3 ms·

That is because Facebook have already gone out of scale and no reasonable human can handle those appeals anymore. If you mix in the spammer and bad actors, it

by j16sdiz 8mo ago

That is because Facebook have already gone out of scale and no reasonable human can handle those appeals anymore. If you mix in the spammer and bad actors, it makes sense to just say no. The solution is, of course, have smaller social networks.

deaux 8mo ago
> That is because Facebook have already gone out of scale and no reasonable human can handle those appeals anymore. You've been brainwashed. How can you seriously make this statement? Meta has $200 _billion_ revenue. Amazon employs _1.56 million_ people worldwide. Meta could absolutely hire a million support workers and handle the appeals. They don't, but they could. Smaller social networks would be ideal, but not the only option. You can legislate a requirement of human support availability for gatekeeper platforms.
- 3371 8mo ago
  I wholeheartedly agree companies are doing so bad on customer support nowadays, but I'd argue that there will slways be more fake users than any size of human customer support can take, especially in the age of AI. I honestly believe it's a battle no one can win.
  - deaux 8mo ago
    Fake phone support users? Of course not. Maybe in a few years.
  - mcmcmc 8mo ago
    This all goes away if you require social media companies to charge users for access. The addiction to free stuff is what’s really killing the internet.
    - alfnor 8mo ago
      You think feds won't pay for bot accounts? Record labels already pay for botted streams, so I'm pretty sure MOSSAD would pay to bot Facebook. Hell, it already happens on X.
      - mcmcmc 8mo ago
        The problem mentioned in the parent comment was the volume of fake accounts overloading customer support. If it’s no longer free to create spam accounts for phishing etc, the profitability of scamming will shrink and decrease the incentives. I don’t think feds are exactly slamming the support queue. More importantly than the bot problem, it would decrease social media usage in the aggregate while also encouraging more competition. Much easier to bootstrap a business if you’re not having to compete with big tech offering the same thing for free because they can subsidize the losses.
- j16sdiz 8mo ago
  You should read report from those support workers. How many disgusting image they need to see each day. Adding more support staff just more complexity. Facebook need to break down into small networks. (ie. make less revenue, if that's all you care) You suggest they should scale up the support team, I said they should just scale down their whole business.
  - Steve16384 8mo ago
    Somehow I can't see Facebook volunatarily scaling down, and even if they did, it would leave a gap for a "global" network to take its place.
    - int_19h 8mo ago
      Companies as large as Facebook (really all of the American Big Tech) should just be illegal. It's long overdue that we remembered that the very notion of a corporation is a creation of society. Corporations have no natural rights whatsoever because they don't naturally exist. It follows, then, that societies have the right to impose any limits and prohibitions when chartering corporations that don't discriminate against their owners (i.e. so long as restrictions apply uniformly). This includes limit on company size, its marketshare etc.
      - deaux 8mo ago
        They already are illegal, laws are just not enforced. We don't need more laws, we need enforcement. It's the same in the EU. If GDPR laws were probably enforced the yearly fines would be a magnitude higher than they currently are. But they're still too scared because of the defense and gas reliance. It stems me positive to read this by a user with a 2012 HN account though! Nice.
        int_19h 8mo ago
        In US at least, the current interpretation of our anti-trust laws (after Bork's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox) is such that it is not illegal - you have to prove harm to users, mere market dominance isn't sufficient.
- kortilla 8mo ago
  A quick way to discredit your own point is to confuse revenue with profit. Never mention revenue when you are trying to claim companies can afford to do X or Y. Grocery stores famously have large revenues but very narrow profit margins so they can’t afford anything expensive. Meta’s profit was $60 billion in 2025. That’s the number to use in examples like yours.

by j16sdiz 8mo ago

deaux 8mo ago

> That is because Facebook have already gone out of scale and no reasonable human can handle those appeals anymore. You've been brainwashed. How can you seriously make this statement? Meta has $200 _billion_ revenue. Amazon employs _1.56 million_ people worldwide. Meta could absolutely hire a million support workers and handle the appeals. They don't, but they could. Smaller social networks would be ideal, but not the only option. You can legislate a requirement of human support availability for gatekeeper platforms.

3371 8mo ago
I wholeheartedly agree companies are doing so bad on customer support nowadays, but I'd argue that there will slways be more fake users than any size of human customer support can take, especially in the age of AI. I honestly believe it's a battle no one can win.
- deaux 8mo ago
  Fake phone support users? Of course not. Maybe in a few years.
- mcmcmc 8mo ago
  This all goes away if you require social media companies to charge users for access. The addiction to free stuff is what’s really killing the internet.
  - alfnor 8mo ago
    You think feds won't pay for bot accounts? Record labels already pay for botted streams, so I'm pretty sure MOSSAD would pay to bot Facebook. Hell, it already happens on X.
    - mcmcmc 8mo ago
      The problem mentioned in the parent comment was the volume of fake accounts overloading customer support. If it’s no longer free to create spam accounts for phishing etc, the profitability of scamming will shrink and decrease the incentives. I don’t think feds are exactly slamming the support queue. More importantly than the bot problem, it would decrease social media usage in the aggregate while also encouraging more competition. Much easier to bootstrap a business if you’re not having to compete with big tech offering the same thing for free because they can subsidize the losses.
j16sdiz 8mo ago
You should read report from those support workers. How many disgusting image they need to see each day. Adding more support staff just more complexity. Facebook need to break down into small networks. (ie. make less revenue, if that's all you care) You suggest they should scale up the support team, I said they should just scale down their whole business.
- Steve16384 8mo ago
  Somehow I can't see Facebook volunatarily scaling down, and even if they did, it would leave a gap for a "global" network to take its place.
  - int_19h 8mo ago
    Companies as large as Facebook (really all of the American Big Tech) should just be illegal. It's long overdue that we remembered that the very notion of a corporation is a creation of society. Corporations have no natural rights whatsoever because they don't naturally exist. It follows, then, that societies have the right to impose any limits and prohibitions when chartering corporations that don't discriminate against their owners (i.e. so long as restrictions apply uniformly). This includes limit on company size, its marketshare etc.
    - deaux 8mo ago
      They already are illegal, laws are just not enforced. We don't need more laws, we need enforcement. It's the same in the EU. If GDPR laws were probably enforced the yearly fines would be a magnitude higher than they currently are. But they're still too scared because of the defense and gas reliance. It stems me positive to read this by a user with a 2012 HN account though! Nice.
      - int_19h 8mo ago
        In US at least, the current interpretation of our anti-trust laws (after Bork's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox) is such that it is not illegal - you have to prove harm to users, mere market dominance isn't sufficient.
kortilla 8mo ago
A quick way to discredit your own point is to confuse revenue with profit. Never mention revenue when you are trying to claim companies can afford to do X or Y. Grocery stores famously have large revenues but very narrow profit margins so they can’t afford anything expensive. Meta’s profit was $60 billion in 2025. That’s the number to use in examples like yours.