, and the indignation of her followers - and the tone of this post - remind me of this embarrassing affair.
posted by zylocomotion at 12:28 PM on May 16, 2011


my life is important to me

Good. Have you actually read the contracts you've agreed to with Google and Facebook?

As I just read this the other day:

From the Google contract:
4.3 As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google’s sole discretion, without prior notice to you. You may stop using the Services at any time. You do not need to specifically inform Google when you stop using the Services.

If not having access is important, find a provider that feels the same way you do.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:29 PM on May 16, 2011


justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow: "Were you aware that 98% of Google's employees donated money to the Democratic party in 2004?"

Look out, if you grind that axe any harder you'll wear it down to the haft.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:29 PM on May 16, 2011


Why are people still using Blogger? What a piece of trash compared to Wordpress or the MANY free open source blogging softwares that are simple to install.
posted by melissam at 12:29 PM on May 16, 2011


Maybe it's just that I'm skimming here, but even in the deleted comments nitecruzer doesn't look like he's being a dick unless, MAYBE, you take the worst-case interpretation of his words and then strain them through a paranoia filter.

"Blogger's down" does not equal "Oh My GOD I"M BEING SUPPRESSED"...you're just not that special.
posted by notsnot at 12:29 PM on May 16, 2011 [2 favorites]


Um, this guy just seems to be some guy who blogs about blogger.

Here, he's "Chuck."
posted by waitingtoderail at 12:30 PM on May 16, 2011


escabeche: "Closer to 7%."

Thanks. Math was never my best subject! :)
posted by zarq at 12:30 PM on May 16, 2011


immlass: "Unethically, sure, and if this guy locked people out of accounts for dissing him, he should lose privileges, or be fired if he works for Google, but there it is: don't screw with tech support."

Exactly. Also, shouldn't have been wearing that dress.
posted by mullingitover at 12:30 PM on May 16, 2011


« Older A Tale as Old as 1862   |   Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, on YouTube Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments