4 ms·

He goes into detail: > It’s the “after careful review” line that has me riled up tbh. I can understand why an automated system suspended it. Don’t lie to me!

He goes into detail: > It’s the “after careful review” line that has me riled up tbh. I can understand why an automated system suspended it. Don’t lie to me! -- https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/1583063313948499969 https://twitter.com/benthompson/status/1583063313948499969 And yeah, I have to agree. I absolutely hate it when providers (shipping companies are great at this) tell me obvious lies. Hey, I can handle issues and problems. What I can’t handle are lies.

themitigating 4y ago
I'm confused about what he means. "After careful review" means that a human double checked it right?
- BenjiWiebe 4y ago
  It should mean that, but apparently doesn't mean that. Hence getting riled up.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Yes, that's what that means. He's upset because a human didn't actually double check it, so Twitter is lying by saying that.
  - TheCapn 4y ago
    I went through an entire ban appeal process with Electronic Arts over my Apex Legends account and was treated similarly. According to one EA Forum Moderator, there are actual people reviewing appeals, but the fact that they upheld my ban saying it was correct only to revert it 2 weeks after I stopped fighting them tells me their process is flawed. My best guess is bans are handed out automatically based on whatever heuristic, but the human review merely checks the log generated by the automated system for rudimentary errors. Was my account the one flagged and not a different user by mistake? Yes. Ban upheld. (except not, when they gave my account back with no apology)
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      This is indeed how it works at the first line. “Was my account banned in error” is answered by checking “yes right here in the logs it says your account was flagged for Foo.”
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > I'm confused about what he means. "After careful review" means that a human double checked it right? I think he's angry that didn't actually carefully review anything. Which probably means "careful" is one of those words that sounds positive but is legally meaningless, so corporations will abuse it shamelessly for propaganda purposes.
  - danso 4y ago
    Can we know for sure that they "didn't actually carefully review anything"? Likely thousands of accounts are auto-flagged every minute(second?), and for permanent suspension (as opposed to the much more common "locked because of suspicious automated activity/bad tweet"), maybe there's a process in which a report listing the suspicious signals is glanced at by a human auditor. I'm talking like seconds of review, e.g. the report says "In 5 minute span, account tweeted from a known U.S. AWS server and a Europe AWS server, etc. etc. Confirm suspension", and the human clicks "Confirm" and moves on to the next hundred reports to "review"
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Can we know for sure that they "didn't actually carefully review anything"? We can't, but that's part of the propaganda game. > ...maybe there's a process in which a report listing the suspicious signals is glanced at by a human auditor. > I'm talking like seconds of review, e.g. the report says "In 5 minute span, account tweeted from a known U.S. AWS server and a Europe AWS server, etc. etc. Confirm suspension", and the human clicks "Confirm" and moves on to the next hundred reports to "review" That's actually a good example of not being careful.
- mritchie712 4y ago
  "After careful review" *implies* a human checked it. His beef is that it's quite unlikely a human actually reviewed it.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > "After careful review" implies a human checked it. His beef is that it's quite unlikely a human actually reviewed it. Not just that a human checked it, but a human carefully checked it. Humans are so often quick and/or sloppy that the word careful was needed even before the invention of computers.
jorams 4y ago
Looking at the account, I don't see why it would be a lie in this case, or why the account shouldn't have been suspended after manual review. It posted 75 tweets in 26 minutes, self-admittedly "from multiple locations around the world.". All of those tweets link to an external website. It's spam, so the account got suspended for posting spam. The fact that it was posted by Ben Thompson doesn't change the fact that it's spam. We can complain about automated moderation processes that make obvious mistakes all day, because it keeps happening, but this case doesn't look like an example of it.
- lapcat 4y ago
  Would you say https://twitter.com/daringfireball https://twitter.com/daringfireball or https://twitter.com/thetalkshow https://twitter.com/thetalkshow are spam? Should they be suspended too? The account did not violate Twitter rules in any way. It wasn't sending replies. It wasn't retweeting other accounts. It wasn't liking other accounts. It wasn't interacting with other accounts in any way. Should there be no accounts on Twitter that have a list of episodes of a program? People follow these accounts because they want to be notified of new episodes. It's not spam, it's a service. I tweet links to my blog posts on my Twitter account. Should I be suspended? What's wrong with external links?
  - rchaud 4y ago
    The account in question posted 76 tweets in under 30 mins. Have you posted with this level of frequency, from different IPs? You may not need to worry if you have not.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Have you posted with this level of frequency, from different IPs? I don't know, maybe? I tend to tweet along with Apple keynotes, for example. My IP changes whenever I switch from wifi to cellular.
      - danso 4y ago

themitigating 4y ago

I'm confused about what he means. "After careful review" means that a human double checked it right?

