Maybe this tactic will help me get my youtube account back. Any Googlers interested in a 45 year old graying software developer with a dad bod?
But seriously, I wrote a post about my youtube account getting banned and without telling me what caused it just shut down my request for review. Sounds like in all of these companies you can either have a false positive AI flag you, someone decide they dont like you online and report you for something that isnt necessarily true/the case, and then you have some tech workers who either dont care enough to really fix problems or enjoying their fiefdoms and the power they wield at strangers.
They need to be taken to court, and this practice has to be made illegal. A service should have a valid reason for banning someone, otherwise we will end up with a group of people that are perpetually discriminated and punished by AI for no reason.
Blocking your Facebook account can lead to losing access to support groups and local marketplaces that may be important to people in need, and it is absolutely disgusting that they are allowed to kick people out for no reason.
No, those are private web properties, they are free to provide or not provide you services as they wish (with the only exception that they cannot target protected categories).
I might not like it, but they are in their right. I can always create my own web property.
By that unjust actions they actually show the value in de-centralizing WWW back to good old days.
I believe this should be the case for most web moderation, it should be mildly regulated and things like shadow banning banned (or at least stated that it's a feature somewhere). I'm not a regulation guy I prefer freedom, but if you regulate me I regulate you, for obvious reasons.
basically their policies are so rediculously subjective, that the mood of the reviewer is enough to shut down an entire "business" venture. I think that's the big problem here.
Typically with a store, if you're causing harm, the community can petition for you to lose your license. And all that comes with legal protections for due process.
On youtube or instagram, your entire business which you invested time/money/body into, is entirely hanging by the thread of some employee having a decent day or finding you attractive.
> basically their policies are so rediculously subjective, that the mood of the reviewer is enough to shut down an entire "business" venture. I think that's the big problem here.
There's a near-infinite pool of people willing to sink absurd amounts of time and money and other resources into these social networks.
Pretty much everywhere is aware of the risks.
It seems to be a risk many are more than willing to take.
Same thing happened to me on my last HN comment (you probably can't see it, it's "dead"). As far as I can tell, I didn't break any rules or say anything controversial. Who do I have to sleep with to get this sorted out?
I've also had a ban which I can find no way to appeal, I've given up hope at this point. I got banned after submitting a claim for content of mine hosted on a channel I can't access anymore, automated system banned me. Maybe one day I'll meet a googler who has some free time.
YouTube loses more money paying someone to review your case than what they stand to make if you come back. Their insurance policy for this is the guarantee that any actually large creator getting banned will generate enough PR buzz for a fully-fledged Googler to be notified and raise an internal issue about it.
I would pay to have a human review my case and actually do something about it. When my wife lost access to her Instagram through a 2FA cockup, I paid over $100 and about $500 of my time to get the original phone number back through a friend. It was all for naught in the end. I used to defend Google around here back in the day when they were just ambiguously evil. Now I really hate Google and Meta. They both do these kinds of things with accounts, with apps, with "fact" policing, etc. I hope the government fucks them up.
Oh yeah, I remember Jordan Peterson got banned, then suddenly Joe Rogan was making a fuss on Twitter about it. Next day, boom everything back to normal.
If anyone who works for Meta is in this thread, can you tell me why my Facebook page got unpublished for content rule violations, the strike got reversed after we challenged the blatently incorrect violation, but is still unpublished and invisible to anyone but the admins?
This behaviour on the part of Meta completely ruined what was quite a nice little community and I've not been able to get a satisfying explantion for this inconsistency. 'We realised the decision that got your page unpublished was wrong and reversed it, but we're still keeping your page unpublished' seems massively contradictory to me.
The admins of the page (myself included) have developed our own app pretty much out of spite to replace the Facebook page so it's not the end of the world, but I'd love to know what's going on behind the scenes that such a state is even possible for a page. It feels like there's something pretty fundamentally wrong with how Facebook handles page moderation.
Facebook doesn't care about what you want, they're only there to exploit you.
