4 ms·

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 i

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.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > It's funny how you can say these two contradictory things right next to each other. Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree on that one. I will happily eat crow if it turns out not to be the truth should there be an eventual source code/internal email leak. Keep in mind that a lot of leaks have already confirmed tech company malicious behaviors that was endlessly speculated on in the past and that it felt too blatant to be true and yet ended up true. > my "software stack and/or behavior" that somehow makes me "naughty" Not everyone gets these bans though. If your software stack or behavior allowed them to correlate you with the existing shadow profile they have on you they'll most likely let you pass and not need to bullshit-ban you since they already got your data. > The only naughty one is Meta itself Oh yeah absolutely - I always meant naughty in the eyes of Facebook, which is true. In fact you are the opposite of naughty - getting one of these bullshit bans actually suggests your online behavior is on point since Facebook couldn't just infer your personal data from tracking and instead has to force you to provide it.

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.

Nextgrid 3y ago
> It's funny how you can say these two contradictory things right next to each other. Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree on that one. I will happily eat crow if it turns out not to be the truth should there be an eventual source code/internal email leak. Keep in mind that a lot of leaks have already confirmed tech company malicious behaviors that was endlessly speculated on in the past and that it felt too blatant to be true and yet ended up true. > my "software stack and/or behavior" that somehow makes me "naughty" Not everyone gets these bans though. If your software stack or behavior allowed them to correlate you with the existing shadow profile they have on you they'll most likely let you pass and not need to bullshit-ban you since they already got your data. > The only naughty one is Meta itself Oh yeah absolutely - I always meant naughty in the eyes of Facebook, which is true. In fact you are the opposite of naughty - getting one of these bullshit bans actually suggests your online behavior is on point since Facebook couldn't just infer your personal data from tracking and instead has to force you to provide it.