BenjiWiebe 4y ago
It should mean that, but apparently doesn't mean that. Hence getting riled up.
josephcsible 4y ago
Yes, that's what that means. He's upset because a human didn't actually double check it, so Twitter is lying by saying that.
- TheCapn 4y ago
  I went through an entire ban appeal process with Electronic Arts over my Apex Legends account and was treated similarly. According to one EA Forum Moderator, there are actual people reviewing appeals, but the fact that they upheld my ban saying it was correct only to revert it 2 weeks after I stopped fighting them tells me their process is flawed. My best guess is bans are handed out automatically based on whatever heuristic, but the human review merely checks the log generated by the automated system for rudimentary errors. Was my account the one flagged and not a different user by mistake? Yes. Ban upheld. (except not, when they gave my account back with no apology)
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    This is indeed how it works at the first line. “Was my account banned in error” is answered by checking “yes right here in the logs it says your account was flagged for Foo.”
tablespoon 4y ago
> I'm confused about what he means. "After careful review" means that a human double checked it right? I think he's angry that didn't actually carefully review anything. Which probably means "careful" is one of those words that sounds positive but is legally meaningless, so corporations will abuse it shamelessly for propaganda purposes.
- danso 4y ago
  Can we know for sure that they "didn't actually carefully review anything"? Likely thousands of accounts are auto-flagged every minute(second?), and for permanent suspension (as opposed to the much more common "locked because of suspicious automated activity/bad tweet"), maybe there's a process in which a report listing the suspicious signals is glanced at by a human auditor. I'm talking like seconds of review, e.g. the report says "In 5 minute span, account tweeted from a known U.S. AWS server and a Europe AWS server, etc. etc. Confirm suspension", and the human clicks "Confirm" and moves on to the next hundred reports to "review"
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Can we know for sure that they "didn't actually carefully review anything"? We can't, but that's part of the propaganda game. > ...maybe there's a process in which a report listing the suspicious signals is glanced at by a human auditor. > I'm talking like seconds of review, e.g. the report says "In 5 minute span, account tweeted from a known U.S. AWS server and a Europe AWS server, etc. etc. Confirm suspension", and the human clicks "Confirm" and moves on to the next hundred reports to "review" That's actually a good example of not being careful.
mritchie712 4y ago
"After careful review" *implies* a human checked it. His beef is that it's quite unlikely a human actually reviewed it.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > "After careful review" implies a human checked it. His beef is that it's quite unlikely a human actually reviewed it. Not just that a human checked it, but a human carefully checked it. Humans are so often quick and/or sloppy that the word careful was needed even before the invention of computers.

jorams 4y ago

Looking at the account, I don't see why it would be a lie in this case, or why the account shouldn't have been suspended after manual review. It posted 75 tweets in 26 minutes, self-admittedly "from multiple locations around the world.". All of those tweets link to an external website. It's spam, so the account got suspended for posting spam. The fact that it was posted by Ben Thompson doesn't change the fact that it's spam. We can complain about automated moderation processes that make obvious mistakes all day, because it keeps happening, but this case doesn't look like an example of it.

lapcat 4y ago
Would you say https://twitter.com/daringfireball https://twitter.com/daringfireball or https://twitter.com/thetalkshow https://twitter.com/thetalkshow are spam? Should they be suspended too? The account did not violate Twitter rules in any way. It wasn't sending replies. It wasn't retweeting other accounts. It wasn't liking other accounts. It wasn't interacting with other accounts in any way. Should there be no accounts on Twitter that have a list of episodes of a program? People follow these accounts because they want to be notified of new episodes. It's not spam, it's a service. I tweet links to my blog posts on my Twitter account. Should I be suspended? What's wrong with external links?
- rchaud 4y ago
  The account in question posted 76 tweets in under 30 mins. Have you posted with this level of frequency, from different IPs? You may not need to worry if you have not.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Have you posted with this level of frequency, from different IPs? I don't know, maybe? I tend to tweet along with Apple keynotes, for example. My IP changes whenever I switch from wifi to cellular.
    - danso 4y ago