• amzd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Holy shit the astroturfing in this comment section is crazy. If a 9 year old went into any other store and used a company card the store would reasonably refuse to sell 100k worth of goods. If the payment system Google implemented doesn’t even verify who is paying then that’s negligence on their part.

    • chewypoops@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It was the dad who entered the card number. It was his fault. He created a Google advertising profile, but his business card on it, and then handed the reins to a child.

      The biggest issue here is that dad thought he could embezzle $20 at a time, but accidentally did $120k all at once. lol. lmao even.

      Lack of constant online surveillance is a good thing, btw. Expecting Google to have caught this doesn’t make any sense.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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

        • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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

          • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            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

            • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              47 minutes 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