3 ms·

> I say this in a derogatory fashion You're not supposed to do that here. > The reason you're insta-banned is that you didn't "engage" with it properly I was

by lapcat 3y ago

> I say this in a derogatory fashion You're not supposed to do that here. > The reason you're insta-banned is that you didn't "engage" with it properly I was literally in the process of signing up. How else was I supposed to "engage"? > Facebook does not want technically-savvy people How would they even know? Like I said, I hadn't even finished signing up yet.

adra 3y ago
My guess is that you signed up through a VPN, and this is an anti-bot automated system. I'm not a meta employee, just speculating. Remember, VPNs are the collective abuse of all of their users, not just you; same with public access networks.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > My guess is that you signed up through a VPN Your guess is wrong. I don't use any VPN. Why is everyone trying to find reasons to blame the victims?
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    I have noticed that after I get banned from Reddit for idiotic reasons, the accounts I create through VPN get silently blocked on a lot of subreddits, while the account that got created from home ISP had that problem less so. It's not victim blaming, just a fact that some sites punish VPN users.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > Why is everyone trying to find reasons to blame the victims? Not OP but I'm not blaming the victim. I'm just trying to explain the reasons why the situation is like that and suggested (regulatory) solutions - the only solutions that would actually work.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      You are blaming the victim: > there's something about your software stack and/or behavior that makes you "naughty" in the eyes of Facebook. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38913992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38913992 In any case, your assumptions come with zero empirical evidence. It's just wild speculation, grasping at straws, looking for a "good reason" for Instagram to charge me with a completely unwarranted ToS violation. We all know that is a blatant lie.
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        I'm just explaining the truth. I'm not saying it should be considered OK - we should absolutely look down on the behavior and look for solutions to discourage it. Obviously without looking at the code behind it I can only speculate, but I think my speculation agrees pretty well with their business model and why they might choose to ban people whose analytics data (or lack thereof) matches yours. In fact, it's indeed not a ban, since you can appeal it by providing extra personal data - the concept of "bullshit ban -> provide personal info for security -> automatic unban" procedure is routine nowadays, pioneered by Twitter. > charge me with a completely unwarranted ToS violation I'm not defending their claim - we all know "ToS violation" has been bullshit since the dawn of startups. It's the generic "unhandled exception"/500 error equivalent of the software world.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > I'm just explaining the truth. > Obviously without looking at the code behind it I can only speculate It's funny how you can say these two contradictory things right next to each other. > the concept of "bullshit ban -> provide personal info for security -> automatic unban" procedure is routine nowadays, pioneered by Twitter. I already said this in my original comment: "Twitter used to auto-ban me too in order to extract my phone number, and we know that Twitter illegitimately used phone numbers for advertising purposes." So there's no need to speculate about my "software stack and/or behavior" that somehow makes me "naughty". The only naughty one is Meta itself, attempting to extract my personal information.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Why is everyone trying to find reasons to blame the victims? Victims of what?
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Social network auto-banning
Nextgrid 3y ago
> You're not supposed to do that here. To be clear I'm not talking about you but about the concept of it "you are not the target market", as if it's something we should consider socially acceptable. I've seen this used as a serious response to legitimize some nefarious/user-hostile behavior which is what I'm "derogatory" about. We should look down on business models that depend on users being clueless and accepting of corporate abuse/malicious behavior and I've provided examples of solutions that could achieve that. > How else was I supposed to "engage"? Presumably you're running an ad-blocker or privacy-friendly stack. Or merely willing to use the product by signing up and setting up your account first rather than being nagged into signing up after trying to access loginwalled content. Or maybe you are privacy-conscious and the email/number you provided isn't in any contact databases that Facebook has stolen over the years from unsuspecting users (aka you used a separate email/number from the one you give out to real people). > How would they even know? Like I said, I hadn't even finished signing up yet. See above - there's something about your software stack and/or behavior that makes you "naughty" in the eyes of Facebook. Just behaving like a power-user and not taking 10 minutes peck-typing your details in the various forms can be enough if at scale such behavior was correlated with what Facebook deems "naughty".

by lapcat 3y ago

adra 3y ago

My guess is that you signed up through a VPN, and this is an anti-bot automated system. I'm not a meta employee, just speculating. Remember, VPNs are the collective abuse of all of their users, not just you; same with public access networks.

lapcat 3y ago
> My guess is that you signed up through a VPN Your guess is wrong. I don't use any VPN. Why is everyone trying to find reasons to blame the victims?
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  I have noticed that after I get banned from Reddit for idiotic reasons, the accounts I create through VPN get silently blocked on a lot of subreddits, while the account that got created from home ISP had that problem less so. It's not victim blaming, just a fact that some sites punish VPN users.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > Why is everyone trying to find reasons to blame the victims? Not OP but I'm not blaming the victim. I'm just trying to explain the reasons why the situation is like that and suggested (regulatory) solutions - the only solutions that would actually work.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    You are blaming the victim: > there's something about your software stack and/or behavior that makes you "naughty" in the eyes of Facebook. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38913992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38913992 In any case, your assumptions come with zero empirical evidence. It's just wild speculation, grasping at straws, looking for a "good reason" for Instagram to charge me with a completely unwarranted ToS violation. We all know that is a blatant lie.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      I'm just explaining the truth. I'm not saying it should be considered OK - we should absolutely look down on the behavior and look for solutions to discourage it. Obviously without looking at the code behind it I can only speculate, but I think my speculation agrees pretty well with their business model and why they might choose to ban people whose analytics data (or lack thereof) matches yours. In fact, it's indeed not a ban, since you can appeal it by providing extra personal data - the concept of "bullshit ban -> provide personal info for security -> automatic unban" procedure is routine nowadays, pioneered by Twitter. > charge me with a completely unwarranted ToS violation I'm not defending their claim - we all know "ToS violation" has been bullshit since the dawn of startups. It's the generic "unhandled exception"/500 error equivalent of the software world.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > I'm just explaining the truth. > Obviously without looking at the code behind it I can only speculate It's funny how you can say these two contradictory things right next to each other. > the concept of "bullshit ban -> provide personal info for security -> automatic unban" procedure is routine nowadays, pioneered by Twitter. I already said this in my original comment: "Twitter used to auto-ban me too in order to extract my phone number, and we know that Twitter illegitimately used phone numbers for advertising purposes." So there's no need to speculate about my "software stack and/or behavior" that somehow makes me "naughty". The only naughty one is Meta itself, attempting to extract my personal information.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Why is everyone trying to find reasons to blame the victims? Victims of what?
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Social network auto-banning

Nextgrid 3y ago

> You're not supposed to do that here. To be clear I'm not talking about you but about the concept of it "you are not the target market", as if it's something we should consider socially acceptable. I've seen this used as a serious response to legitimize some nefarious/user-hostile behavior which is what I'm "derogatory" about. We should look down on business models that depend on users being clueless and accepting of corporate abuse/malicious behavior and I've provided examples of solutions that could achieve that. > How else was I supposed to "engage"? Presumably you're running an ad-blocker or privacy-friendly stack. Or merely willing to use the product by signing up and setting up your account first rather than being nagged into signing up after trying to access loginwalled content. Or maybe you are privacy-conscious and the email/number you provided isn't in any contact databases that Facebook has stolen over the years from unsuspecting users (aka you used a separate email/number from the one you give out to real people). > How would they even know? Like I said, I hadn't even finished signing up yet. See above - there's something about your software stack and/or behavior that makes you "naughty" in the eyes of Facebook. Just behaving like a power-user and not taking 10 minutes peck-typing your details in the various forms can be enough if at scale such behavior was correlated with what Facebook deems "naughty".