There are numerous stories of paying customers losing their account and getting no help.
I didn’t downvote you, but your response seems disengenuous. Even if the service was free, people depend on them substantially and losing that access disrupts businesses and lives.
Google is a monopoly for search. Losing the ability to buy ads or broadcast on YouTube without any due process is a big deal and needs regulation. I’m not a fan of regulation and thinks there are many inefficiencies. But Google has had 20 years without regulation and obviously won’t change because it’s profitable the way they have it now.
I'm gonna argue that government shouldn't force anyone to provide services for free, but they should mandate that if you provide a service, you also take responsibility for the customer's property in context of that service, whether that service is free or not.
If I take my car to be serviced and they accept it, they can't just tow it to a junkyard and tell me to bugger off when I come back for it. Why can Google effectively put my private correspondence through the shredder and tell me to bugger off?
Likewise, offering to hold your grocery bag for a minute for free while you go to the restroom doesn't entitle me to destroy everything in the bag and throw it away.
I don't possibly see how. The services cost no money, thus they are unequivocally free. Perhaps one could reasonably argue that just because something is free doesn't mean the user isn't entitled to any rights, but torturing the definition of free to suit your argument strikes me as obviously fallacious.
> If they are providing their services for free, how can that be
Because advertisers pay them. This logic is like saying FM radio isn't free because it has ads, this is just not true.
Let say your 'attention', using the service, is used to pay for 'goods', account/ access to service.
How is the revenue derived fron 'attention'? By the attention being spent on preselected content, e.g. ads, that are choosen by the platform. One could argue that revoking access to a service from the platform side is okay since the attention is not being 'spent' after the removal or ban.
It might be feasible to expect that services, like an email account, are not taken away abitrarly but 'just because it's profitable' is not a sound argument. Making yourself dependent on a platform is not the problem of the platform.
If you use Google’s free email, you are not their customer. If you have an AdWords account, you are.
If you don’t like the deal, start charging them money or stop giving your attention to them for what you get in return. It’s that simple.
Yes there is, per the trade regulations you're entitled to a refund
.
Wait
I'm only partly sarcastic. If you think you're entitled to anything provided as a free service then the problem starts there. Do I miss the days when ISPs provided email as part of your subscription? Then made you pay for anything over 100 Mb? Then held your email address hostage if you wanted to switch providers? Hell no. But I also don't think government should force anyone to provide services to me for free.
Edit: downvotes without replies do not help me understand where this feeling of entitlement to a free service comes from; insight would be appreciated.