by derefr | 2025-10-21 19:03:32+00:00
> It just means that PayPal has the same problem and they are also incompetent

Do you consider regular brick-and-mortar savings banks to be incompetent when they freeze someone's personal account for receiving business amounts of money into it? Because they all do, every last one. Because, again, they expect you to open a business account if you're going to do business; and they look at anything resembling "business transactions" happening in a personal account through the lens of fraud rather than the lens of "I just didn't realize I should open a business account."

And nobody thinks this is odd, or out-of-the-ordinary.

Do you consider municipal governments to be incompetent when they tell people that they have to get their single-family dwelling rezoned as mixed-use, before they can conduct business out of it? Or for assuming that anyone who is conducting business (having a constant stream of visitors at all hours) out of a residentially-zoned property, is likely engaging in some kind of illegal business (drug sales, prostitution, etc) rather than just being a cafe who didn't realize you can't run a cafe on residential zoning?

If so, I don't think many people would agree with you. (Most would argue that municipal governments suppress real, good businesses by not issuing the required rezoning permits, but that's a separate issue.)

There being an automatic level of hair-trigger suspicion against you on the part of powerful bureaucracies — unless and until you proactively provide those bureaucracies enough information about yourself and your activities for the bureaucracies to form a mental model of your motivations that makes your actions predictable to them — is just part of living in a society.

Heck, it's just a part of dealing with people who don't know you. Anthropologists suggest that the whole reason we developed greeting gestures like shaking hands (esp. the full version where you pull each-other in and use your other arms to pat one-another on the back) is to force both parties to prove to the other that they're not holding a readied weapon behind their backs.

---

> Are you warned about the risks in an active war one? Yes. Does Google warn you about this when you sign up? No.

As a neutral third party to a conflict, do you expect the parties in the conflict to warn you about the risks upon attempting to step into the war zone? Do you expect them to put up the equivalent of police tape saying "war zone past this point, do not cross"?

This is not what happens. There is no such tape. The first warning you get from the belligerents themselves of getting near either side's trenches in an active war zone, is running face-first into the guarded outpost/checkpoint put there to prevent flanking/supply-chain attacks. And at that point, you're already in the "having to talk yourself out of being shot" point in the flowchart.

It has always been the expectation that civilian settlements outside of the conflict zone will act of their own volition to inform you of the danger, and stop you from going anywhere near the front lines of the conflict. By word-of-mouth; by media reporting in newspapers and on the radio; by municipal governments putting up barriers preventing civilians from even heading down roads that would lead to the war zone. Heck, if a conflict just started "up the road", and you're going that way while everyone's headed back the other way, you'll almost always eventually be flagged to pull over by some kind stranger who realizes you might not know, and so wants to warn you that the only thing you'll get by going that way is shot.

---

Of course, this is all just a metaphor; the "war" between infrastructure companies and malicious actors is not the same kind of hot war with two legible "sides." (To be pedantic, it's more like the "war" between an incumbent state and a constant stream of unaffiliated domestic terrorists, such as happens during the ongoing only-partially-successful suppression of a populist revolution.)

But the metaphor holds: just like it's not a military's job to teach you that military forces will suspect that you're a spy if you approach a war zone in plainclothes; and just like it's not a bank's job to teach you that banks will suspect that you're a money launderer if you start regularly receiving $100k deposits into your personal account; and just like it's not a city government's job to teach you that they'll suspect you're running a bordello out of your home if you have people visiting your residentially-zoned property 24hrs a day... it's not Google's job to teach you that the world is full of people that try to abuse Internet infrastructure to illegal ends for profit; and that they'll suspect you're one of those people, if you just show up with your personal Google account and start doing some of the things those people do.

Rather, in all of these cases, it is the job of the people who teach you about life — parents, teachers, business mentors, etc — to explain to you the dangers of living in society. Knowing to not use your personal account for business, is as much a component of "web safety" as knowing to not give out details of your personal identity is. It's "Internet literacy", just like understanding that all news has some kind of bias due to its source is "media literacy."