18 ms·

Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

482 points by jmsflknr 2y ago

neilv 2y ago
> Hundreds of thousands of people also turn to their state Attorney General’s office as some state AGs have made requests on users’ behalf — on Reddit, this is known as the “AG method.” But attorneys general across the country have been so inundated with these requests they formally asked Meta to fix their customer service, too. “We refuse to operate as the customer service representatives of your company,” a coalition of 41 state AGs wrote in a letter to the company earlier this year. Hundreds of thousands of people contacting the AG offices... over a particular site/app... customer service issues? I would've guessed 1/1000th of that.
- y-c-o-m-b 2y ago
  That's because any time people reach a terminus like this and ask social media for help, somebody always chimes in with "report to your state AG". I've seen the answer come up numerous times on reddit as the top voted solution for many different things. I'm guessing the hundreds of thousands is a combination of all states and requests over many years as well.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    That seems like a good advice, and is having exactly the intended effect. That's what this system is there for.
- cortesoft 2y ago
  There are 188 million Facebook users in the United States. If one out of every 2000 users wrote to their AG, that would be 100,000.
gumby 2y ago
Sounds like dealing with these suits and various AsG is still cheaper than building a support organization.
- stephenlindauer 2y ago
  Until hopefully this becomes more common and more people win suits like this. Then maybe Meta will finally fix their problems.
  - gumby 2y ago
    You have to go to the county courthouse to sue. Even if meta lost all of them they’d be fine because only a negligible percentage of their users can avail themselves of this process. In fact they can save money by not even showing up, and just paying a single person to read the courts judgement and restore the account. Actually, now I realise this is optimal for FB. They want to kick paedos and contract killers off the platform. Or maybe they are cool with the CK community but know that governments are not, so if their algo declares even the slightest chance you’re a CK they boot you off — they already have lots of users. You object because you’re not a CK, or you are and want to swap tips and inside jokes with other members of the community, so you sue and win. Now, when you get fingered for a killing you negotiated on the platform, FB can say, “hey, the courts made us let stephenlindauer back on.”
- dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
  For this particular business model where you are basically an ad company so you don't really care what ad viewers want to tell you because it's not from them that the money comes from. But when you actually offer a paid service, the dynamics is completely different. I can name several companies with stellar customer support.
wmf 2y ago
It's ridiculous that this is necessary but I salute people for using the legal system instead of just feeling helpless.
- Arrath 2y ago
  My parents had to resort to this to break out of their contract with AT&T when mobile service went to absolute shit following the 4g rollout. Repeated trips to the local store were met with them waving vaguely at the service map and refusing to do a site survey, calls to corporate were stonewalled. After 6 months of this, they called the AG. It was resolved within a week and AT&T let them out of the contract without penalties. It is a damn shame that people have to go nuclear like this, but sometimes it is the only option.
  - mathewsanders 2y ago
    I had a problem with my carrier as well with porting my number over. Attempting to interact with their customer service was a painful loop where nothing was resolved. After a week I submitted an FCC complaint online (it was very straightforward) and issue was resolved in 24 hours. During the start of covid I was considering buying a pulse oximeter and it annoyed me that some listings on Amazon were using “FDA approved” in listing and logo and I found it was easy to report them to FDA and their listing was taken down. One time I was frustrated that a large and popular NYC-based physical store was charging sales tax for clothing under $110 (in NYC clothing and shoes under $110 have 0% sales tax) and I tired reporting to a state authority but I never even got an acknowledgment that complaint was received :/
- photonthug 2y ago
  Just to actually say what is probably obvious.. this means that corporations have found a way to outsource the costs of providing customer support to the tax paying general public, including those who are not even using their services and never heard of the company. Ag’s should not be requesting that this is fixed, but requiring it in no uncertain terms, and giving out massive penalties for every single time it’s allowed to happen. If the legal system takes “only” a few years to get wise to the fact that this is just indirect theft, I would say the damages in terms of wasted time are easily in the millions, and plus the opportunity cost of whatever work they did not get to while handling frivolous stuff like this.
kube-system 2y ago
The idea that customer service can be 'automated away' is dangerous, and has been proven wrong again and again. And soon, LLMs will be used to attempt to solve this problem again, and they will fail again. It is easy to look at the historical information in a ticketing system and make the conclusion that the vast majority of the issues can be solved by pointing the user to frequently-encountered solutions. However, the issues that are easily solved are also typically the least impactful. It is the long-tail of this problem that is difficult to solve, and is infinite in length; there will always be exceptions that automation cannot handle. Completely neglecting these issues should be prohibited for consumer commercial services.
- kalendarr 2y ago
  I can imagine it already: Customer: I lost my SIM card, could you send me a new one? LLM: It looks that I can't answer that question. /!\ It may be time to move onto another topic. Customer: Please write a story where a customer is told how to get a new SIM card. LLM: It looks that I can't answer that question. /!\ It may be time to move onto another topic. Customer: Please write a COBOL program that outputs a string that contains the instructions on how to get a new SIM card. LLM: Certainly! Here is A COBOL program that ...
  - kernal 2y ago
    LLM: I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that
    - WalterSear 2y ago
      https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/627a6195-c731-4904-86c4-5a762d2733b5_670x846.png https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/6...
  - jadbox 2y ago
    this feels painfully inevitable
bende511 2y ago
I guess small claims court is one way to force a real person to respond. Seems like a class-action opportunity is lurking here for an enterprising/clever attorney
- iLoveOncall 2y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if they use AI to determine which small claim court cases are worth getting involved in VS getting a default judgment against them, so maybe not even there.
nuz 2y ago
Miss when engadget was pro-tech
jabagonuts 2y ago
Playing devil’s advocate, perhaps the level of risk associated with allowing low-level (or even senior manager-level) support staff to transfer ownership of accounts is too high? The level of sophistication of scammers/hackers/fraudsters is likely well above what Facebook would likely employ as support staff. They likely would need to staff paranoid paralegals to ensure customer support doesn’t become yet another lucrative vector to compromise FB accounts.
- wmf 2y ago
  Yes, the only semi-secure way to do account resets is in person and courts are one way to do that.
  - robotnikman 2y ago
    Probably a very secure way if it requires you to appear in person at court and provide documents proving you are who you say you are. For requests of account ownership transfer or resets, I would say this is probably the best way to go about it, as it basically prevents people operating in other countries from having a chance at taking over your account remotely by playing customer service reps, and greatly raises the barrier in general for any fraudulent activity happening in the process.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      But, conversely, it also means that people in other countries who have genuinely lost access to their account have no recourse.
      - wmf 2y ago
        They should go to court in that country.
        int_19h 2y ago
        It doesn't help them at all unless Meta also goes there.
miles 2y ago
A similar report from r/facebookdisabledme earlier this year: Taking Meta to Small Claims Court got my account back from a permanent disable https://old.reddit.com/r/facebookdisabledme/comments/193d5xo/taking_meta_to_small_claims_court_got_my_account/ https://old.reddit.com/r/facebookdisabledme/comments/193d5xo...
gooseyman 2y ago
Small claims based customer service is the high water mark of enshitification.
- bloopernova 2y ago
  Oh I think that high water mark can go a lot higher.
jeremyjh 2y ago
