7 ms·

Or they could, you know, spend some of their billions on employing humans to review these cases.

dcanelhas 3y ago
Would that generate even more billions in revenue, though?
intended 3y ago
Meta does spend on humans to review cases though. Which is why it seems really strange that this was a lifetime ban, and so quickly at that. Maybe it didnt even get to human review?
- Hackbraten 3y ago
  According to one of the screenshots in the article, both the ban and the appeal were decided on by technology.
ilovetux 3y ago
But then where would all the money to burn on VR product pipe-dreams come from? /s
concordDance 3y ago
The spammers can produce far more cases than the humans can review. Welcome to the world of automation.
- bombcar 3y ago
  You can put review on a system requiring additional ID/information/escrow payment. A genuine business will be willing to put down some information and a cash payment for a review; spammers won’t have the time or resources. You run the risk of a perverse incentive to trigger it for revenue but make the fee refundable or something.
  - SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
    Can you? I don't know that I've seen anyone try, but I would expect the PR blowback for "pay us $1 to appeal" to be worse than "you're just not allowed to appeal".
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      This is b2b, so it probably wouldn't really have that much PR. Besides, I think for modern society, paying $1 rather than presenting your government ID is an easier ask. There's a few easy checks to prevent perverse incentives: 1. promise (yeah, an impossible task already) a human will review your appeal 2. if the strike was a false positive, refund that appeal cost.
- pdimitar 3y ago
  This is a solved problem for a long time now: require upfront payment, even if it's just $1.00. Many website owners have reported that this has killed 95% to 99% of all spam they were receiving. Genuine business wouldn't mind paying their $970 bill by first paying $1 and then paying $969.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    me looks at twitter blue bots

Would that generate even more billions in revenue, though?

Meta does spend on humans to review cases though. Which is why it seems really strange that this was a lifetime ban, and so quickly at that. Maybe it didnt even get to human review?

Hackbraten 3y ago
According to one of the screenshots in the article, both the ban and the appeal were decided on by technology.

ilovetux 3y ago

But then where would all the money to burn on VR product pipe-dreams come from? /s

concordDance 3y ago

The spammers can produce far more cases than the humans can review. Welcome to the world of automation.

bombcar 3y ago
You can put review on a system requiring additional ID/information/escrow payment. A genuine business will be willing to put down some information and a cash payment for a review; spammers won’t have the time or resources. You run the risk of a perverse incentive to trigger it for revenue but make the fee refundable or something.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  Can you? I don't know that I've seen anyone try, but I would expect the PR blowback for "pay us $1 to appeal" to be worse than "you're just not allowed to appeal".
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    This is b2b, so it probably wouldn't really have that much PR. Besides, I think for modern society, paying $1 rather than presenting your government ID is an easier ask. There's a few easy checks to prevent perverse incentives: 1. promise (yeah, an impossible task already) a human will review your appeal 2. if the strike was a false positive, refund that appeal cost.
pdimitar 3y ago
This is a solved problem for a long time now: require upfront payment, even if it's just $1.00. Many website owners have reported that this has killed 95% to 99% of all spam they were receiving. Genuine business wouldn't mind paying their $970 bill by first paying $1 and then paying $969.
- concordDance 3y ago
  me looks at twitter blue bots