I got a taste of this when I (unsuccessfully) tried to fix a grossly inaccurate situation with Facebook places (the places for two very different schools were merged, and any attempt to create a new place to fix it would quickly get incorrectly auto-merged).
I discovered a large Facebook-endorsed community of people working for free to try to fix Facebook's places data without any special tools or support (might have been this https://www.facebook.com/editorcommunity/). People would just bang their heads constantly against Facebook's systems, and get nowhere, even though there were Facebook employees managing the group. I joined for a time, never got my issues resolved, and eventually just had to quit because it was too frustrating. It was just offensive how much effort those people where volunteering and how little help Facebook would give them to be successful at helping Facebook.
I'm well aware, their long history of shabby treatment towards our page actually meant our own app has been in development for a while (on and off around our proper jobs and the aftermath of a health crisis). I'd just like some insight into whatever Kafkaesque process lead to this happening, it's morbid curiosity more than anything.
Meta employees can put a ticket in on behalf of family and friends to get an account unbanned if they think it was done in error. It basically just is a higher priority than normal tickets that users file themselves. My guess is that was what the employee did.
So that's kinda proof that FB employees are being told to flag the story to try to bury it. I hope HN prevents this one from that fate. However, I did notice that it dropped off the front page very quickly.
Readit News
But seriously, I wrote a post about my youtube account getting banned and without telling me what caused it just shut down my request for review. Sounds like in all of these companies you can either have a false positive AI flag you, someone decide they dont like you online and report you for something that isnt necessarily true/the case, and then you have some tech workers who either dont care enough to really fix problems or enjoying their fiefdoms and the power they wield at strangers.
Blocking your Facebook account can lead to losing access to support groups and local marketplaces that may be important to people in need, and it is absolutely disgusting that they are allowed to kick people out for no reason.
Don't you have that backwards?
I might not like it, but they are in their right. I can always create my own web property.
By that unjust actions they actually show the value in de-centralizing WWW back to good old days.
Given what I’ve seen on dating apps, you’re prime material.
Typically with a store, if you're causing harm, the community can petition for you to lose your license. And all that comes with legal protections for due process.
On youtube or instagram, your entire business which you invested time/money/body into, is entirely hanging by the thread of some employee having a decent day or finding you attractive.
There's a near-infinite pool of people willing to sink absurd amounts of time and money and other resources into these social networks.
Pretty much everywhere is aware of the risks.
It seems to be a risk many are more than willing to take.
Edit: It's fixed now.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
This behaviour on the part of Meta completely ruined what was quite a nice little community and I've not been able to get a satisfying explantion for this inconsistency. 'We realised the decision that got your page unpublished was wrong and reversed it, but we're still keeping your page unpublished' seems massively contradictory to me.
The admins of the page (myself included) have developed our own app pretty much out of spite to replace the Facebook page so it's not the end of the world, but I'd love to know what's going on behind the scenes that such a state is even possible for a page. It feels like there's something pretty fundamentally wrong with how Facebook handles page moderation.
I got a taste of this when I (unsuccessfully) tried to fix a grossly inaccurate situation with Facebook places (the places for two very different schools were merged, and any attempt to create a new place to fix it would quickly get incorrectly auto-merged).
I discovered a large Facebook-endorsed community of people working for free to try to fix Facebook's places data without any special tools or support (might have been this https://www.facebook.com/editorcommunity/). People would just bang their heads constantly against Facebook's systems, and get nowhere, even though there were Facebook employees managing the group. I joined for a time, never got my issues resolved, and eventually just had to quit because it was too frustrating. It was just offensive how much effort those people where volunteering and how little help Facebook would give them to be successful at helping Facebook.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31445380
That seems like a situation ripe for abuse. Just continually report any account you want taken down.
I think you misspelled 'indifferent'
Depending on your check mark, subscriber count, and audience, you can easily sell any blue checkmark for 1-10k.
Access to the Twitter dashboard? 50k
0day account takeover - 150+k, rarely happens anymore