4 ms·

> when we manually verified an account to be a scammer This makes all the difference with other services that block out users only to let them guess why they

• jjoonathan 4y ago
  Yes, although I would add an attention threshold too, as it's not entirely unknown for hired manual review to just spam the "guilty" button so they can get to lunch. In any case: your false positive rate needs to be massively low if you want to be a massive asshole to the people it flags -- or else you are just an asshole. If you can afford to get the FPR down, sure, have fun, but if not, please have the decency to not pretend.
  • leshenka 4y ago
    You can implement a jury trial system - have a pool of moderators, select a few at random and have them look at the account, only flagging it if there is a consensus that it’s a scam account
    • SQueeeeeL 4y ago
      That scale doesn't really work for small startups
• vanviegen 4y ago
  Admittedly, there is the occasional false positive. For such cases, we display an email address right underneath the error message. Scammers rarely dare to complain, and when they do, they are usually not very convincing.
  • jjoonathan 4y ago
    These humane touches make all the difference. Thanks for taking the time.