3 ms·
This is imagining humans to be useful in a way I wouldn't expect. You have a guy who posted a lot of paid ads despite warnings, and a woman who genuinely did po
by nitwit005 10y ago
This is imagining humans to be useful in a way I wouldn't expect. You have a guy who posted a lot of paid ads despite warnings, and a woman who genuinely did post child pornography. Do we really imagine that reaching a human would have somehow changed the outcome?
They definitely did violate the rules, so I imagine the call center employee would just confirm it, tell them as much, and hang up.
- neotek 10y agoIn the second case, at the very least there were rational, honest reasons for her doing so, and a human being is at least capable of discerning context and making a judgement call, even if it's just to kick the issue up the chain to someone who has the authority to rule on the issue.
- nitwit005 10y agoSure, it's possible for a human to make such a judgement call, but most of the time call center staff are going to be working from a script and trying to get done with your call as fast as possible. There's not going to be a path on their script for "was indeed child porn, but it seems okay", except perhaps for account theft.
- noonespecial 10y agoThe problem I see is that they are promising a review process that is clearly fake. No human ever looked at these cases just like no human ever looks at any cases that aren't called out by friends at the company or high profile news reports. At the very least that's simple fraud, but more troubling, they put forth their appeal process as a reason to trust them when clearly we should not.
- nitwit005 10y agoA little Googling suggests people have gotten things appealed, so it's more likely that humans are taking a look, but they're just not producing the outcome you want.