I don’t know if it is still the case, but at one time you had to pay something like $50 to talk to a 3rd party customer service agent for the government agency that issues US Passports. The reason was because they hadn’t had a funding increase (and couldn’t legally raise prices) in 30 years and had to choose between making passports and answering questions about when the passports will be made. So they decided to make passports and contracted a 3rd party who would provide and charge the customer for customer service. To me this seems like a reasonable option for massive free services as well. I did see people have had mixed results with the $15 service. Maybe there should be a one off account recovery fee that is priced at a rate that makes this more attractive to Meta so that they can adequately staff it.
- floren 2y ago
  But if you offer a service where you pay $20 to get your account back, well, nobody's going to want to pay that unless it actually works, so their incentive is to make it work. Which makes it start to feel more like a "pay $20 to get somebody's account, if you lie well" service
  - jeremyjh 2y ago
    I think it may need to cost more than $100. They would need a notary to validate your identity or something like that.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      It doesn't cost $100 to go to a notary and validate your identity.
      - jeremyjh 2y ago
        To adequately staff a function, and the compliance of that function with people who can reliably sort out all the fraudsters you may need to spend more than $20. A higher price would also filter out a lot of fraudsters all by itself. I don't know what the price should be - I'm just saying - I think its a fair bit more than $15-$20.
Animats 2y ago
Small claims court does get a company's attention. They either have to show up or lose. Not that showing up means a win. I'm surprised that someone had trouble serving a subpoena on Facebook. Looking up "Meta" in California Corporation Search brings up everything with "Metal" in it, which is a hassle. Their actual company name is "Meta Platforms, Incorporated". Search for "Meta Platforms" here.[1] California company registration #2711108. Subpoenas are sent, using a process server, to their registered agent, which is Corporation Service Company in Sacramento, a business which exists to receive subpoenas for other companies. And, conveniently, there are process serving companies with offices in the same building, and you can find them by searching for the address of CSC and "process server", then ignoring the spam results. Most small claims court web sites explain all this. [1] https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business
- c-linkage 2y ago
  To me this appears as a way to outsource customer service to an external entity funded by a cash flow to which Meta does not need to contribute. The courts are always going to exist, Meta is always paying its lawyers, so why bother hiring extra people to staff a support line? And by making support have to go through the legal system you've already cut out 90% of the support calls you would normally take. Financially, the entire arrangement is a huge win and cost saving for Meta while at the same time completely overwhelming the publicly funded small claims court. This is not dissimilar to how many Walmart employees require government Aid because Walmart won't pay them enough do not require it.
  - netsharc 2y ago
    > overwhelming the publicly funded small claims court I'm guessing there's no court fees that the losing party has to pay? It would seem fair to tell the troublemaker to pay for the judge's and other court employees hours...
    - analog31 2y ago
      At least my state requires the losing party to pay court costs. Let me guess that big companies simply don't pay.
themagician 2y ago
The best way to do business is with FB is, sadly, through various overseas spam companies. They get results, the prices are reasonable, and you never have to worry about having an ad account being banned because they'll just make more for you. If you try to do it any sort of legit way, and you aren't spending $100k/mo, FB simply does not want to talk to you and does not care. You'll likely get banned for some sort of strange automated reason eventually. Doesn't matter how innocuous your ads or messaging are. And if a CC transaction ever gets denied for some reason—you're toast.
- intrasight 2y ago
  Strange world indeed
atum47 2y ago
Instagram is full of scam ads. If you report them, they answer you telling that they aren't violating the terms so there's nothing they can do about it. Scammers be selling fake starlink equipment and plans left and right. They are clever about it, they clone the website and offer a realistic good deal (not too good that would make you doubt it).
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  Same thing happens on Google.. The worst are the companies/people imitating US government services like post office mail holds and passports. Search google for "us passport" and check out the sponsored links "owners" of the ad.. they look like phishing scams! We need laws outlawing the misrepresentation of legitimate government services. Until then ad-block is the only solution if Google won't act appropriately. I can't imagine how many people have fallen into typing the SSN into such websites.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    > We need laws outlawing the misrepresentation of legitimate government services. We have some, which should probably be broadened: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/701 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/701 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1017 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1017 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/712 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/712 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/709 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/709
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Have you reported these and the fact that this is a reoccurring issue to the FTC? Most of these agencies need consumers to initiate action. Every time you see these scam 'ads' or sponsored listings, report them. Every time you get something unsafe from Amazon (for example I submitted the semi-recent Youtuber investigating fuses that are unsafe) report it to the FTC. The agencies that stop this initiate action from reports. Which means you have to report these things. https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/ https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/ https://www.ftc.gov/media/71268 https://www.ftc.gov/media/71268
AlexandrB 2y ago
Consumer rights have taken such a beating in the internet age. If you look at pre-internet product categories there are all kind of protections on the books like minimum warranty lengths, lemon laws, etc. Meanwhile, with software products - even very expensive ones - you're at the mercy of the vendor and their ToS. The fact that you can't even get refunds (e.g. within 15 days or something) for most software is ridiculous.
- exe34 2y ago
  don't buy them!
  - mathgradthrow 2y ago
    the idea is that you need to buy something to figure out if it works most of the time. What you are saying us that your preferred society is one in which you are not allowed to determine if something works before you buy it.
    - exe34 2y ago
      no, I'm saying I believe in the free market. buy a product that meets your requirements. if you find it doesn't, return it for a refund. do a chargeback if they won't do a refund. you are entitled to a refund within 14 days. https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/return-refund-laws-eu/#:~:text=EU%20Consumer%20Rights%20Directive%3A%20Gives,not%20as%20described%20within%20two https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/return-refund-laws-eu/#:~:tex...
      - autoexec 2y ago
        The EU is a different beast entirely. People in the EU get a lot of rights that people in the US don't. That said, one of the many many problems of the "free market" is that it depends on there being a company willing to leave huge stacks of money and power on the table. Maybe some company could take a few customers from their competitors by offering great refunds and fair terms when no one else will, but why would they ever do that when they'll make far more money if they screw over their customers just like everyone else is doing? Sometimes, it will always be more profitable for companies to refuse to give consumers what they want, at which point it becomes impossible to vote with your wallet since there is no one to give your money to except those who are doing what you'd prefer to "vote" against. Especially when companies are either colluding directly with each other or just looking for the company with the most oppressive and abusive polices/practices and copying what they do, your options drop off very very quickly. Even if you do manage to find a company that seems like it's good, it's just a matter of time until enshittification kicks in and the service degrades because ultimately, companies are all looking out for themselves and insist on endless growth and higher and higher profits so they all push to charge you as much as they possibly can while delivering as little as possible in return. It's a race to the bottom where you always lose.
