▲ 624 ▼ Devastated father says his 9-year-old son spent $118,000 on YouTube ad campaigns for his Minecraft channel using a company credit card — bill racked up in just three weeks was supposed to be one $20 (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 2 weeks ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 205 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 weeks ago (4 children) Meh, it's Google. They suck and can afford it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 weeks 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SirLeToet@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 weeks 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 weeks 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 weeks 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SirLeToet@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 weeks 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 weeks 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SirLeToet@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 weeks 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 weeks 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 weeks 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 permalink fedilink source parent