Teatotaller cafe owner wins Instagram case in court

Post by teeray » Sat, Jan 27, 2024, 1:49 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #6

teeray wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s assuming you can even contact the necessary team. Usually your only recourse with FB is clicking through a support wizard and filling out a textbox. Then you get a final, unappealable judgement from an admin as a notification.

I'm reading as why did Meta not pay its employees internally to resolve this matter instead of paying attorneys to litigate this case. The assumption being that an employee is already on the payroll so just give them an assignment instead of giving money to lawyers. I'm guessing their arrogance told them they'd never lose the case and it would be worth it to set precedence. Only it might have backfired

Post by reactordev » Sat, Jan 27, 2024, 2:14 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #6

teeray wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s assuming you can even contact the necessary team. Usually your only recourse with FB is clicking through a support wizard and filling out a textbox. Then you get a final, unappealable judgement from an admin as a notification.

I'm reading as why did Meta not pay its employees internally to resolve this matter instead of paying attorneys to litigate this case. The assumption being that an employee is already on the payroll so just give them an assignment instead of giving money to lawyers. I'm guessing their arrogance told them they'd never lose the case and it would be worth it to set precedence. Only it might have backfired

Post by jfoster » Sat, Jan 27, 2024, 2:26 AM UTC

reactordev wrote: post #12

silisili wrote: post #2

I don't get this. Why not pay an employee to take a few hours, ask a person from the necessary team to take a look, then call or write the complainant? That -has- to be cheaper than getting all these lawyers involved over what was probably, as the article states, a glitch of some sort.

Meta’s help support is a bot. Theres no human. You can’t reach a human. The only recourse you have is what this man did.

Post by phire » Sat, Jan 27, 2024, 2:41 AM UTC

gumby wrote: post #10

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #3

> Meta also argued it was immune to any cases brought against them under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which is often used to obtain immunity from claims involving the publishing or deletion of material on its platforms. A crack in Section 230. Nice!

A crack in Section 230 would be disastrous. But this doesn't look like a crack at all, and IG never tried to claim that they had deliberately chosen to delete the account. That might even have pushed it under Section 230!

Post by pxeboot » Sat, Jan 27, 2024, 2:58 AM UTC

reactordev wrote: post #13

dylan604 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reading as why did Meta not pay its employees internally to resolve this matter instead of paying attorneys to litigate this case. The assumption being that an employee is already on the payroll so just give them an assignment instead of giving money to lawyers. I'm guessing their arrogance told them they'd never lose the case and it would be worth it to set precedence. Only it might have backfired

Because Meta’s support system is entirely run by automation. By bots. There’s no human. No one knew, no one noticed, no one cared.