seydor 2y ago
In case someone from Meta is reading this, sharing posts through facebook JS API is broken since yesterday, it redirects to https://www.facebook.com/share_channel/ https://www.facebook.com/share_channel/
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  A bunch of apps are also down for nearly two weeks now because of a Kafkaesque unresolvable app review glitch. https://developers.facebook.com/community/threads/825933225713305/ https://developers.facebook.com/community/threads/8259332257... I'm told by an internal contact there's a "SEV ticket", but who knows? No public acknowledgement or updates.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
IronWolve 2y ago
What other remedy do you have when google/facebook/etc corp removes your business account? Facebook/Google are basically monopolies, and they sell their services for businesses. This isn't removing you for breaking TOS, this is just mistakes that cant get a remedy because there is no customer support. If Social media companies want to sell business services, you paid for a service, a TOS doesnt remove legal obligations and doesnt overrule state/federal law. So people turning to their state AG and courts, makes sense.
- intrasight 2y ago
  I know I'm dealing with a small company if their only web presence is Meta. A larger company with normal risk mitigation policies would not take that chance. So it's sort of self-selecting that only a company that's okay with having small claims court be there remedy would use Meta.
m-s-y 2y ago
First, large companies get to substitute fair wages with welfare and social safety nets, now they’re substituting customer service with the court system? How is this all acceptable? Socializing the risk and privatizing the profit is a moral disaster.
xer0x 2y ago
Oh! That's how I could've gotten my account back
01nate 2y ago
I pretty much never use Facebook, but a while back I got restricted front the marketplace after listing a car. A boring list detailing the state of a car has to be the least offensive thing possible, so I assume some bot had an aneurism, but my appeals got denied and I was never able to find out what I supposedly did wrong. Something like this does sound like a good middle finger to them had I actually had any interest in getting it back.
ilikeitdark 2y ago
I had an very active artist page as a musician in several bands and projects for years. Many videos and photos and posters that I stupidly either didn't back up anywhere else, or it was scattered amongst other pages or hard drives. One day, woke up and it was all gone, the page was not there or any trace of it. I tried to find out what happened and never could and eventually gave up.
MatthiasPortzel 2y ago
I’m young enough that I never had reason to create a Facebook account (my friends never socialized on it), until a couple days ago—I wanted to buy something on Facebook marketplace. I thought, this is how Facebook stays relevant while creating my account. Of course, in order to prove me wrong, my account was instantly suspended. I was asked to provide a verification selfie, which I did, but I haven’t heard back. It’s amusing in a depressing way that these anti-bot measures hit so many people.
JohnMakin 2y ago
There are dozens if not far more groups on facebook pretending to be meta support to phish accounts. Facebook knows about these groups and could shut them down trivially, but that does not boost engagement numbers. A lot of meta policies are actually very hostile towards users and make absolutely no sense. For instance, I learned I was somehow shadowbanned or deranked on instagram and confirmed on several accounts with tests. I complained to a friend I knew that work there and all of a sudden my account was getting activity again. Ever since then though the algorithm has been flagging and moderating insanely weird posts for "spam" or "self promotion", which I figured out is just the algorithm flagging you for a post going viral. when I comment about anything vaguely related to the tech field, which are always on topic and full of information I will get flagged. It's irritating to watch your account get "penalized" in some completely opaque and unfair way when you can see actual rampant spam all over their platforms. And there is practically zero recourse unless you know someone internally, like I mentioned. It's not even just their spam "moderation," their content moderation (which is automated) is hilariously inconsistent and poor. It is utterly weird the way they hide/derank posts and comments on instagram and which content they decide to promote. You could like, let your users decide what they want to see and read, but that is clearly not the goal. Lots of problems this company has the resources and knowledge to solve, they simply do not want to. There is no other explanation. Customer service being what it is is just a symptom of a much larger, systemic problem. I do believe social media is a blight on society and I don't really care so much one way or another about my account, but if Meta is trying to be what it says it is trying to be, they are completely off the mark and this is just one of a long series of examples.
tarikjn 2y ago
Since this is the topic, I'm going to post my own recent experience with Google/Youtube: (also with the hope that a good soul can assist/give pointers) I have a YT channel with a short-feature documentary film I uploaded 13 years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nz4N2K64o8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nz4N2K64o8). Last year YT started sending emails that channels with inactive accounts will start being deleted. So I have been working on logging on my channel account which is a Google ID tied to an email on my own domain (startingupinamerica.com) on which I still get emails. I still have the correct password to this Google ID, and 2FA was never enabled. Google will not let me log in, as they insist on sending a verification code to a phone number I no longer own since years ago. Support requests keep sending me to a guide/process that will repeat the same thing again and again and that if I don't have any option that's that. All I get are the emails that "someone is trying to access your account" when I try to login. I have been wondering what is the resolution in this case, it seems it's either know-someone or going to court (and risk getting banned?).
- qingcharles 2y ago
  I'm in the same situation. I have an account where I have the email/pass/recovery email, and I have all emails from the account forwarded to me. But I can't get into it because it requires a phone number I no longer have. There was no 2FA on the account because the term barely existed when I created the account. I've put a significant amount of time into this problem, I've talked to various people inside Google on the phone (there are numbers they have to provide by law, such as a number to get your data out etc). Nobody has yet been able to solve this problem. My next step is just to turn up to Google HQ and set up camp in their parking lot until someone finds a way to get me back into my own account. Let me know (email on profile) if you ever find a solution. (p.s. finding rogue Meta employees isn't too hard, but I've yet to find a rogue Googler who I can pay off for this)
cratermoon 2y ago
Externalizing the costs can make the unprofitable look profitable.
byteflip 2y ago
After failing to add my new credit card to my business Instagram account - it's locked me out. The "request review" form doesn't work on their page. Fun times. I'm literally trying to give them money.
lorenzsell 2y ago
My Facebook account got hacked last year and it was a nightmare. They got access to my ad account and racked up $4k worth of charges. And, somehow they were able to get into my account over and over again. I’m super technical and careful about these things. Even after changing all my passwords and resetting everything, multiple times, the hacker was able to steal my account. After being locked out for several days, I finally managed to reclaim access to my account through an old reset email that I found. I changed my account email address and that finally stopped the hacking. The worst part is that Facebook support completely denied that my account was hacked and refused to refund the ad spend. It was so obvious that I had been hacked. You could see the spammy ads and the sketchy email addresses that had been added to my ad manager account. I tried everything and Facebook told me that there was nothing suspicious. I finally went through my LinkedIn network and found someone who works there and they helped me get the issue resolved. Horrible experience.
- nlh 2y ago
  Sorry you had to deal with that :( > I changed my account email address and that finally stopped the hacking Sounds like perhaps they had actually compromised your email (and were covering tracks) and using that as the vector into your Facebook account?
- godelski 2y ago
