2 ms·
The automated removal can also come with broad reasoning in response, and that doesn't overwhelm the system. "Violating Policy X" (where X can be something lik
by shakna 7y ago
The automated removal can also come with broad reasoning in response, and that doesn't overwhelm the system.
"Violating Policy X" (where X can be something like Twitter's Rules, not necessarily something specific) is still a terrible explanation, but isn't nothing either. Vague enough spammers can't use it to game the system, specific enough that user's can guess they did something wrong.
- totony 7y agoI disagree that this is any better, because terms can be so wide as to not have any meaning E.g. i was blocked from facebook rencently and all it said is "you are inelligible, refer to our terms", but reading through them doesn't help at all
- shakna 7y agoIf it isn't "specific enough the user can guess what they did", like in your case, then it's a clear failure. So is a lack of a transparent appeal process. Automation-assisted, not automation everything. I wasn't advocating for blanket terms that mean nothing. You need to provide the user with something meaningful.