3 ms·

Did you have any other domains on the account, or shared access with other accounts? I hate how legal has forced every trust & safety team to just blanket repl

Did you have any other domains on the account, or shared access with other accounts? I hate how legal has forced every trust & safety team to just blanket reply "You were banned. We won't tell you why. We won't overturn. Go away." It's absolutely impossible to contest without public attention or legal action, and is often just a simple mistake.

Avamander 4y ago
> often just a simple mistake More often than not it's not a mistake. Very simply put, fighting abuse is very asymmetrical and a lot of the approaches just even the playfield. They will make you put in more effort for them to put in effort. Unfortunate, but the only way it's sustainable.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > More often than not it's not a mistake. So? A false positive rate of 50% is wholey unacceptable when banning people from critical online infrastructure. > Unfortunate, but the only way it's sustainable. This common talking point is just BS apologetics. There is a long history of ways to manage disputes without sending such useless explanations. These companies are just to cheap or lazy to bother.
  - Avamander 4y ago
    > A false positive rate of 50% is wholey unacceptable when banning people from critical online infrastructure. Where'd you get that number? > There is a long history of ways to manage disputes without sending such useless explanations. Sure, the legal system.
    - shkkmo 4y ago
      > Where'd you get that number? Your use of the phrase "more often than not" applies up to 50% and is thus meaningless given that such a false positive rate is unacceptable. > Sure, the legal system. It's pretty hard to file a legal claim without facts to contest...which is precisely the point.
- ntoskrnl 4y ago
  > Unfortunate, but the only way it's sustainable. Businesses throughout history have been sustainable without needing to ban people at random with AI. This AI hell is a new phenomenon in the past 10 years and it's purely driven by cost-cutting.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Businesses throughout history haven't had to deal with anonymous global customer bases that could be automated.
  - Avamander 4y ago
    > Businesses throughout history have been sustainable without needing to ban people at random with AI. When the cost of abuse lowers, so must the cost of defense. So of course cost-cutting has to happen. Otherwise it's going to be a financial DoS. All that is though only if you want services to have free tiers. If you're willing to pay for everything then sure, it becomes easier. I'm actually quite certain one will encounter much less "AI" when stuff is actually being paid for.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - tyingq 4y ago
      Then they should automate a way for the domain owner to transfer the domain out when they decide they don't want your business. There's no reasonable excuse to hold a domain hostage. Their registrar is also not free.
    - ntoskrnl 4y ago
      You do have a point about the free tiers. I try to pay for things where I can, for example I'm a happy Fastmail user (and you should be too!) But paying for things is still no guarantee, see also: the OP. Google and Discord are both infamous for this. They treat paying users and free users the same. eBay charges for their service too, and I had a ~15 year old account banned. Why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you've been collecting my money for the past 15 years, can't you spare 5 minutes to sanity check your AI? I guess besides free users, the other exception is payment processors. I don't envy Stripe or PayPal.
- cfsucks 4y ago
  This isn't "make you put in more effort". The customer put in more effort when they reached out to Cloudflare (because Cloudflare didn't even bother to send them an automated email). This is "you have no recourse unless you happen to get popular on the Internet or know someone".

Avamander 4y ago

> often just a simple mistake More often than not it's not a mistake. Very simply put, fighting abuse is very asymmetrical and a lot of the approaches just even the playfield. They will make you put in more effort for them to put in effort. Unfortunate, but the only way it's sustainable.

shkkmo 4y ago
> More often than not it's not a mistake. So? A false positive rate of 50% is wholey unacceptable when banning people from critical online infrastructure. > Unfortunate, but the only way it's sustainable. This common talking point is just BS apologetics. There is a long history of ways to manage disputes without sending such useless explanations. These companies are just to cheap or lazy to bother.
- Avamander 4y ago
  > A false positive rate of 50% is wholey unacceptable when banning people from critical online infrastructure. Where'd you get that number? > There is a long history of ways to manage disputes without sending such useless explanations. Sure, the legal system.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > Where'd you get that number? Your use of the phrase "more often than not" applies up to 50% and is thus meaningless given that such a false positive rate is unacceptable. > Sure, the legal system. It's pretty hard to file a legal claim without facts to contest...which is precisely the point.
ntoskrnl 4y ago
> Unfortunate, but the only way it's sustainable. Businesses throughout history have been sustainable without needing to ban people at random with AI. This AI hell is a new phenomenon in the past 10 years and it's purely driven by cost-cutting.
- sofixa 4y ago
  Businesses throughout history haven't had to deal with anonymous global customer bases that could be automated.
- Avamander 4y ago
  > Businesses throughout history have been sustainable without needing to ban people at random with AI. When the cost of abuse lowers, so must the cost of defense. So of course cost-cutting has to happen. Otherwise it's going to be a financial DoS. All that is though only if you want services to have free tiers. If you're willing to pay for everything then sure, it becomes easier. I'm actually quite certain one will encounter much less "AI" when stuff is actually being paid for.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tyingq 4y ago
    Then they should automate a way for the domain owner to transfer the domain out when they decide they don't want your business. There's no reasonable excuse to hold a domain hostage. Their registrar is also not free.
  - ntoskrnl 4y ago
    You do have a point about the free tiers. I try to pay for things where I can, for example I'm a happy Fastmail user (and you should be too!) But paying for things is still no guarantee, see also: the OP. Google and Discord are both infamous for this. They treat paying users and free users the same. eBay charges for their service too, and I had a ~15 year old account banned. Why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you've been collecting my money for the past 15 years, can't you spare 5 minutes to sanity check your AI? I guess besides free users, the other exception is payment processors. I don't envy Stripe or PayPal.
cfsucks 4y ago
This isn't "make you put in more effort". The customer put in more effort when they reached out to Cloudflare (because Cloudflare didn't even bother to send them an automated email). This is "you have no recourse unless you happen to get popular on the Internet or know someone".