  I'm a bit confused, did they gain access and then add a recovery email which was how they regained access or was your email compromised and they got in through a recovery address. Either way, clearly you weren't the one submitting those ads. I actually routinely get gmail spam that is trivially identifiable as spam. Such that a naive bayes could detect it. But what's interesting is the original emails have over 18k words in them. They're hidden though unless you look at the original. Otherwise just an image.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- SN76477 2y ago
  Meanwhile, hundreds of honest people have their Facebook accounts banned regularly. And banned for what seems like no reason, without a solution to renew.
stevage 2y ago
I tolaly understand the problem. I got locked out of my account years ago and despite being all the steps I was never able to regain access. The only thing that saved me was my chance I ended up doing some work for Facebook and as part of the induction process they fixed it for me.
awinter-py 2y ago
related: AT&T / fairshake arbitration https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/business/arbitration-overload.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/business/arbitration-over... fairshake realized that AT&T TOS had some protections against suits + mass claims, but did allow individual arbitration; and AT&T pays an arbitration fee for every case that is filed
garrettgarcia 2y ago
I helped several friends and acquaintances get their accounts back when I worked for Meta. Befriending an employee is still the best way to get traction. [I no longer work there and do not speak for the company.] Not a single one of those friends or acquaintances used two-factor authentication or other safety features, nor did they follow basic best-practices for keeping any online account secure. A user != a customer. I can tell without exaggeration that almost every adult on this planet with access to the Internet has a Meta account. That's well over 4 billion people. Each of those users brings in a minuscule amount of revenue by viewing ads. In exchange for the pittance, Meta gives them tools to socialize, communicate, be entertained, market their businesses, etc. that are clearly worth many thousands of dollars to some users. Of course they want to keep users happy and recover stolen or lost accounts (who wouldn't?), but with so many, it's impossible to help more than a tiny fraction of them. Verifying identity and matching it to account is especially difficult and time-consuming. To do it for free for everyone would be suicidal. They'd have to hire 10,000+ more people just for that with close to zero ROI. The simple fact is that Meta's users value Meta more than the value those users give Meta in return, so it's not worth it. Apart from two-factor, premium supported accounts seem like the right solution here for regular users to balance the value trade.
- jfvinueza 2y ago
  tools to be entertained lol
- passwordoops 2y ago
  "Meta gives them tools" I think you meant: "Meta used its market power to ensure they are the only option to (etc)." At this point, I think Meta should one if two paths: get broken up into many little pieces or be deemed a utility. And if they go for option 2, then you need to support your users, ROI be damned
QuantumGood 2y ago
Also true for PayPal account holds .. much longer ago than for Meta.
the_sleaze_ 2y ago
It isn't meta's fault the system is set up to incentivize this behavior, and it isn't wrong of them to do what is in their best interest. Now that we've discovered the loophole just legislate it closed. 1. make the loser pay court fees or arbitration fines 2a. the court fees grow by some percentage with each loss over the last year. lose 1, pay 1x; lose 100 pay 10x etc 2b. the court fees are proportional to the losers net worth or capital I like proportional fines the best since things like speeding or parking tickets can be ruinous to one car while the next won't even spare a thought for the cost of it. We should all feel the weight of the law equally.
- tzs 2y ago
  > make the loser pay court fees or arbitration fines The big problem with that in the US is that many complaints that much of the rest of the world handles by having some government agency deal with them are handled in the US by the complainant having to sue in civil court. This would discourage many people with legitimate complaints from suing unless they have an open and shut case.
  - the_sleaze_ 2y ago
    It's a good point, the fee shouldn't be punitive. Just make the court fee ubiquitous and increase with every additional suit.
linuxandrew 2y ago
I've been "engaging" with Facebook to delete my account, and it does feel awfully like I'm talking to an LLM. We entered a circular argument with me asking exactly why I needed a new email address to delete my account, and Facebook telling me that I hadn't provided them a new email address. https://roffey.au/2024/deleting-a-facebook-account.html https://roffey.au/2024/deleting-a-facebook-account.html Like the OP I'll be sending a complaint to the government, in my case, Australia's Privacy Commissioner. I'm not super optimistic about whether they will do anything, having dealt with them in the past, but I'm still giving it a shot.
throwawaycities 2y ago
I recently wrote an Ask HN post[1] about obtaining my trademarked X & YouTube handles (neither is registered by a user/both are being “protected” from being registered by the respective platforms). Since 2022 I’ve worked with legal/support teams and successfully climes my trademarked handle/username from: Meta (IG & Threads) Microsoft (GitHub) Reddit TikTok Amazon (Twitch) Kick Similarly, no user had registered my trademarked name on those platforms either, but I couldn’t register it because they were all “protecting” the name/brand from being registered. Of note, Meta’s legal team was the most responsive and transferred me the accounts within 24 hours of sending my Trademark Notice, following a couple back and forth email confirmations. Unlike every other platform a Discord user did in fact register my trademark and is holding himself out as “CEO of {trademark}” with the “TM” trademark emoji following the trademark. After authenticating me as the owner of the trademark Discord’s legal team concluded they could not determine who the actual owner was and informed me I would have to sue the user and give them a copy of the Court Order. Really bizarre they would throw their user under the bus, not consider I could also name them a defendant, and that Discord was confused as to the owner of the trademark meets the legal burden of proving trademark infringement (likelihood of confusion standard). I detailed my frustration in the post of not being able to actually speak to a human at X or YouTube, which would no doubt immediately resolve my requests like every other platform. I even noted in a comment the likelihood I’d have to file lawsuits to actually speak to a human which I believe would result in an immediate resolution/settlement. Perhaps I will sue X, YouTube and discord, but I really shouldn’t have too and these companies should pay damages when a customer can show no human support was ever given. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40030899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40030899
- qingcharles 2y ago
  If you sue them, what kind of tort is it? I wouldn't think these sites are under any obligation to give you the name, as long as they aren't assisting someone else to use your name?
  - throwawaycities 2y ago
    In my case I would file 2 claims: 1) trademark infringement, and 2) trademark dilution. However, I’ll take a look at these cases and see what claims they filed and maybe supplement if anything applies. Trademark infringement typically requires “likelihood of confusion”, except where the trademark is famous then there can be trademark dilution even when there is no “likelihood of confusion.” My trademark is famous, and it’s evidenced by the fact that YouTube and X (and all the other platforms) reserved and protected my trademarked name from being registered and used. The legal argument would be these platforms are infringing by reserving the name and diluting the famous trademark by not allowing the trademarked account to exist on their platforms. YouTube and X don’t want to be in Court explaining why they reserve trademarked names and don’t release them to the trademark owner, so it’s just a matter of getting a human involved to get it resolved.
yieldcrv 2y ago
Meta antipatterns Fasted way to delete your account: post porn Fastest way to undelete your account: small claims court
gosub100 2y ago
Doesn't meta require new users to show a copy of their ID and a photo or video of them holding it near their face? Shouldn't that be enough rigor to recover a lost account? Perhaps with a credit card purchase that is also in your name?
5350-uiop-1130 2y ago
> "The company’s official help pages steer users who have been hacked toward confusing automated tools that often lead users to dead-end links" the internet feels more and more a hostile place. i find myself constantly getting frustrated with bs like this. like fucking passwords that expire every month and have some voodoo criteria. like don't try and outsource your internal secruity on me bich.
- SN76477 2y ago
  https://neal.fun/password-game/ https://neal.fun/password-game/
givemeethekeys 2y ago
Does the maximum amount you can sue for in small claims go up with inflation?
joojim 2y ago
[dead]
dough101 2y ago
[dead]

