[yamtaddle]

This is irrelevant to my post. Would removing all transparency from it help, or make it worse? Are there better-regarded ones that don't reveal anything whatsoever to the accused and convicted, because that'd make it so hard to stop criminals that everything would fall apart?

[EDIT] My point is simply that somehow we manage in basically every other space to let those accused of wrongdoing know what we think they did that looked like wrongdoing, but somehow when it's an Internet giant calling the shots that's just impossible and waaaaah too hard and the sky would fall if they ever treated anyone with any amount of humanity and respect. I think it's grade-A bullshit and they've just figured out they can get away with being assholes at scale and no-one will make them stop.

[scarface74]

There is no indication that the original poster did any type of security review to make sure that the block was justified. Let’s start there.

It’s not just the internet. No company disclosed their fraud detection techniques.

[yamtaddle]

MS isn't even giving them an idea of what sort of thing they think is going on. Completely ghosting someone is way beyond not disclosing fraud detection techniques.

"We're using our enormous market power to wreck your company and won't even tell you roughly the kind of thing we think is wrong" is so unacceptable it ought to draw an application of some kind of corporate death-penalty, if it's a pattern of behavior and not just a rare accident that goes against official policy. Certainly it's, all on its own, a strong argument that there shouldn't be companies this powerful in the first place.

[marcosdumay]

The OP sounds like somebody that would do a non-through, not very competent review, and not find anything.

But it doesn't matter. MS is the one telling to the entire world that his software is not reliable. They don't get to tell it all over the world without bringing some evidence.