3 ms·
> If they were to give out their evidence, then their evidence collection methods would become known and would no longer be effective Companies can give the ex
by dandanua 4y ago
> If they were to give out their evidence, then their evidence collection methods would become known and would no longer be effective
Companies can give the exact reason for a ban at least, without disclosing the methods of deduction. There is absolutely no reason to hide this information.
Such a behavior of companies is a big "f*ck you" to democracy and justice, not to criminals. It's exactly how totalitarianism looks like.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago> It's exactly how totalitarianism looks like.. Ofcourse it does, a corporation is a totalitarian organisation by design - I don't understand why anyone is surprised to learn this. Any disobedience or herecy and you are removed with prejudice.
- bcrosby95 4y agoThe exact reason is probably that their ML model told them to. They probably have no ability to give a more satisfying answer.
- dandanua 4y agoI don't think their model just says them "fraud/no fraud". There are different types of fraud, which should be written in their TOS.
- zippergz 4y agoNo, this is not how these systems work. You're correct that they don't say "fraud/no fraud" but they generate a score (like a credit score) based on a massive number of inputs, and there are thresholds over which action (account ban, etc.) is taken. It does not in any way map to "types of fraud" and it does not map to the TOS. It's about identifying activity or accounts that look sufficiently similar to previous bad actors.