[dboreham]

I've noticed that the people running automated flagging systems seem to become inordinately smug to the point that they believe their false positive result over all forms of external evidence. So to them you are a criminal and that's that.

[pmarreck]

I am currently in a 3 day Facebook ban because I posted an NIH (National Institute of Health, peak legitimacy right here) link which was meant to help someone understand something.

Unfortunately, the medical procedure it covered thumbnailed down (in the generated preview) to a fairly graphic photo of a woman's private parts being operated on... and that resulted in an uncontestable instaban. No humans can be reached about it, of course.

I hate automated flagging. Not only can I now not help that person on the platform in question, but I am now discouraged from even using that product further (probably not a bad thing in FB's case!)

[barneygale]

Facebook + Google hold similar levels of power as governments over our lives, and so should adopt similar structures. An independent judiciary, review bodies, ombudsmen, aldermen, etc.

[arrosenberg]

No they shouldn't, they should be broken up so they don't have that power.

[scrollaway]

"Thus solving the problem, once and for all!"

[genewitch]

> "once and for at&t!"

[scarface74]

Yes, because the judicial system is free of politics and nothing can ever go wrong by giving the government more power to police what can be done on private platforms.

[chunk_waffle]

We already hold similar levels of power. We can just not use Facebook and Google. One needs neither of these services to live a normal life.

[pessimizer]

> We already hold similar levels of power. We can just not use Facebook and Google.

Common argument. Not a great one, because some things are only available through Facebook, and not being there can complicate your in-person life significantly. But, since I'm not on Facebook, I have to admit that it's good enough for me.

> One needs neither of these services to live a normal life.

A step too far. Normal people have Facebook and use Google. One needs both of these services to live a normal life.

[hellojesus]

> A step too far. Normal people have Facebook and use Google. One needs both of these services to live a normal life.

Is this because normal peoples' utility curves maximize convenience?

[tacon]

After the post, there is a button to remove the preview. Is that available before posting? Or would immediately removing the preview avoid the ban? Just wondering...

[Aeolun]

Why’d you get banned over a preview that Facebook decides to show? Apparently they’re aware it’s graphic enough that they can ban you for it.

[pmarreck]

That’s a very good question

[pmarreck]

The ban was instant, mid-post. I didn’t even get to see the preview before the ban!

[easrng]

On Discord you can wrap the link in <> to prevent a preview.

[counttheforks]

The government desperately needs to step in and regulate these automated "destroy your business" practices.

[gkoberger]

Totally. It should be illegal for Edge, Chrome and other browsers to take any measures, such as a little warning, in an attempt protect users from malware. I see no way that getting the government involved in this could go badly.

[axxto]

No one implied that it should be illegal to warn anybody. However, it should be illegal to operate a large-scale service like this without offering some kind of proper communication and prompt action, which isn't unreasonable considering they're notorious for destroying someone's livelihood for no reason.

Keep in mind that the reason this happens isn't because of "faulty AI automated systems": the reason this happens is because these companies choose to save pennies by not offering proper support channels and recourse. Those saved pennies make the difference between a 2-hour outage and literally bankrupting you for no reason at all.

[quantified]

</sarcasm>?

[raunak]

I wonder what the last sentence of his comment implies.

[quantified]

That he understands how competent and benign government is.

[protomyth]

I should have some way to resolve the issue outside of the automation. Barring that, I should be able to sue them libel.

[ok123456]

Another anti-trust suit perhaps.

[scarface74]

Yes that worked out well last time. Microsoft was broken up and they were forced to unbundled their browser from Windows.

Also, politicians never go after companies for biased reasons and we can count on the government with more power not to abuse it.

[ok123456]

It made Microsoft sweat pretty good in the late-90s. They had to behave a little better, but not doing anything too anti-competitive, during a critical juncture of the internet's growth and adoption, while the anti-trust proceedings dragged on.

Just because there was no AT&T style divestiture at the end, doesn't mean there were no positive externalities.

[int_19h]

I think the biggest thing that came out of that anti-trust case is the publishing of specs for various file formats and protocols used by Microsoft software.

[scarface74]

And because of that, a million flowers bloomed and now we have dozens of browsers engines and not one dominant player controlled by a large tech company…

[cma]

Also I suppose companies never go after politicians for biased reasons, with legalized bribery of campaign contributions as the tool.

[scarface74]

Yes, but no company has a “monopoly on violence” - the government does. Given a choice, a powerful government can do far more damage than Microsoft.

[quantified]

Who knew that the browser should have been separated fully anyway because it was a security issue?

They weren't broken up but they were anti-competitive asswipes.

[floren]

See: spam blacklists

[dboreham]

My own experience was with Wells Fargo, where I conduct quite a bit of business, but they still treated me like a criminal because their dumb AI thought that "I don't often initiate wire transfers online" and "my voice didn't sound like my age".

[myself248]

> "my voice didn't sound like my age"

Wow, hello marginalization! I wonder where their training data set came from.

[SpaceManNabs]

I hate being demanded to set up voice verification. Even more annoying when the representative suggests that you active your voice despite you saying no. Voice verification is such a weak security system.

[raverbashing]

> "my voice didn't sound like my age".

Which actually should be a desirable characteristic as it is an unique identifier, but it kinda makes sense with so many 'lulzhackers' out there (not that I think this is the reason - I do attribute these issues mostly to incompetence)

[schappim]

If you can, take your business elsewhere…

[quantified]

Who does business with Wells Fargo anymore? [https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2021/09/28/wells-fa...]

[WesolyKubeczek]

Stripe very much does.

[dboreham]

Would like to but not so easy.