The idea is insanely unworkable, but the PROBLEM is entirely real.
Personally, I look to the FCC and like bodies to implement the required governance norms: if you offer freemium services to people, you have an obligation to implement real-person interaction on account suspension, and a mediated access path to your effects inside the locked-down digital store.
These identities now fuel our access to governments, and public services. If you can't access your google account you can be blocked from legal documents.
> the required governance norms: if you offer freemium services to people, you have an obligation to implement real-person interaction on account suspension, and a mediated access path to your effects inside the locked-down digital store. These identities now fuel our access to governments, and public services. If you can't access your google account you can be blocked from legal documents.
Yes, very well stated, this exactly. If you have a hold over how people interact with others or organize their lives or do business, you should offer reasonable processes for addressing issues e.g. lockouts that could impact them seriously. It's the sort of process that should exist: if your email account got shut, what if the helpdesk refused to ever tell you why or how it could be reopened? It's too late to move (social media) providers by then.
Personally, I look to the FCC and like bodies to implement the required governance norms: if you offer freemium services to people, you have an obligation to implement real-person interaction on account suspension, and a mediated access path to your effects inside the locked-down digital store.
These identities now fuel our access to governments, and public services. If you can't access your google account you can be blocked from legal documents.
I know "caveat emptor" and all that.