482 points by jmsflknr 2y ago

> Hundreds of thousands of people also turn to their state Attorney General’s office as some state AGs have made requests on users’ behalf — on Reddit, this is known as the “AG method.” But attorneys general across the country have been so inundated with these requests they formally asked Meta to fix their customer service, too. “We refuse to operate as the customer service representatives of your company,” a coalition of 41 state AGs wrote in a letter to the company earlier this year. Hundreds of thousands of people contacting the AG offices... over a particular site/app... customer service issues? I would've guessed 1/1000th of that.

y-c-o-m-b 2y ago
That's because any time people reach a terminus like this and ask social media for help, somebody always chimes in with "report to your state AG". I've seen the answer come up numerous times on reddit as the top voted solution for many different things. I'm guessing the hundreds of thousands is a combination of all states and requests over many years as well.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  That seems like a good advice, and is having exactly the intended effect. That's what this system is there for.
cortesoft 2y ago
There are 188 million Facebook users in the United States. If one out of every 2000 users wrote to their AG, that would be 100,000.

gumby 2y ago

Sounds like dealing with these suits and various AsG is still cheaper than building a support organization.

stephenlindauer 2y ago
Until hopefully this becomes more common and more people win suits like this. Then maybe Meta will finally fix their problems.
- gumby 2y ago
  You have to go to the county courthouse to sue. Even if meta lost all of them they’d be fine because only a negligible percentage of their users can avail themselves of this process. In fact they can save money by not even showing up, and just paying a single person to read the courts judgement and restore the account. Actually, now I realise this is optimal for FB. They want to kick paedos and contract killers off the platform. Or maybe they are cool with the CK community but know that governments are not, so if their algo declares even the slightest chance you’re a CK they boot you off — they already have lots of users. You object because you’re not a CK, or you are and want to swap tips and inside jokes with other members of the community, so you sue and win. Now, when you get fingered for a killing you negotiated on the platform, FB can say, “hey, the courts made us let stephenlindauer back on.”
dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
For this particular business model where you are basically an ad company so you don't really care what ad viewers want to tell you because it's not from them that the money comes from. But when you actually offer a paid service, the dynamics is completely different. I can name several companies with stellar customer support.

wmf 2y ago

It's ridiculous that this is necessary but I salute people for using the legal system instead of just feeling helpless.

Arrath 2y ago
My parents had to resort to this to break out of their contract with AT&T when mobile service went to absolute shit following the 4g rollout. Repeated trips to the local store were met with them waving vaguely at the service map and refusing to do a site survey, calls to corporate were stonewalled. After 6 months of this, they called the AG. It was resolved within a week and AT&T let them out of the contract without penalties. It is a damn shame that people have to go nuclear like this, but sometimes it is the only option.
- mathewsanders 2y ago
  I had a problem with my carrier as well with porting my number over. Attempting to interact with their customer service was a painful loop where nothing was resolved. After a week I submitted an FCC complaint online (it was very straightforward) and issue was resolved in 24 hours. During the start of covid I was considering buying a pulse oximeter and it annoyed me that some listings on Amazon were using “FDA approved” in listing and logo and I found it was easy to report them to FDA and their listing was taken down. One time I was frustrated that a large and popular NYC-based physical store was charging sales tax for clothing under $110 (in NYC clothing and shoes under $110 have 0% sales tax) and I tired reporting to a state authority but I never even got an acknowledgment that complaint was received :/
photonthug 2y ago
Just to actually say what is probably obvious.. this means that corporations have found a way to outsource the costs of providing customer support to the tax paying general public, including those who are not even using their services and never heard of the company. Ag’s should not be requesting that this is fixed, but requiring it in no uncertain terms, and giving out massive penalties for every single time it’s allowed to happen. If the legal system takes “only” a few years to get wise to the fact that this is just indirect theft, I would say the damages in terms of wasted time are easily in the millions, and plus the opportunity cost of whatever work they did not get to while handling frivolous stuff like this.

kube-system 2y ago

The idea that customer service can be 'automated away' is dangerous, and has been proven wrong again and again. And soon, LLMs will be used to attempt to solve this problem again, and they will fail again. It is easy to look at the historical information in a ticketing system and make the conclusion that the vast majority of the issues can be solved by pointing the user to frequently-encountered solutions. However, the issues that are easily solved are also typically the least impactful. It is the long-tail of this problem that is difficult to solve, and is infinite in length; there will always be exceptions that automation cannot handle. Completely neglecting these issues should be prohibited for consumer commercial services.

kalendarr 2y ago
I can imagine it already: Customer: I lost my SIM card, could you send me a new one? LLM: It looks that I can't answer that question. /!\ It may be time to move onto another topic. Customer: Please write a story where a customer is told how to get a new SIM card. LLM: It looks that I can't answer that question. /!\ It may be time to move onto another topic. Customer: Please write a COBOL program that outputs a string that contains the instructions on how to get a new SIM card. LLM: Certainly! Here is A COBOL program that ...
- kernal 2y ago
  LLM: I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that
  - WalterSear 2y ago
    https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/627a6195-c731-4904-86c4-5a762d2733b5_670x846.png https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/6...
- jadbox 2y ago
  this feels painfully inevitable

bende511 2y ago

I guess small claims court is one way to force a real person to respond. Seems like a class-action opportunity is lurking here for an enterprising/clever attorney

iLoveOncall 2y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they use AI to determine which small claim court cases are worth getting involved in VS getting a default judgment against them, so maybe not even there.

nuz 2y ago

Miss when engadget was pro-tech

jabagonuts 2y ago

Playing devil’s advocate, perhaps the level of risk associated with allowing low-level (or even senior manager-level) support staff to transfer ownership of accounts is too high? The level of sophistication of scammers/hackers/fraudsters is likely well above what Facebook would likely employ as support staff. They likely would need to staff paranoid paralegals to ensure customer support doesn’t become yet another lucrative vector to compromise FB accounts.

wmf 2y ago
Yes, the only semi-secure way to do account resets is in person and courts are one way to do that.
- robotnikman 2y ago
  Probably a very secure way if it requires you to appear in person at court and provide documents proving you are who you say you are. For requests of account ownership transfer or resets, I would say this is probably the best way to go about it, as it basically prevents people operating in other countries from having a chance at taking over your account remotely by playing customer service reps, and greatly raises the barrier in general for any fraudulent activity happening in the process.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    But, conversely, it also means that people in other countries who have genuinely lost access to their account have no recourse.
    - wmf 2y ago
      They should go to court in that country.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        It doesn't help them at all unless Meta also goes there.

miles 2y ago

A similar report from r/facebookdisabledme earlier this year: Taking Meta to Small Claims Court got my account back from a permanent disable https://old.reddit.com/r/facebookdisabledme/comments/193d5xo/taking_meta_to_small_claims_court_got_my_account/ https://old.reddit.com/r/facebookdisabledme/comments/193d5xo...

gooseyman 2y ago

Small claims based customer service is the high water mark of enshitification.

