111–120 of 423 posts
But, if real, it's an huge unethical breach for bribery, privacy violation, and will only benefit illegal content. A real customer using this will never be accepted again on those platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why do the employees not stand up at all hands meetings and raise this issue as a serious problem. This definitely happens for all kinds of problems at big tech companies. But you might be absolutely shocked to learn that many times, random engineers complaining about something doesn't result in management taking immediate action to fix the issue. > Of course I know the answer in they just don't care and their pers…
> I guess the more ignorant ones do? the toxicity that this whole type of signaling represents from a company just means the give 0 shits about users. therefore, that means that its employees are placated by paychecks to also be happy to receive the negative aspects and laugh it off on their way to the bank to cash their large paychecks. this is the loss of respect others have towards the "yous"
Most companies seem to suck in some way or another, reflecting that onto the individual workers just seems silly to me.
They're not "laughing it off" because they're paid well; if they were paid badly instead, what would change? Do people with low wages who work for corporations do something differently here?
This has to be a sting operation. No way would I risk my stable 6-figure job for some random to get their account unlocked. Especially not for "$100" lol. If the account was locked for fraudulent activity or worse, something illegal like CSAM. That paper trail will easily lead back to you. Bye bye job and possible investigation by authorities. On the upside, at least you will get "free" security from the FBI when you…
I think this is a great idea to show how to create a product to attend a real customer pain - but only as a protest site to raise some awareness to the customer service problem of these big techs. But, if real, it's an huge unethical breach for bribery, privacy violation, and will only benefit illegal content. A real customer using this will never be accepted again on those platforms.
this sentence doesn't make sense
Seems insane. Surely every single company would fire you for doing that. If you put this in its proper term it is "corruption" and you should definitely worry about the legal implications of doing this.
you seem to only be thinking about one side of this, the company side. what about the endless amount of normal end users that got caught by some god awful AI, and ignored by a huge tech company and its basically non existing customer service?
Seems insane. Surely every single company would fire you for doing that. If you put this in its proper term it is "corruption" and you should definitely worry about the legal implications of doing this.
> fire you for doing that No, a good company would realize that AI-based false positive account suspensions is a problem, is killing small businesses and creators in droves, and should hire more human paid employees people to take care of account suspension appeals and help reduce the false positives of the AI algorithms. Hand an additional bonus to the employees who were willing to be the first iteration of this add…
How do you verify employees? Are they really going to sign up to this?
For now, I'm verifying them via their work email. So far, I've gotten decent feedback from my former colleagues and friends in big tech. Most of them take some sort of compensation for helping restore Insta / ad accounts - this is just a more direct way.
This site is an absolutely terrible idea. Anyone that thinks this is acceptable should not be working for these companies. Your friends and former colleagues are, quite frankly, stupid. If they sell access to recovery they will be caught and fired, or worse.
It would be trivial for the insider risk people at said companies to find out who you have communicated via their work email.
It is absolutely against terms of employment across the industry to sell recovery of accounts. Not to mention completely unethical. Why would you think this is acceptable?
Just stop.
On one hand: an action virtually guaranteed to get you fired. On the other: $150 I used to work at FB and they have a team that tries to catch employees selling access like this. I can’t imagine risking that for what is essentially an hours pay for most tech roles there.
yes and it seems unscrupulous to take kickback money for this. on the other hand, as someone who has one of these problems, I'd be only too happy to pay an insider to fix it. It's not just the technical problem (account suspension etc.), it's the injustice of the thing in the first place, and then the rage of being put in an endless hell loop.
So let's have a thought exercise: what would it cost, in dollars, to have a hyperscale web service that doesn't have this problem? In other words, a Facebook/Google-equivalent web service of some kind that has a public a link to a 'mistakenly banned appeal' form for anyone to use.
The constraints/spirit of the exercise are that the volume of worldwide engagement with our hypothetical service needs to be equivalent to engagement with Google/Facebook (and equivalently appealing for ToS-violators to abuse, leading to a comparable volume of automated bans). Auto-ban systems and ToS are similar to Fb/Google as well. The product doesn't matter a ton. Maybe it's a social network, or an office/email suite, whatever.
The difference is that ImaginaryCorp honestly strives to provide a ban-appeal process equivalent to what you get if you know someone who works at Google to absolutely everyone. Let's say they promise a verdict within a calendar month, with at least some amount of useful explanation.
The review process can be automated within reason, but not if it violates the goal of reducing abuse and false ban rates to the level that a Google employee can expect when they submit their uncle Doug's marginally-suspicious banned account for internal review. ImaginaryCorp really believes in the spirit of that goal, so they're not willing to compromise on the review process much. Yeah yeah, it's implausible that belief in the spirit of the goal would be present at every level of the company. It's a thought excercise about monetary cost, just go with it.
They won't half-ass it and just grant everyone's appeal because the have a similar commitment to Fb/Goog to not losing users after becoming a cesspit, are subject to CSAM etc. laws, and generally care about not being a clearinghouse for abusive content.
Doing this would probably require a lot more human review (unless Google is for some reason sitting on a way better auto-ban system and not using it), and as a result would require a massive staff and process edifice to execute that, keeping false-positives to a bare minimum, on a global scale. Financially, the business has to remain sustainable with this system in place (but not necessarily successful or growing on par with competition).
So the question is: how much would this cost me, the user? Even if ImaginaryCorp runs ads like Fb/Google, would that account-review edifice require subscription fees to not run the company out of money? If so, assume users act like shitty free-but-your-data-and-clicks-are-the-product users and not like paying customers, so legitimate abuse rates stay high (again, thought experiment). If there are fees, how much am I paying a month--$5? $50? $500? Or would running this review system just mean that the company is a little (or a lot) less profitable than its competitors?
It's an interesting question to think about. The requirement of providing useful explanation to legitimately banned users actually complicates things a great deal, because it might lead to gaming the system. Staffing is obviously a huge challenge: high-social-context groups of reviewers would need to be present all over the world. Staffing is an even bigger challenge if you opt to solve issues "at the source" by fixing the auto-ban systems themselves (which results in needing to solve realtime moderation at scale, a notoriously intractable problem). Automation is tempting, but risks falling directly back into the issue we're trying to solve.
In the real world, this would obviously never happen, but I'm interested in what you all think.