4 ms·

I'm proud of both my contributions: Article: Should social networks tell you if you’ve been following a fake account? Me: Why not simply delete the fake accou

by dvh 5y ago

I'm proud of both my contributions: Article: Should social networks tell you if you’ve been following a fake account? Me: Why not simply delete the fake account? Article: Show HN: Webpage to PDF Microservice Me: Why not simply press Ctrl+p and print to PDF Edit: damn, now there are 3 contributions. I cannot post it here, it would cause infinite recursion.

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
> Article: Show HN: Webpage to PDF Microservice > Me: Why not simply press Ctrl+p and print to PDF It would be fun observing you do that with my bookmark collection.
seoaeu 5y ago
Not sure I follow your first comment. Why would deleting a fake account [edit: without also telling its followers] solve the issue? Most people probably would never notice that the account vanished and would go on believing whatever nonsense it was spreading.
- airstrike 5y ago
  More effective to delete the account before it spreads said nonsense to even more people?
  - mgkimsal 5y ago
    and it then feeds the persecution complex of "see, BIGTECH is SILENCING all the voices THEY don't want YOU to READ!" :/
    - wussboy 5y ago
      Not if we delete that account too....
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - philipswood 5y ago
        You mean: Why not simply delete that account too?
  - aeternum 5y ago
    Why not simply do both?
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      winner
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  The practice reduces repeat offences. Where follower-recruitment is expensive, it increases trust-attack costs. Where account-creation is expensive (through verification, reputation, financial costs, validation tokens (e.g., SIMs, phone numbers, external vouchers)), it again increases attack costs. Note that both remedies might be more effective than either separately: notify the reader of the false data (in the even the offending account hadn't already been removed) and remove the offending account.
permo-w 5y ago
the second one makes sense and is useful, non-obvious advice the first one doesn’t add anything to the discussion. I would go as far as to say that it detracts from the discussion I can’t imagine any of SIFT allow genuine impersonation in their ToCs and there isn’t really a middle ground punishment. If the account has been found to be fake, then they can’t just give it a warning and move on. The account was in flagrante from the beginning and will remain in flagrante in the future, and will have to be removed. I know for a fact that this is facebook’s policy The “simply” implies that they wouldn’t have thought of this, and that it’s a be-all and end-all solution, when it’s very clearly the obvious solution and done alone would leave users unaware they’ve been duped

by dvh 5y ago

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago

> Article: Show HN: Webpage to PDF Microservice > Me: Why not simply press Ctrl+p and print to PDF It would be fun observing you do that with my bookmark collection.

seoaeu 5y ago

Not sure I follow your first comment. Why would deleting a fake account [edit: without also telling its followers] solve the issue? Most people probably would never notice that the account vanished and would go on believing whatever nonsense it was spreading.

airstrike 5y ago
More effective to delete the account before it spreads said nonsense to even more people?
- mgkimsal 5y ago
  and it then feeds the persecution complex of "see, BIGTECH is SILENCING all the voices THEY don't want YOU to READ!" :/
  - wussboy 5y ago
    Not if we delete that account too....
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - philipswood 5y ago
      You mean: Why not simply delete that account too?
- aeternum 5y ago
  Why not simply do both?
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    winner
dredmorbius 5y ago
The practice reduces repeat offences. Where follower-recruitment is expensive, it increases trust-attack costs. Where account-creation is expensive (through verification, reputation, financial costs, validation tokens (e.g., SIMs, phone numbers, external vouchers)), it again increases attack costs. Note that both remedies might be more effective than either separately: notify the reader of the false data (in the even the offending account hadn't already been removed) and remove the offending account.

permo-w 5y ago

the second one makes sense and is useful, non-obvious advice the first one doesn’t add anything to the discussion. I would go as far as to say that it detracts from the discussion I can’t imagine any of SIFT allow genuine impersonation in their ToCs and there isn’t really a middle ground punishment. If the account has been found to be fake, then they can’t just give it a warning and move on. The account was in flagrante from the beginning and will remain in flagrante in the future, and will have to be removed. I know for a fact that this is facebook’s policy The “simply” implies that they wouldn’t have thought of this, and that it’s a be-all and end-all solution, when it’s very clearly the obvious solution and done alone would leave users unaware they’ve been duped