you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 1 week ago (5 children)

In your comparison, the store would not see that it was a 9 year old

It was the Google account of the dad, and he stored the company's card in his account payment details

And spending 100k on something is not unusual for a company card, or a big company running an ad campaign

You should also look up what astroturfing actually is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Meh, it's Google. They suck and can afford it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    sure, I agree with that.

    doesn't change the fact that the credit card and ad service was used as intended

    If I stab myself with a knife, I don't blame the knife manifacturer about how shit they are because I stabbed myself by user error

    It's just a really shitty situation overall

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago*

    I need to confirm my online purchases through my banking app. But I willingly dont connect my banking details anywhere.

    I find it weird that payment details can be stored for one-click purchases later on. It is just so highly and easily abused.

    We dont accept this kind of payment behavior at a store for obvious reasons, but online it is considered normal? I guess it maximises profits, which are important.

    And when these carefully designed systems for low barrier purchases are abused by a child, all responsibility goes to the parent?

    Wild how normalised this behavior is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Didn't really need this analogy, as it's not as clear in this case, more like a child was able to start a run of papers on their own and cost the printer $100k running the printers for 15 minutes.

    Should they have been in the printers with access to the buttons? No

    But again it's Google

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    Should they have been in the printers with access to the buttons? No

    agreed, the kid absolutely should not have had access to it. And Google explicitly forbids it. But the dad put the kid in front of it anyway and said "you can use it, but only up to 20 bucks" and walked away

  • source
  • parent