3 ms·
The odd thing is that they can't even make a cost argument for this. If they charged a cost recovery fee for human redress of these sorts of issues, it would no
by microcolonel 6y ago
The odd thing is that they can't even make a cost argument for this. If they charged a cost recovery fee for human redress of these sorts of issues, it would not cost them anything, and that's assuming they don't lose money from improper automated enforcement, which they almost certainly do.
It's pure incompetence.
- Aeolun 6y agoWhy would I want to keep paying google for their shitty AI’s mistakes?
- microcolonel 6y agoThe alternative is being disappeared without recourse, if you have to pay 40 bucks when they screw up, it is what it is, and you can make a decision.
- Aeolun 6y agoThat is (morally) wrong on so many levels. It’s basically what regulations were invented for.
- microcolonel 6y agoWhat would your brilliant regulation entail? Forcing companies to publish software for free when their automated systems think it's malware? Could you even summarize a piece of legislation that doesn't amount to "describe Google, then make everything that annoys us about Google illegal for companies fitting that description"?
- thejynxed 6y agoApply anti-trust law as is currently written for starters. Standard Oil and Ma Bell were split for less egregious offenses than we've seen from Alphabet/Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. In Standard Oil's case, vertical integration across markets was enough, and pretty much everyone in Big Tech is guilty of this.