4 ms·
> 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. > U
by 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.