5 ms·

Whilst I don't agree with the opaqueness policy, I understand why it's in place. It's because it leaves them at risk of using previous precise answers to other

Whilst I don't agree with the opaqueness policy, I understand why it's in place. It's because it leaves them at risk of using previous precise answers to others as precedents for future cases. Being opaque allows them to not be too committed, and outside of situations like "but you accepted XYZ app which does exactly the same, I don't understand" You can still claim XYZ app does what you did and didn't get punished by that, but they can never admit it in paper/words.

stevenkkim 4y ago
Yeah, I think this is probably the right answer. I once worked on an iOS app that took about 5 cycles of "guess what's wrong?" -> submission -> rejection before we got it to pass. Each time, we asked "Can you just please tell us what to fix?" and each time the answer was "refer to rule x." So frustrating.
MBCook 4y ago
There is also the intent vs letter issue. Scammers will try to skirt rules by making sure to adhere to the letter of the law, even if it’s plainly obvious they are violating the intent of the rule in question. Rule 407b: no real money gambling apps Scammers: it’s not real money. It’s Linden Dollars. Or our company script. Or our new NFTs. You can’t reject us. Should the rule have to list out every single thing that could possibly used as currency? Because there are people who will argue that point.
- three_seagrass 4y ago
  Yep, anti-fraud and anti-scam is an exercise in game theory. The more explicit you are with the rules, the more specific bad actors will try to weave around them. It sucks because it means the scalable, machine-assisted review process comes up with more false positives, but it's a two sided market and the marketplace owners care more about the users than the devs. I feel like the U.S. tax code is a good example of when you try to go more explicit with the rules.
mkmk3 4y ago
Maybe theres a way to functionally build up towards the same destination by collecting feedback and accepted changes. I don't know how that integrates with law, but is there something that influences the legal implications beyond what this kind of system would cover (provided a sufficient number of samples)?
np- 4y ago
Isn’t that unethical though? Preserving the right to make arbitrary decisions and favor some people over others? Most of the entire human history of conflict seems to be because of this reason of arbitrary unfairness.
- lazide 4y ago
  That isn't ethics, IMO. What you're referring to is the application of power, and their retention of arbitrary power, specifically. Ethics is if they used that power for abuse or an unethical goal, or to acquire an even larger amount of arbitrary power. Pragmatically, it's their app store, and they need to retain a non-trivial amount of power to police it. It's a requirement of ownership. If they don't do so, it will devolve to an even worse garbage dump, and rather quickly. We're of course going to complain about inexplicable rulings, things we don't agree with, etc. but that doesn't change the equation unless they get so obnoxious that other places are more attractive or it violates some law.
  - radu_floricica 4y ago
    Isn't that just ethics at a higher level? If their goal is to create the most value in the world with the minimum harm, that's pretty much what they'd be doing - considering their resources are limited. For the one in 100k poor guy who got on the bad side of the AI this seems like a raw deal, but if you tweaked the system to avoid it, you'd probably end up with something 5 times as expensive and 10 times as slow. Queues of weeks to get your app approved kind of slow.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Keep in mind, the behavior we’re seeing doesn’t require AI. All it requires is a bunch of poorly trained employees (contractors?) whacking at buttons after reading a policy which is worded in broad terms.
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  They's no way they would treat random app equally to Facebook. It's unethical, but it's convenient for them.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
They want to be able bend/break their rules for AAAA apps. If those were publicly disclosed they could be called out for the hypocrisy and subject to regulatory intervention.

stevenkkim 4y ago

Yeah, I think this is probably the right answer. I once worked on an iOS app that took about 5 cycles of "guess what's wrong?" -> submission -> rejection before we got it to pass. Each time, we asked "Can you just please tell us what to fix?" and each time the answer was "refer to rule x." So frustrating.

MBCook 4y ago

There is also the intent vs letter issue. Scammers will try to skirt rules by making sure to adhere to the letter of the law, even if it’s plainly obvious they are violating the intent of the rule in question. Rule 407b: no real money gambling apps Scammers: it’s not real money. It’s Linden Dollars. Or our company script. Or our new NFTs. You can’t reject us. Should the rule have to list out every single thing that could possibly used as currency? Because there are people who will argue that point.

three_seagrass 4y ago
Yep, anti-fraud and anti-scam is an exercise in game theory. The more explicit you are with the rules, the more specific bad actors will try to weave around them. It sucks because it means the scalable, machine-assisted review process comes up with more false positives, but it's a two sided market and the marketplace owners care more about the users than the devs. I feel like the U.S. tax code is a good example of when you try to go more explicit with the rules.

mkmk3 4y ago

Maybe theres a way to functionally build up towards the same destination by collecting feedback and accepted changes. I don't know how that integrates with law, but is there something that influences the legal implications beyond what this kind of system would cover (provided a sufficient number of samples)?

np- 4y ago

Isn’t that unethical though? Preserving the right to make arbitrary decisions and favor some people over others? Most of the entire human history of conflict seems to be because of this reason of arbitrary unfairness.

lazide 4y ago
That isn't ethics, IMO. What you're referring to is the application of power, and their retention of arbitrary power, specifically. Ethics is if they used that power for abuse or an unethical goal, or to acquire an even larger amount of arbitrary power. Pragmatically, it's their app store, and they need to retain a non-trivial amount of power to police it. It's a requirement of ownership. If they don't do so, it will devolve to an even worse garbage dump, and rather quickly. We're of course going to complain about inexplicable rulings, things we don't agree with, etc. but that doesn't change the equation unless they get so obnoxious that other places are more attractive or it violates some law.
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  Isn't that just ethics at a higher level? If their goal is to create the most value in the world with the minimum harm, that's pretty much what they'd be doing - considering their resources are limited. For the one in 100k poor guy who got on the bad side of the AI this seems like a raw deal, but if you tweaked the system to avoid it, you'd probably end up with something 5 times as expensive and 10 times as slow. Queues of weeks to get your app approved kind of slow.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Keep in mind, the behavior we’re seeing doesn’t require AI. All it requires is a bunch of poorly trained employees (contractors?) whacking at buttons after reading a policy which is worded in broad terms.
vbezhenar 4y ago
They's no way they would treat random app equally to Facebook. It's unethical, but it's convenient for them.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

They want to be able bend/break their rules for AAAA apps. If those were publicly disclosed they could be called out for the hypocrisy and subject to regulatory intervention.