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