4 ms·

We really need some law to stop "you have been banned and we won't even tell you actual reason for it", it's become a plague, made worse with automated systems

We really need some law to stop "you have been banned and we won't even tell you actual reason for it", it's become a plague, made worse with automated systems giving out a ban

Markoff 10mo ago
Judging by his EUR currency the guy is from EU, so he HAS law available for him to protect himself. Recital (71) of the GDPR "The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention." https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/rules-business-and-organisations/dealing-citizens/are-there-restrictions-use-automated-decision-making_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
- j16sdiz 10mo ago
  It is not '...automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices'.
  - johndough 10mo ago
    Those are just examples. The real question is whether the ban produces "legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her". Maybe someone with legal expertise could weight in here?
- Cthulhu_ 10mo ago
  More recent, the Digital Services Act includes "Options to appeal to content moderation decisions" [0]; I believe this also covers being banned from a platform. Not sure if Claude falls under these rules, I think it only applies to 'gatekeeper' platforms but I'm reasonably confident the number of organizations that fall under this will increase. [0] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act#:~:text=Options%20to%20appeal%20to%20content%20moderation%20decisions https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-se...
- direwolf20 10mo ago
  The company will refuse under 12(4) "The right to obtain a copy referred to in paragraph 3 shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others." and then you will have to sue them.
j16sdiz 10mo ago
Actually, there are law to stop banks telling their client why they are flagged for money laundering
- disgruntledphd2 10mo ago
  Yeah, the Bank Secrecy Act is probably one of the most anti-democratic laws out there. Worse, the controls that governments have over financial systems are being viewed as a model for what they should have over technology.
krzat 10mo ago
IMO every ban should have a dedicated web page containing ban reasons and proofs, which affected person can challenge, use in court or share publicly.
- monster_truck 10mo ago
  Try moderating something sometime
urbandw311er 10mo ago
Do we though? It’s an important question about liberty - at what point does a business become so large that it’s not allowed to decide who gets to use it? There was a famous case here in the UK of a cake shop that banned a customer for wanting a cake made for a gay wedding because it was contra the owners’ religious beliefs. That was taken all the way up to the Supreme Court IIRC.
- ssl-3 10mo ago
  I don't think the parent comment was about banning bans based on business size or any other measure, for that's obviously a non-starter. I think it was more about getting rid of unexplained bans. To that end: I think the parent comment was suggesting that when a person is banned from using a thing, then that person deserves to know the reason for the ban -- at the very least, for their own health and sanity. It may still be an absolute and unappealable ban, but unexplained bans don't allow a person learn, adjust, and/or form a cromulent and rational path forward.
  - mannykannot 10mo ago
    It is more than that, as there is cold comfort in having an explanation that is arbitrary and capricious, irrational, contrary to the stated rules, or based on falsehoods, if there is no effective means of appeal - especially if there are few or no viable alternatives to the entity imposing the ban.
- 9rx 10mo ago
  Yes, it is not too much to require that that if you offer something to someone that the receiving party is able to have a conversation with you. You can still reject them in the end, but being able to ask the people involved questions is a reasonable expectation — but many of these big tech companies have made it effectively impossible. If you want to live life as a hermit, good on ya, but then maybe accept that life and don't offer other people stuff?
  - direwolf20 10mo ago
    Most countries have laws about a minimum level of customer support for things you pay for.

We really need some law to stop "you have been banned and we won't even tell you actual reason for it", it's become a plague, made worse with automated systems giving out a ban

Markoff 10mo ago

Judging by his EUR currency the guy is from EU, so he HAS law available for him to protect himself. Recital (71) of the GDPR "The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention." https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/rules-business-and-organisations/dealing-citizens/are-there-restrictions-use-automated-decision-making_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...

j16sdiz 10mo ago
It is not '...automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices'.
- johndough 10mo ago
  Those are just examples. The real question is whether the ban produces "legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her". Maybe someone with legal expertise could weight in here?
Cthulhu_ 10mo ago
More recent, the Digital Services Act includes "Options to appeal to content moderation decisions" [0]; I believe this also covers being banned from a platform. Not sure if Claude falls under these rules, I think it only applies to 'gatekeeper' platforms but I'm reasonably confident the number of organizations that fall under this will increase. [0] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act#:~:text=Options%20to%20appeal%20to%20content%20moderation%20decisions https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-se...
direwolf20 10mo ago
The company will refuse under 12(4) "The right to obtain a copy referred to in paragraph 3 shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others." and then you will have to sue them.

j16sdiz 10mo ago

Actually, there are law to stop banks telling their client why they are flagged for money laundering

disgruntledphd2 10mo ago
Yeah, the Bank Secrecy Act is probably one of the most anti-democratic laws out there. Worse, the controls that governments have over financial systems are being viewed as a model for what they should have over technology.

krzat 10mo ago

IMO every ban should have a dedicated web page containing ban reasons and proofs, which affected person can challenge, use in court or share publicly.

monster_truck 10mo ago
Try moderating something sometime

urbandw311er 10mo ago

Do we though? It’s an important question about liberty - at what point does a business become so large that it’s not allowed to decide who gets to use it? There was a famous case here in the UK of a cake shop that banned a customer for wanting a cake made for a gay wedding because it was contra the owners’ religious beliefs. That was taken all the way up to the Supreme Court IIRC.

ssl-3 10mo ago
I don't think the parent comment was about banning bans based on business size or any other measure, for that's obviously a non-starter. I think it was more about getting rid of unexplained bans. To that end: I think the parent comment was suggesting that when a person is banned from using a thing, then that person deserves to know the reason for the ban -- at the very least, for their own health and sanity. It may still be an absolute and unappealable ban, but unexplained bans don't allow a person learn, adjust, and/or form a cromulent and rational path forward.
- mannykannot 10mo ago
  It is more than that, as there is cold comfort in having an explanation that is arbitrary and capricious, irrational, contrary to the stated rules, or based on falsehoods, if there is no effective means of appeal - especially if there are few or no viable alternatives to the entity imposing the ban.
9rx 10mo ago
Yes, it is not too much to require that that if you offer something to someone that the receiving party is able to have a conversation with you. You can still reject them in the end, but being able to ask the people involved questions is a reasonable expectation — but many of these big tech companies have made it effectively impossible. If you want to live life as a hermit, good on ya, but then maybe accept that life and don't offer other people stuff?
- direwolf20 10mo ago
  Most countries have laws about a minimum level of customer support for things you pay for.