4 ms·
What I find most frustrating about this is that they straight up lie to you. They don't actually review your account and the ban isn't permanent. The minute peo
by zmmmmm 3y ago
What I find most frustrating about this is that they straight up lie to you. They don't actually review your account and the ban isn't permanent. The minute people in this situation get through to a human (one with any autonomy, anyway) the ban gets reversed. So it's all about the cost and efficiency and convenience for Facebook/Meta.
I definitely think there need to be laws made about this. Because it's really clear that the market has no power to correct this behaviour - yet it can be utterly devastating to individuals when they have life long bans put in place on what are (whether you like it or not) pretty much essential online services.
- RugnirViking 3y agoThere exist laws about this, which provide a market solution. It's just that everybody has their fingers in their ears yelling about how big tech aren't monopolies so the existing laws aren't being applied. In an actual competetive environment, you would go to the next door buisness that didn't arbritrarily ban you/has actual people in their customer service...
- shortrounddev2 3y agoThere exists dozens if not hundreds of programmatic advertising companies you can go to to show banner ads, not to mention Google
- pc86 3y agoHow many of those let you advertise to 3 billion MAUs on Facebook, on Facebook?
- jessriedel 3y agoBut why is it not in Meta's interest to have a human take a quick look at this? Or ask the user to pay for a human review? How much can it cost, in human time? $20?
- smsm42 3y agoThey don't have enough human moderators to be able to handle it, and they don't want to hire more. You can't hire a moderator just for an hour - you'd have to recruit them, train them, continuously employ them, manage them, provide them benefits, etc. - it'd make an amortized per-review cost likely way higher than $20.
- jessriedel 3y agoObviously the moderators would be working full time. I don't know why it takes more than $20 of time to review this case and see that a classification mistake was made.