5 ms·

I don't get this. Why not pay an employee to take a few hours, ask a person from the necessary team to take a look, then call or write the complainant? That -

I don't get this. Why not pay an employee to take a few hours, ask a person from the necessary team to take a look, then call or write the complainant? That -has- to be cheaper than getting all these lawyers involved over what was probably, as the article states, a glitch of some sort.

ayoubd 3y ago
Agreed, it seems like a disproportionate response. Handling the situation quietly when the court case was filed might have avoided this bad-for-Meta legal precedent. Taking it to trial seems like the most risky move, I'm interested if anyone can see Meta's legal logic here.
- cube00 3y ago
  Lawyers don't get paid if the issue is resolved internally by support teams.
  - OkGoDoIt 3y ago
    That’s assuming Meta has support teams. I’ve yet to see evidence of that. I once had to solve a Facebook business page issue that went unanswered for a year, and the only way I got it moving was to send a legal threat to Meta on a lawyer’s letterhead. Ended up solving the problem with a couple weeks.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  Did they assume they would win?
teeray 3y ago
That’s assuming you can even contact the necessary team. Usually your only recourse with FB is clicking through a support wizard and filling out a textbox. Then you get a final, unappealable judgement from an admin as a notification.
- dylan604 3y ago
  I'm reading as why did Meta not pay its employees internally to resolve this matter instead of paying attorneys to litigate this case. The assumption being that an employee is already on the payroll so just give them an assignment instead of giving money to lawyers. I'm guessing their arrogance told them they'd never lose the case and it would be worth it to set precedence. Only it might have backfired
  - teeray 3y ago
    Ah, I think your reading is more correct. Thanks for clarifying :)
  - reactordev 3y ago
    Because Meta’s support system is entirely run by automation. By bots. There’s no human. No one knew, no one noticed, no one cared.
    - pxeboot 3y ago
      Once served with a lawsuit, most companies don't continue to rely on their publicly accessible support system.
      - reactordev 3y ago
        Exactly, in comes through a separate channel (lawyers) and then actually is dealt with.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      such a cop out answer. someone wrote that bot. someone can investigate logs to see what the bot did. some PM is in charge of the people that wrote the bots. their bonuses are dependent on good reviews. anyone writing automation that doesn't leave a trail to follow wouldn't be worth much. no logging is an amateur move or the move of a guilty party. hopefully, the next case will have lawyers instead of some small shop owner fighting for their life. the lawyer might be able to convince a judge these logs need to be turned over. all i'm seeing from the work this small business owner did with this case was to find where the loose string in the sweater is. we now just need the right people to start pulling on that string.
foobarian 3y ago
It's not apples to apples. You need to pay an employee to take a few hours to handle one complaint, multiplied by number of complaints. And this is more expensive than paying lawyers a much smaller number of times.
gumby 3y ago
I assume lots of glitches occur (after all they "move fast and break things") and feel if they engage with one they'll be required to engage with others. While if they just spend the effort to stonewall the few who complain they'll save money in the long run. They have billions of accounts, so what's a few to them?
reactordev 3y ago
Meta’s help support is a bot. Theres no human. You can’t reach a human. The only recourse you have is what this man did.
- jfoster 3y ago
  I initially read it the way you did, but OP means from Meta's side once they have received notice of legal action being initiated.
irrational 3y ago
I’ve worked for the same Fortune 500 company for 20+ years. 99% of the time I have zero idea what team does what and whom I would even talk to find out. With nearly 100,000 employees and I have no idea how many thousands of departments and teams, I don’t think anyone really has the big picture of what everyone is doing.
- kiba 3y ago
  It sounds like there's a job for people who knows the bird eye's view as well as the ground truth of an organization.
  - wizardforhire 3y ago
    Thats crazy talk, what would such a role even be called?
    - danielheath 3y ago
      They used to be called Architects, but over time that name came to be associated with losing track of the ground truth.
      - kibibu 3y ago
        Easy mistake to make, but architects design building.
    - tracker1 3y ago
      If it were like a military thing. They'd likely be an officer, maybe even a chief of some kind.
      - irrational 3y ago
        I’m just imagining going up to somebody in the c-suite and telling them what team I work for and what I do. I guarantee they would have no idea we exist. I once sat next to the manager who is three levels above me at a lunch meeting. She had zero idea who my team was or what we did.
eek2121 3y ago
Big tech companies don't get big and stay big by hiring tons of humans to handle cases like these. Don't believe me? Try asking Google to fix a problem or Facebook or Twitter. (Apple is the exception, but they are much older and even they have issues)
aurareturn 3y ago
Because Meta has billions of users and they don’t have humans look at these cases. It’s all automated. I lost my IG account multiple times due to using a VPN. I’m a normal user. Nothing malicious. Every support request is answered by only a robot.
rdtsc 3y ago
Once "legal" starts looking at it, it's in their hands, everyone except them and the executive team better step aside. > In court, Soldati said Facebook attorneys were condescending and patronizing to him, but he took it seriously because it was his livelihood and because he thought that someone needed to fight them. He says it was “100%” worth it. Condescending and patronizing sounds about right. "We went to Yale and Harvard, and now work for Meta, no puny coffee shop owner is going to oppose us! This should be a walk in the park". It's pretty glorious how they lost.
hackernewds 3y ago
if you consider the scale of Meta, being international and all, it probably is not. I'm sure they've run the numbers. Think in expected values, since most won't sue.

