6 ms·

From memory I believe FAANG etc all _claim_ that appeals you lodge are reviewed by a human. Now if you don’t believe them then you’d need to take them to court

From memory I believe FAANG etc all _claim_ that appeals you lodge are reviewed by a human. Now if you don’t believe them then you’d need to take them to court and show why you think that’s not the case. Which I guess means my question is why don’t you believe them and how likely is it that they are lying when they claim thy appeals are reviewed by a human?

tyingq 5y ago
There was a recent example with Google Drive where it explicitly disabled any way to appeal. I was able to reproduce the issue where it was flagging files that consisted of a single byte, sometimes followed by \r\n or \n. Here's the HN story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30060405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30060405 Screenshots of trying to "appeal" (Request a review) from when I recreated the issue show pretty clearly there is no human involved: https://imgur.com/a/5YHQtLi https://imgur.com/a/5YHQtLi This wasn't an account ban, so I don't know how well it fits the GDPR language. Though I'd be surprised if this was somehow the only "fully automated account action" FAANG type companies are doing.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Are you suggesting that Europe has established a fundamental human right to have Google provide free static hosting services?
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    I think reading the part where they say "I don't know how well it fits the GDPR language" would answer your question.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    The EU has established that "The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her." (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/)
  - gpm 5y ago
    No, they're suggesting that given that Google has chosen to provide free static hosting, Europe has decided they can't moderate it with purely automated systems with no appeals process. This is like running a restaurant in the US, and not being able to discriminate by race. You're not required to run a restaurant, and certainly aren't required to run one that gives away free food, but if you are certain obligations come attached. I'd also argue that your use of the phrase "fundamental human right" is misleading. Europe can and does require you do things for reasons other than respecting fundamental human rights. So does pretty much every other law making authority.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Arguably the opposite where the EU may have in effect outlawed may free services be requiring human review of many activities.
- Someone 5y ago
  I don’t see how you get from Google’s statement “Was taken down for legal reasons and cannot be appealed“ to “no human was involved”.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I think the point is they, based on the file content, no human could have been involved in the decision. If there was a human involved, the files never would have been flagged.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
      You're assuming the human both has agency, and gives a damn. It's more likely the human just rubber-stamps all bans, to get their KPI of number of appeals processed per day up!
      - foxfluff 5y ago
        They are required to have agency and give a damn. Of course, it is hard to (dis)prove that they actually do.
      - saghm 5y ago
        If the human doesn't have agency, then it's not really a "human review", is it?
        rat9988 5y ago
        It still is.
        foxfluff 5y ago
        Spirit of the law is a concept I would encourage anyone to think about when arguing about these things. I believe most people, and courts in particular, would not agree that a human rubber-stamping automated decision is in line with the spirit of the law. Clinging onto a technicality isn't going to go well. I'd also like to point out that these laws don't just come out of nowhere in a vacuum, to be interpreted without any further context. In EU we have recitals and guidelines to give context and support the interpretation of regulations. If you're interested, do read Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (wp251rev.01). https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612053/en https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612053/en Here's what it says about human intervention: "Any review must be carried out by someone who has the appropriate authority and capability to change the decision. The reviewer should undertake a thorough assessment of all the relevant data, including any additional information provided by the data subject."
toomuchtodo 5y ago
> Which I guess means my question is why don’t you believe them and how likely is it that they are lying when they claim thy appeals are reviewed by a human? Why would we believe them? It's Google's responsibility to prove their assertion, versus regulators taking them for their (not so good) word. The default should be the assumption that the corporation is being dishonest.
- ben_w 5y ago
  If you’re taking them (or anyone else) to court, isn’t the burden of proof on you?
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Highly dependent on the law or regulation in question.
CodesInChaos 5y ago
I think the better question is what a "human review" entails. I assume they have some kind of "human review" in there, but no meaningful human review.
BLanen 5y ago
> Reviewed by a human Can just mean some low-paid Amazon Mechanical Turk worker clicked on "Yes".

tyingq 5y ago

There was a recent example with Google Drive where it explicitly disabled any way to appeal. I was able to reproduce the issue where it was flagging files that consisted of a single byte, sometimes followed by \r\n or \n. Here's the HN story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30060405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30060405 Screenshots of trying to "appeal" (Request a review) from when I recreated the issue show pretty clearly there is no human involved: https://imgur.com/a/5YHQtLi https://imgur.com/a/5YHQtLi This wasn't an account ban, so I don't know how well it fits the GDPR language. Though I'd be surprised if this was somehow the only "fully automated account action" FAANG type companies are doing.

jeffbee 5y ago
Are you suggesting that Europe has established a fundamental human right to have Google provide free static hosting services?
- foxfluff 5y ago
  I think reading the part where they say "I don't know how well it fits the GDPR language" would answer your question.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  The EU has established that "The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her." (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/)
- gpm 5y ago
  No, they're suggesting that given that Google has chosen to provide free static hosting, Europe has decided they can't moderate it with purely automated systems with no appeals process. This is like running a restaurant in the US, and not being able to discriminate by race. You're not required to run a restaurant, and certainly aren't required to run one that gives away free food, but if you are certain obligations come attached. I'd also argue that your use of the phrase "fundamental human right" is misleading. Europe can and does require you do things for reasons other than respecting fundamental human rights. So does pretty much every other law making authority.
- Retric 5y ago
  Arguably the opposite where the EU may have in effect outlawed may free services be requiring human review of many activities.
Someone 5y ago
I don’t see how you get from Google’s statement “Was taken down for legal reasons and cannot be appealed“ to “no human was involved”.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I think the point is they, based on the file content, no human could have been involved in the decision. If there was a human involved, the files never would have been flagged.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    You're assuming the human both has agency, and gives a damn. It's more likely the human just rubber-stamps all bans, to get their KPI of number of appeals processed per day up!
    - foxfluff 5y ago
      They are required to have agency and give a damn. Of course, it is hard to (dis)prove that they actually do.
    - saghm 5y ago
      If the human doesn't have agency, then it's not really a "human review", is it?
      - rat9988 5y ago
        It still is.
        foxfluff 5y ago
        Spirit of the law is a concept I would encourage anyone to think about when arguing about these things. I believe most people, and courts in particular, would not agree that a human rubber-stamping automated decision is in line with the spirit of the law. Clinging onto a technicality isn't going to go well. I'd also like to point out that these laws don't just come out of nowhere in a vacuum, to be interpreted without any further context. In EU we have recitals and guidelines to give context and support the interpretation of regulations. If you're interested, do read Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (wp251rev.01). https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612053/en https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/items/612053/en Here's what it says about human intervention: "Any review must be carried out by someone who has the appropriate authority and capability to change the decision. The reviewer should undertake a thorough assessment of all the relevant data, including any additional information provided by the data subject."

toomuchtodo 5y ago

> Which I guess means my question is why don’t you believe them and how likely is it that they are lying when they claim thy appeals are reviewed by a human? Why would we believe them? It's Google's responsibility to prove their assertion, versus regulators taking them for their (not so good) word. The default should be the assumption that the corporation is being dishonest.

ben_w 5y ago
If you’re taking them (or anyone else) to court, isn’t the burden of proof on you?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Highly dependent on the law or regulation in question.

CodesInChaos 5y ago

I think the better question is what a "human review" entails. I assume they have some kind of "human review" in there, but no meaningful human review.

BLanen 5y ago

> Reviewed by a human Can just mean some low-paid Amazon Mechanical Turk worker clicked on "Yes".