401–410 of 514 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it is stated anywhere that the ban was the result of the thing that was being advertised . > This review found inauthentic behavior or violations of our Advertising Policies or Community Guidelines There could be thousands of other things.
> There could be thousands of other things. Sounds like speculation to me. Anything to back that up?
Other similar cases I'm aware of. * The Scunthorpe problem, AOL didn't let users set their hometown to Scunthorpe because of the "cunt" substring. This is a classic. * Amazon banning sales of Guns N' Roses merch (because guns). * People named Miranda having issues with bank transfers (because of the substring "Iran"). * Some games displaying the nickname "Nasser" as "N* er", suggesting that it is the n word. Alexa no…
Clbuttic!
Extrapolate this type of "unfortunate incident" to medicine, finance, insurance, policing, education, corporate hiring etc. where automation and "AI" is supposed to slash costs and improve efficiency and ponder what kind of society we are heading towards and why. There is nothing wrong with using technology to empower humans (in this case Meta employees) to be more efficient in processing information. But removing th…
Let AI moderation commit genocide once, shame on Facebook. Let AI moderation continue to go unregulated, and...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it your account you want deleted or someone impersonating you? Because killing your own account can be easily done by posting objectionable content.
Sounds like a great way to get yourself on a watchlist, too. Or banned from other things.
honestly spam is the easiest and safest way to get banned. easy to automate as well. doubly efficient if you scrape the site to power your bot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There exist laws about this, which provide a market solution. It's just that everybody has their fingers in their ears yelling about how big tech aren't monopolies so the existing laws aren't being applied. In an actual competetive environment, you would go to the next door buisness that didn't arbritrarily ban you/has actual people in their customer service...
There exists dozens if not hundreds of programmatic advertising companies you can go to to show banner ads, not to mention Google
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just an idea, but try looking for a gdpr specific email/contact form. Usually companies have a specific one for that purpose because they actually have to comply with them. In case that leads nowhere, you should raise a complaint with you local data protection agency, for example https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/
I already did that, otherwise Instagram provides no support. I’ve been trying to escalate it to a manager, because I feel once the Irish data authority gets involved it will be handed off to legal.
that's ideal if they are ignoring GDPR protocol, right? it'll make for glacial progress, but you did say you've been at this for a year as is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not telling you whats wrong should be highly ilegal, given how important these systems can be for modern society.
I'd prefer it if we legislated that organisations can't exclusively rely on closed systems like Facebook/Meta to run their services. I saw a sign last year for forestry service work happening locally to me. Apparently they're only going to provide safety announcements on Facebook. Shit like that grinds my gears. Meta's users aren't citizens, they're serfs. :(
these organizations can barely update those sites sometimes. what hopes are there in maintaining and posting on their own blog?
Other similar cases I'm aware of. * The Scunthorpe problem, AOL didn't let users set their hometown to Scunthorpe because of the "cunt" substring. This is a classic. * Amazon banning sales of Guns N' Roses merch (because guns). * People named Miranda having issues with bank transfers (because of the substring "Iran"). * Some games displaying the nickname "Nasser" as "N* er", suggesting that it is the n word. Alexa no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they're only going to provide safety announcements on Facebook. While I understand, what's the alternative you propose? I have seen HN threads ridiculing some govt website for being outdated or not fixing the latest vulnerability or not using the latest version etc. Or if they do allocate a bigger chunk of their budget for tech and there will be unreasonable HN threads about how one user feels he/she could build it…
> I have seen HN threads ridiculing some govt website for being outdated or not fixing the latest vulnerability or not using the latest version etc. Or if they do allocate a bigger chunk of their budget for tech and there will be unreasonable HN threads about how one user feels he/she could build it over a weekend and question the budgets. So? Public institutions are free to run "outdated" web sites and ignore random…
And people are free to ignore them and rely on trillion dollar corporations.
I understand your point, but the main point here isn't internet elitism. It's how you justify hosting servers for stuff no one is already visiting. "Not relying on Meta" is an equally HN take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like speculation to me. Anything to back that up?
The author might be speculating, but I worked on that team and his diagnostic is very likely exact.