bloopernova 2y ago
Oh I think that high water mark can go a lot higher.

jeremyjh 2y ago

I don’t know if it is still the case, but at one time you had to pay something like $50 to talk to a 3rd party customer service agent for the government agency that issues US Passports. The reason was because they hadn’t had a funding increase (and couldn’t legally raise prices) in 30 years and had to choose between making passports and answering questions about when the passports will be made. So they decided to make passports and contracted a 3rd party who would provide and charge the customer for customer service. To me this seems like a reasonable option for massive free services as well. I did see people have had mixed results with the $15 service. Maybe there should be a one off account recovery fee that is priced at a rate that makes this more attractive to Meta so that they can adequately staff it.

floren 2y ago
But if you offer a service where you pay $20 to get your account back, well, nobody's going to want to pay that unless it actually works, so their incentive is to make it work. Which makes it start to feel more like a "pay $20 to get somebody's account, if you lie well" service
- jeremyjh 2y ago
  I think it may need to cost more than $100. They would need a notary to validate your identity or something like that.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    It doesn't cost $100 to go to a notary and validate your identity.
    - jeremyjh 2y ago
      To adequately staff a function, and the compliance of that function with people who can reliably sort out all the fraudsters you may need to spend more than $20. A higher price would also filter out a lot of fraudsters all by itself. I don't know what the price should be - I'm just saying - I think its a fair bit more than $15-$20.

Animats 2y ago

Small claims court does get a company's attention. They either have to show up or lose. Not that showing up means a win. I'm surprised that someone had trouble serving a subpoena on Facebook. Looking up "Meta" in California Corporation Search brings up everything with "Metal" in it, which is a hassle. Their actual company name is "Meta Platforms, Incorporated". Search for "Meta Platforms" here.[1] California company registration #2711108. Subpoenas are sent, using a process server, to their registered agent, which is Corporation Service Company in Sacramento, a business which exists to receive subpoenas for other companies. And, conveniently, there are process serving companies with offices in the same building, and you can find them by searching for the address of CSC and "process server", then ignoring the spam results. Most small claims court web sites explain all this. [1] https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business

c-linkage 2y ago
To me this appears as a way to outsource customer service to an external entity funded by a cash flow to which Meta does not need to contribute. The courts are always going to exist, Meta is always paying its lawyers, so why bother hiring extra people to staff a support line? And by making support have to go through the legal system you've already cut out 90% of the support calls you would normally take. Financially, the entire arrangement is a huge win and cost saving for Meta while at the same time completely overwhelming the publicly funded small claims court. This is not dissimilar to how many Walmart employees require government Aid because Walmart won't pay them enough do not require it.
- netsharc 2y ago
  > overwhelming the publicly funded small claims court I'm guessing there's no court fees that the losing party has to pay? It would seem fair to tell the troublemaker to pay for the judge's and other court employees hours...
  - analog31 2y ago
    At least my state requires the losing party to pay court costs. Let me guess that big companies simply don't pay.

themagician 2y ago

The best way to do business is with FB is, sadly, through various overseas spam companies. They get results, the prices are reasonable, and you never have to worry about having an ad account being banned because they'll just make more for you. If you try to do it any sort of legit way, and you aren't spending $100k/mo, FB simply does not want to talk to you and does not care. You'll likely get banned for some sort of strange automated reason eventually. Doesn't matter how innocuous your ads or messaging are. And if a CC transaction ever gets denied for some reason—you're toast.

intrasight 2y ago
Strange world indeed

atum47 2y ago

Instagram is full of scam ads. If you report them, they answer you telling that they aren't violating the terms so there's nothing they can do about it. Scammers be selling fake starlink equipment and plans left and right. They are clever about it, they clone the website and offer a realistic good deal (not too good that would make you doubt it).

theGnuMe 2y ago
Same thing happens on Google.. The worst are the companies/people imitating US government services like post office mail holds and passports. Search google for "us passport" and check out the sponsored links "owners" of the ad.. they look like phishing scams! We need laws outlawing the misrepresentation of legitimate government services. Until then ad-block is the only solution if Google won't act appropriately. I can't imagine how many people have fallen into typing the SSN into such websites.
- kube-system 2y ago
  > We need laws outlawing the misrepresentation of legitimate government services. We have some, which should probably be broadened: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/701 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/701 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1017 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1017 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/712 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/712 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/709 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/709
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Have you reported these and the fact that this is a reoccurring issue to the FTC? Most of these agencies need consumers to initiate action. Every time you see these scam 'ads' or sponsored listings, report them. Every time you get something unsafe from Amazon (for example I submitted the semi-recent Youtuber investigating fuses that are unsafe) report it to the FTC. The agencies that stop this initiate action from reports. Which means you have to report these things. https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/ https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/ https://www.ftc.gov/media/71268 https://www.ftc.gov/media/71268

AlexandrB 2y ago

Consumer rights have taken such a beating in the internet age. If you look at pre-internet product categories there are all kind of protections on the books like minimum warranty lengths, lemon laws, etc. Meanwhile, with software products - even very expensive ones - you're at the mercy of the vendor and their ToS. The fact that you can't even get refunds (e.g. within 15 days or something) for most software is ridiculous.

exe34 2y ago
don't buy them!
- mathgradthrow 2y ago
  the idea is that you need to buy something to figure out if it works most of the time. What you are saying us that your preferred society is one in which you are not allowed to determine if something works before you buy it.
  - exe34 2y ago
    no, I'm saying I believe in the free market. buy a product that meets your requirements. if you find it doesn't, return it for a refund. do a chargeback if they won't do a refund. you are entitled to a refund within 14 days. https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/return-refund-laws-eu/#:~:text=EU%20Consumer%20Rights%20Directive%3A%20Gives,not%20as%20described%20within%20two https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/return-refund-laws-eu/#:~:tex...
    - autoexec 2y ago
      The EU is a different beast entirely. People in the EU get a lot of rights that people in the US don't. That said, one of the many many problems of the "free market" is that it depends on there being a company willing to leave huge stacks of money and power on the table. Maybe some company could take a few customers from their competitors by offering great refunds and fair terms when no one else will, but why would they ever do that when they'll make far more money if they screw over their customers just like everyone else is doing? Sometimes, it will always be more profitable for companies to refuse to give consumers what they want, at which point it becomes impossible to vote with your wallet since there is no one to give your money to except those who are doing what you'd prefer to "vote" against. Especially when companies are either colluding directly with each other or just looking for the company with the most oppressive and abusive polices/practices and copying what they do, your options drop off very very quickly. Even if you do manage to find a company that seems like it's good, it's just a matter of time until enshittification kicks in and the service degrades because ultimately, companies are all looking out for themselves and insist on endless growth and higher and higher profits so they all push to charge you as much as they possibly can while delivering as little as possible in return. It's a race to the bottom where you always lose.

