3 ms·
Fully agreed - I wasn't suggesting they review every manual decision, but do it as part of a proper appeals process. Google, for instance, is likely seeing abus
by lima 5y ago
Fully agreed - I wasn't suggesting they review every manual decision, but do it as part of a proper appeals process. Google, for instance, is likely seeing abuse on a scale where they have to have automated bans - for everyone's benefit! - and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that as long as you can escalate to a real human.
Edited the comment to reflect this - thanks!
I worked on an abuse prevention system in the past and know the challenges very well, except my company actually put in the effort to respond to every appeal and compensate affected customers for their troubles.
Yes, humans are expensive, and spammers will try to game the appeals process, too - but it's simply a cost of doing business.
- Anthony-G 5y agoAll good points. > Yes, humans are expensive, and spammers will try to game the appeals process, too - but it's simply a cost of doing business. Another Hacker News commentator¹ had a good suggestion for this problem: > Microsoft have a better solution, or at least one of their departments does. You pay for support questions and if it turns out it’s actually Microsoft’s fault they refund you the fee. If users paid some up-front fee for the appeal, similar to the above, regular users would have the opportunity to appeal an automated ban (if the appeal was done properly). On the other hand, spammers and other malicious actors would have to pay money for the opportunity to attempt to game the system. ¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30855836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30855836