Har har har. Spoken like somebody who's never been in a courtroom or read about a court case before. You still have to tick all the technicality boxes before you can win, starting with proving that the law actually says Google has to delete this. You also have to follow all the implicit rules of court procedure, which are the main reason you always need a lawyer.
Of course they shouldn't use words that imply permanent deletion if it's only a front-end/workspace removal until that window expires. But if retention is expressly allowed in their terms you won't be winning anything.
You found an instance of misleading UX, which is fairly common in our industry.
This is like deleting a shortcut and saying the file is gone, right?
Since it's a JSON file, I wonder what's actually inside, and why the blog post doesn't mention opening it with a text editor.
Claudish (but not all of the text seems to be). Idk, I read this all day and am getting allergic to it. It's always the load-bearing decision worth my thought, and then some contradiction. It's not just this, it's THIS and THIS.
I've been using some GLM5.2 via Mistral lately and it doesn't have this... tone... But it makes some mistakes sometimes that Claude wouldn't.
Idk, just the idea that this was artificial expanded, makes me feel anyone could have written it, I could ask Claude for it directly. There will be no insight, even though there may be. What is happening to me, I am not anti AI.
I kinda the mockery it makes of the "look how smart I am" internet comment types since it's basically their sort of linguistic drivel but cranked to 11.
All of the facts presented could be true, but what law is broken? What harm creates the basis for a civil suit?
Good luck. Despite what some people in this thread are saying, Google is definitely in the wrong here. What they will "lose" because of that, if anything, remains to be seen.