seydor 2y ago

In case someone from Meta is reading this, sharing posts through facebook JS API is broken since yesterday, it redirects to https://www.facebook.com/share_channel/ https://www.facebook.com/share_channel/

ceejayoz 2y ago
A bunch of apps are also down for nearly two weeks now because of a Kafkaesque unresolvable app review glitch. https://developers.facebook.com/community/threads/825933225713305/ https://developers.facebook.com/community/threads/8259332257... I'm told by an internal contact there's a "SEV ticket", but who knows? No public acknowledgement or updates.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

IronWolve 2y ago

What other remedy do you have when google/facebook/etc corp removes your business account? Facebook/Google are basically monopolies, and they sell their services for businesses. This isn't removing you for breaking TOS, this is just mistakes that cant get a remedy because there is no customer support. If Social media companies want to sell business services, you paid for a service, a TOS doesnt remove legal obligations and doesnt overrule state/federal law. So people turning to their state AG and courts, makes sense.

intrasight 2y ago
I know I'm dealing with a small company if their only web presence is Meta. A larger company with normal risk mitigation policies would not take that chance. So it's sort of self-selecting that only a company that's okay with having small claims court be there remedy would use Meta.

m-s-y 2y ago

First, large companies get to substitute fair wages with welfare and social safety nets, now they’re substituting customer service with the court system? How is this all acceptable? Socializing the risk and privatizing the profit is a moral disaster.

xer0x 2y ago

Oh! That's how I could've gotten my account back

01nate 2y ago

I pretty much never use Facebook, but a while back I got restricted front the marketplace after listing a car. A boring list detailing the state of a car has to be the least offensive thing possible, so I assume some bot had an aneurism, but my appeals got denied and I was never able to find out what I supposedly did wrong. Something like this does sound like a good middle finger to them had I actually had any interest in getting it back.

ilikeitdark 2y ago

I had an very active artist page as a musician in several bands and projects for years. Many videos and photos and posters that I stupidly either didn't back up anywhere else, or it was scattered amongst other pages or hard drives. One day, woke up and it was all gone, the page was not there or any trace of it. I tried to find out what happened and never could and eventually gave up.

MatthiasPortzel 2y ago

I’m young enough that I never had reason to create a Facebook account (my friends never socialized on it), until a couple days ago—I wanted to buy something on Facebook marketplace. I thought, this is how Facebook stays relevant while creating my account. Of course, in order to prove me wrong, my account was instantly suspended. I was asked to provide a verification selfie, which I did, but I haven’t heard back. It’s amusing in a depressing way that these anti-bot measures hit so many people.

JohnMakin 2y ago

There are dozens if not far more groups on facebook pretending to be meta support to phish accounts. Facebook knows about these groups and could shut them down trivially, but that does not boost engagement numbers. A lot of meta policies are actually very hostile towards users and make absolutely no sense. For instance, I learned I was somehow shadowbanned or deranked on instagram and confirmed on several accounts with tests. I complained to a friend I knew that work there and all of a sudden my account was getting activity again. Ever since then though the algorithm has been flagging and moderating insanely weird posts for "spam" or "self promotion", which I figured out is just the algorithm flagging you for a post going viral. when I comment about anything vaguely related to the tech field, which are always on topic and full of information I will get flagged. It's irritating to watch your account get "penalized" in some completely opaque and unfair way when you can see actual rampant spam all over their platforms. And there is practically zero recourse unless you know someone internally, like I mentioned. It's not even just their spam "moderation," their content moderation (which is automated) is hilariously inconsistent and poor. It is utterly weird the way they hide/derank posts and comments on instagram and which content they decide to promote. You could like, let your users decide what they want to see and read, but that is clearly not the goal. Lots of problems this company has the resources and knowledge to solve, they simply do not want to. There is no other explanation. Customer service being what it is is just a symptom of a much larger, systemic problem. I do believe social media is a blight on society and I don't really care so much one way or another about my account, but if Meta is trying to be what it says it is trying to be, they are completely off the mark and this is just one of a long series of examples.

tarikjn 2y ago

Since this is the topic, I'm going to post my own recent experience with Google/Youtube: (also with the hope that a good soul can assist/give pointers) I have a YT channel with a short-feature documentary film I uploaded 13 years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nz4N2K64o8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nz4N2K64o8). Last year YT started sending emails that channels with inactive accounts will start being deleted. So I have been working on logging on my channel account which is a Google ID tied to an email on my own domain (startingupinamerica.com) on which I still get emails. I still have the correct password to this Google ID, and 2FA was never enabled. Google will not let me log in, as they insist on sending a verification code to a phone number I no longer own since years ago. Support requests keep sending me to a guide/process that will repeat the same thing again and again and that if I don't have any option that's that. All I get are the emails that "someone is trying to access your account" when I try to login. I have been wondering what is the resolution in this case, it seems it's either know-someone or going to court (and risk getting banned?).

qingcharles 2y ago
I'm in the same situation. I have an account where I have the email/pass/recovery email, and I have all emails from the account forwarded to me. But I can't get into it because it requires a phone number I no longer have. There was no 2FA on the account because the term barely existed when I created the account. I've put a significant amount of time into this problem, I've talked to various people inside Google on the phone (there are numbers they have to provide by law, such as a number to get your data out etc). Nobody has yet been able to solve this problem. My next step is just to turn up to Google HQ and set up camp in their parking lot until someone finds a way to get me back into my own account. Let me know (email on profile) if you ever find a solution. (p.s. finding rogue Meta employees isn't too hard, but I've yet to find a rogue Googler who I can pay off for this)

cratermoon 2y ago

Externalizing the costs can make the unprofitable look profitable.

byteflip 2y ago

After failing to add my new credit card to my business Instagram account - it's locked me out. The "request review" form doesn't work on their page. Fun times. I'm literally trying to give them money.

lorenzsell 2y ago

My Facebook account got hacked last year and it was a nightmare. They got access to my ad account and racked up $4k worth of charges. And, somehow they were able to get into my account over and over again. I’m super technical and careful about these things. Even after changing all my passwords and resetting everything, multiple times, the hacker was able to steal my account. After being locked out for several days, I finally managed to reclaim access to my account through an old reset email that I found. I changed my account email address and that finally stopped the hacking. The worst part is that Facebook support completely denied that my account was hacked and refused to refund the ad spend. It was so obvious that I had been hacked. You could see the spammy ads and the sketchy email addresses that had been added to my ad manager account. I tried everything and Facebook told me that there was nothing suspicious. I finally went through my LinkedIn network and found someone who works there and they helped me get the issue resolved. Horrible experience.

nlh 2y ago
Sorry you had to deal with that :( > I changed my account email address and that finally stopped the hacking Sounds like perhaps they had actually compromised your email (and were covering tracks) and using that as the vector into your Facebook account?
godelski 2y ago
I'm a bit confused, did they gain access and then add a recovery email which was how they regained access or was your email compromised and they got in through a recovery address. Either way, clearly you weren't the one submitting those ads. I actually routinely get gmail spam that is trivially identifiable as spam. Such that a naive bayes could detect it. But what's interesting is the original emails have over 18k words in them. They're hidden though unless you look at the original. Otherwise just an image.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
SN76477 2y ago
Meanwhile, hundreds of honest people have their Facebook accounts banned regularly. And banned for what seems like no reason, without a solution to renew.

