News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google Has Most of My Email Because It Has All of Yours (... by jerieljan on Sunday October 23, 2022 @09:06AM (#33306683)
One good case I can think of is Crinacle. Very popular for his audio measurements site and does YouTube.

His Google account got flagged for something suspicious, Google had it shut down and without good explanations. He can't even get help through YouTube support and while the old channel remains, the Google account behind it appears disabled today. The only choice he had was to file a request that lead to nowhere and he basically had to start with a new account and channel.

He explained his experience about it in this video here: https://youtu.be/Jn1b3DztWnc?t=83

Re:Google Has Most of My Email Because It Has All of Yours (... by sumedh on Sunday October 23, 2022 @10:01AM (#33307081)
> His Google account got flagged for something suspicious,

Was that because of his gmail or Youtube?

Re:Google Has Most of My Email Because It Has All of Yours (... by Karunamon on Sunday October 23, 2022 @11:11AM (#33307595)
That is just it, they never tell you
Re:Google Has Most of My Email Because It Has All of Yours (... by pixl97 on Sunday October 23, 2022 @01:52PM (#33308793)
Does it matter?

Get banned from one google service for whatever reason (and you may never know why), banned from them all.

Re:Google Has Most of My Email Because It Has All of Yours (... by rsync on Sunday October 23, 2022 @02:42PM (#33309133)
"The only choice he had was to file a request that lead to nowhere and he basically had to start with a new account and channel."

Incorrect.

Yes, that was, indeed, the only choice he had that was free, and from his living room, but he did have other choices.

Specifically: serving google with proper legal papers from his own lawyers that require responses. That costs google money. The money just keeps adding up and eventually a real person who has decision authority will look closely at the issue and fix the issue.

Assuming, of course, that the banning was improper - which I think we are all stipulating here ...