The broken logic is that it will expose why the account was flagged, and thus, allow 'bad actors' to better navigate and bypass such flags.
Of course, this is absolutely silly and beyond absurd, for bad actors share information of forums, can deduce fairly easily, and even have help from people on staff.
Such actors typically know about detection and flagging methods within days of implementation. There's literally zero benefit to secrecy. None. Security through obscurity can be a beneficial additional layer, but it simply never helps here.
We really should pass a law requiring full disclosure of the precise method of banning. I can even see a 'trial' period, where accounts activated (and used!) for 3 months receive this benefit, but new accounts, or new + dormant accounts do not.
This should likely be coupled with mandated full refunds of phones or computers, as an example.
Note that this isn't a 'free' account we're talking about here. An Apple account, or a Google account is required to use an iphone or pixel in its default config, and all the features it entails. These accounts aren't free, they're part of purchase cost, and core-required.
(Even if it's a, for example, Samsung phone? It comes pre-installed, with uninstallable Google Play cruft, as part of an agreement with Samsung. Same conditions need apply here)
For the average person, including buying apps, this simply isn't a reality.
And Google will now be throwing up massive "OMG! You're going to install an app that isn't from the Play Store?!" warnings to anyone that tries, including requiring some degree of technical skill to do so.
You stated I was wrong. I am, and was not. This is because I have contextually stated that I am referring to the average person's reality.
I was specific in this point, because yes aosp exists. If you want to discuss conditions outside of those I mentioned, that does not make me wrong.
Instead, that means you are discussing something else.
Aosp existing does not mean the average person may or even can use it. This matters, for consumer protection is aimed at the 99.9%.. not 0.1%.
One sad example, many banking apps won't work without firebase and google play. You cannot, as an average user, even find such apps without the Play store.
A play account, or apple account has serious gatekeeping ramifications for the average person.
Not for long. Android phones (with Google Play Services) will soon require some degree of authentication to sideload applications, once that happens then those phones will only have the barest of features available without a Google account.
> That‘s always the most kafkaesque part of these problems and should be illegal
it is very likely illegal to tell him. it was triggered by the use of a gift card, and therefore very likely to be AML, and in many places (I am not sure about Australia specifically) it is illegal to provide information in the circumstances.
That‘s always the most kafkaesque part of these problems and should be illegal