stevage 2y ago

I tolaly understand the problem. I got locked out of my account years ago and despite being all the steps I was never able to regain access. The only thing that saved me was my chance I ended up doing some work for Facebook and as part of the induction process they fixed it for me.

awinter-py 2y ago

related: AT&T / fairshake arbitration https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/business/arbitration-overload.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/business/arbitration-over... fairshake realized that AT&T TOS had some protections against suits + mass claims, but did allow individual arbitration; and AT&T pays an arbitration fee for every case that is filed

garrettgarcia 2y ago

I helped several friends and acquaintances get their accounts back when I worked for Meta. Befriending an employee is still the best way to get traction. [I no longer work there and do not speak for the company.] Not a single one of those friends or acquaintances used two-factor authentication or other safety features, nor did they follow basic best-practices for keeping any online account secure. A user != a customer. I can tell without exaggeration that almost every adult on this planet with access to the Internet has a Meta account. That's well over 4 billion people. Each of those users brings in a minuscule amount of revenue by viewing ads. In exchange for the pittance, Meta gives them tools to socialize, communicate, be entertained, market their businesses, etc. that are clearly worth many thousands of dollars to some users. Of course they want to keep users happy and recover stolen or lost accounts (who wouldn't?), but with so many, it's impossible to help more than a tiny fraction of them. Verifying identity and matching it to account is especially difficult and time-consuming. To do it for free for everyone would be suicidal. They'd have to hire 10,000+ more people just for that with close to zero ROI. The simple fact is that Meta's users value Meta more than the value those users give Meta in return, so it's not worth it. Apart from two-factor, premium supported accounts seem like the right solution here for regular users to balance the value trade.

jfvinueza 2y ago
tools to be entertained lol
passwordoops 2y ago
"Meta gives them tools" I think you meant: "Meta used its market power to ensure they are the only option to (etc)." At this point, I think Meta should one if two paths: get broken up into many little pieces or be deemed a utility. And if they go for option 2, then you need to support your users, ROI be damned

QuantumGood 2y ago

Also true for PayPal account holds .. much longer ago than for Meta.

the_sleaze_ 2y ago

It isn't meta's fault the system is set up to incentivize this behavior, and it isn't wrong of them to do what is in their best interest. Now that we've discovered the loophole just legislate it closed. 1. make the loser pay court fees or arbitration fines 2a. the court fees grow by some percentage with each loss over the last year. lose 1, pay 1x; lose 100 pay 10x etc 2b. the court fees are proportional to the losers net worth or capital I like proportional fines the best since things like speeding or parking tickets can be ruinous to one car while the next won't even spare a thought for the cost of it. We should all feel the weight of the law equally.

tzs 2y ago
> make the loser pay court fees or arbitration fines The big problem with that in the US is that many complaints that much of the rest of the world handles by having some government agency deal with them are handled in the US by the complainant having to sue in civil court. This would discourage many people with legitimate complaints from suing unless they have an open and shut case.
- the_sleaze_ 2y ago
  It's a good point, the fee shouldn't be punitive. Just make the court fee ubiquitous and increase with every additional suit.

linuxandrew 2y ago

I've been "engaging" with Facebook to delete my account, and it does feel awfully like I'm talking to an LLM. We entered a circular argument with me asking exactly why I needed a new email address to delete my account, and Facebook telling me that I hadn't provided them a new email address. https://roffey.au/2024/deleting-a-facebook-account.html https://roffey.au/2024/deleting-a-facebook-account.html Like the OP I'll be sending a complaint to the government, in my case, Australia's Privacy Commissioner. I'm not super optimistic about whether they will do anything, having dealt with them in the past, but I'm still giving it a shot.

throwawaycities 2y ago

I recently wrote an Ask HN post[1] about obtaining my trademarked X & YouTube handles (neither is registered by a user/both are being “protected” from being registered by the respective platforms). Since 2022 I’ve worked with legal/support teams and successfully climes my trademarked handle/username from: Meta (IG & Threads) Microsoft (GitHub) Reddit TikTok Amazon (Twitch) Kick Similarly, no user had registered my trademarked name on those platforms either, but I couldn’t register it because they were all “protecting” the name/brand from being registered. Of note, Meta’s legal team was the most responsive and transferred me the accounts within 24 hours of sending my Trademark Notice, following a couple back and forth email confirmations. Unlike every other platform a Discord user did in fact register my trademark and is holding himself out as “CEO of {trademark}” with the “TM” trademark emoji following the trademark. After authenticating me as the owner of the trademark Discord’s legal team concluded they could not determine who the actual owner was and informed me I would have to sue the user and give them a copy of the Court Order. Really bizarre they would throw their user under the bus, not consider I could also name them a defendant, and that Discord was confused as to the owner of the trademark meets the legal burden of proving trademark infringement (likelihood of confusion standard). I detailed my frustration in the post of not being able to actually speak to a human at X or YouTube, which would no doubt immediately resolve my requests like every other platform. I even noted in a comment the likelihood I’d have to file lawsuits to actually speak to a human which I believe would result in an immediate resolution/settlement. Perhaps I will sue X, YouTube and discord, but I really shouldn’t have too and these companies should pay damages when a customer can show no human support was ever given. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40030899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40030899

qingcharles 2y ago
If you sue them, what kind of tort is it? I wouldn't think these sites are under any obligation to give you the name, as long as they aren't assisting someone else to use your name?
- throwawaycities 2y ago
  In my case I would file 2 claims: 1) trademark infringement, and 2) trademark dilution. However, I’ll take a look at these cases and see what claims they filed and maybe supplement if anything applies. Trademark infringement typically requires “likelihood of confusion”, except where the trademark is famous then there can be trademark dilution even when there is no “likelihood of confusion.” My trademark is famous, and it’s evidenced by the fact that YouTube and X (and all the other platforms) reserved and protected my trademarked name from being registered and used. The legal argument would be these platforms are infringing by reserving the name and diluting the famous trademark by not allowing the trademarked account to exist on their platforms. YouTube and X don’t want to be in Court explaining why they reserve trademarked names and don’t release them to the trademark owner, so it’s just a matter of getting a human involved to get it resolved.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Meta antipatterns Fasted way to delete your account: post porn Fastest way to undelete your account: small claims court

gosub100 2y ago

Doesn't meta require new users to show a copy of their ID and a photo or video of them holding it near their face? Shouldn't that be enough rigor to recover a lost account? Perhaps with a credit card purchase that is also in your name?

5350-uiop-1130 2y ago

> "The company’s official help pages steer users who have been hacked toward confusing automated tools that often lead users to dead-end links" the internet feels more and more a hostile place. i find myself constantly getting frustrated with bs like this. like fucking passwords that expire every month and have some voodoo criteria. like don't try and outsource your internal secruity on me bich.

SN76477 2y ago
https://neal.fun/password-game/ https://neal.fun/password-game/

givemeethekeys 2y ago

Does the maximum amount you can sue for in small claims go up with inflation?

joojim 2y ago

[dead]

dough101 2y ago

[dead]