ayoubd 3y ago

Agreed, it seems like a disproportionate response. Handling the situation quietly when the court case was filed might have avoided this bad-for-Meta legal precedent. Taking it to trial seems like the most risky move, I'm interested if anyone can see Meta's legal logic here.

cube00 3y ago
Lawyers don't get paid if the issue is resolved internally by support teams.
- OkGoDoIt 3y ago
  That’s assuming Meta has support teams. I’ve yet to see evidence of that. I once had to solve a Facebook business page issue that went unanswered for a year, and the only way I got it moving was to send a legal threat to Meta on a lawyer’s letterhead. Ended up solving the problem with a couple weeks.
nerdponx 3y ago
Did they assume they would win?

teeray 3y ago

That’s assuming you can even contact the necessary team. Usually your only recourse with FB is clicking through a support wizard and filling out a textbox. Then you get a final, unappealable judgement from an admin as a notification.

dylan604 3y ago
I'm reading as why did Meta not pay its employees internally to resolve this matter instead of paying attorneys to litigate this case. The assumption being that an employee is already on the payroll so just give them an assignment instead of giving money to lawyers. I'm guessing their arrogance told them they'd never lose the case and it would be worth it to set precedence. Only it might have backfired
- teeray 3y ago
  Ah, I think your reading is more correct. Thanks for clarifying :)
- reactordev 3y ago
  Because Meta’s support system is entirely run by automation. By bots. There’s no human. No one knew, no one noticed, no one cared.
  - pxeboot 3y ago
    Once served with a lawsuit, most companies don't continue to rely on their publicly accessible support system.
    - reactordev 3y ago
      Exactly, in comes through a separate channel (lawyers) and then actually is dealt with.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    such a cop out answer. someone wrote that bot. someone can investigate logs to see what the bot did. some PM is in charge of the people that wrote the bots. their bonuses are dependent on good reviews. anyone writing automation that doesn't leave a trail to follow wouldn't be worth much. no logging is an amateur move or the move of a guilty party. hopefully, the next case will have lawyers instead of some small shop owner fighting for their life. the lawyer might be able to convince a judge these logs need to be turned over. all i'm seeing from the work this small business owner did with this case was to find where the loose string in the sweater is. we now just need the right people to start pulling on that string.

foobarian 3y ago

It's not apples to apples. You need to pay an employee to take a few hours to handle one complaint, multiplied by number of complaints. And this is more expensive than paying lawyers a much smaller number of times.

gumby 3y ago

I assume lots of glitches occur (after all they "move fast and break things") and feel if they engage with one they'll be required to engage with others. While if they just spend the effort to stonewall the few who complain they'll save money in the long run. They have billions of accounts, so what's a few to them?

reactordev 3y ago

Meta’s help support is a bot. Theres no human. You can’t reach a human. The only recourse you have is what this man did.

jfoster 3y ago
I initially read it the way you did, but OP means from Meta's side once they have received notice of legal action being initiated.

irrational 3y ago

I’ve worked for the same Fortune 500 company for 20+ years. 99% of the time I have zero idea what team does what and whom I would even talk to find out. With nearly 100,000 employees and I have no idea how many thousands of departments and teams, I don’t think anyone really has the big picture of what everyone is doing.

kiba 3y ago
It sounds like there's a job for people who knows the bird eye's view as well as the ground truth of an organization.
- wizardforhire 3y ago
  Thats crazy talk, what would such a role even be called?
  - danielheath 3y ago
    They used to be called Architects, but over time that name came to be associated with losing track of the ground truth.
    - kibibu 3y ago
      Easy mistake to make, but architects design building.
  - tracker1 3y ago
    If it were like a military thing. They'd likely be an officer, maybe even a chief of some kind.
    - irrational 3y ago
      I’m just imagining going up to somebody in the c-suite and telling them what team I work for and what I do. I guarantee they would have no idea we exist. I once sat next to the manager who is three levels above me at a lunch meeting. She had zero idea who my team was or what we did.

eek2121 3y ago

Big tech companies don't get big and stay big by hiring tons of humans to handle cases like these. Don't believe me? Try asking Google to fix a problem or Facebook or Twitter. (Apple is the exception, but they are much older and even they have issues)

aurareturn 3y ago

Because Meta has billions of users and they don’t have humans look at these cases. It’s all automated. I lost my IG account multiple times due to using a VPN. I’m a normal user. Nothing malicious. Every support request is answered by only a robot.

rdtsc 3y ago

Once "legal" starts looking at it, it's in their hands, everyone except them and the executive team better step aside. > In court, Soldati said Facebook attorneys were condescending and patronizing to him, but he took it seriously because it was his livelihood and because he thought that someone needed to fight them. He says it was “100%” worth it. Condescending and patronizing sounds about right. "We went to Yale and Harvard, and now work for Meta, no puny coffee shop owner is going to oppose us! This should be a walk in the park". It's pretty glorious how they lost.

hackernewds 3y ago

if you consider the scale of Meta, being international and all, it probably is not. I'm sure they've run the numbers. Think in expected values, since most won't sue.