4 ms·
Most of the time, no. This is common to prevent people from abusing the system more by trying to find edge cases.
by jetbalsa 4y ago
Most of the time, no. This is common to prevent people from abusing the system more by trying to find edge cases.
- gaius_baltar 4y agoAlso allows for selective enforcement of the rules, which can be welcome for "not noticing" a particular account that generates a lot of profit for the platform.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoSelective enforcement is actually literally tyrany - every tyranical organisation createa rules that are vague and ambiguous, so that anyone could be guilty, and undesierable people could be charged at any time convenient. Someone protesting? Charge them for brwaking the law fuve years ago that noone understands. Employee speaking out? Fire them for breaking company policy on something random, company policy that no-one follows.
- tehwebguy 4y agoYou are correct, but also all enforcement everywhere is selective. Even mindless speed / red light cameras (they are selected to be at certain corners and not others).
- misterkrabs 4y agoProbably cheaper too.
- betwixthewires 4y agoTrying to figure out exactly what the rules are is abusing the system now?
- dodobirdlord 4y agoRunning an abuse prevention system is adversarial. If your abuse detection system isn’t perfect (which is of course impossible), then having a transparent anti-abuse system is the same as not having an anti-abuse system.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoRunning a crime prevention system is adversarial. If your law isn't perfect (which is ofcourae impossible), then having a transparent law enforcement system is the same as nit having a law enforcement system.
- lmm 4y agoThis but unironically. Transparent law enforcement has never succeeded anywhere. (The US makes the laws notionally "transparent" but written so broadly that they apply to everyone, and the opaque part is under prosecutorial discretion, but in practice it's very much the same mechanism as what the likes of e.g. China do)
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoI an confused - if current system is not transparent, where was a transparent system tried?
- shkkmo 4y ago> If your abuse detection system isn’t perfect (which is of course impossible), then having a transparent anti-abuse system is the same as not having an anti-abuse system. This complete hyperbole. While transparency can make some rules easier to dodge, it doesn't necessarily make those rules completely ineffective. There are also different types of rules that are more or less sensitive to transparency. It is thus definitely possible to design abuse prevention systems that, while not perfect, do function in a transparent environment. For example, a level of non transparency is important for criminal investigations, many criminal trials can be completely transparent and expose previously secret details of the investigation. All criminal trials must have a certain level if transparency because fair trials are impossible if you are told the evidence that is used against you.
- lrem 4y agoI got yelled at at an airport for allegedly doing that. I was just being sloppy at taking stuff out onto the tray.
- the_af 4y agoI understand why Google would choose this strategy but it's still ridiculous. This is positively Kafkian: being accused of something but not being told of what exactly. If this was Google's The Process, Joseph K. would have been told he cannot know the exact nature of his crime, because that would allow him to subvert "The Algorithm."