21–30 of 99 posts
When lawyers are asked who are paid thousands an hour they would gladly go ten years at it.
This could turn into a mini-industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
such a cop out answer. someone wrote that bot. someone can investigate logs to see what the bot did. some PM is in charge of the people that wrote the bots. their bonuses are dependent on good reviews. anyone writing automation that doesn't leave a trail to follow wouldn't be worth much. no logging is an amateur move or the move of a guilty party. hopefully, the next case will have lawyers instead of some small shop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Once served with a lawsuit, most companies don't continue to rely on their publicly accessible support system.
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.
I’ve worked for the same Fortune 500 company for 20+ years. 99% of the time I have zero idea what team does what and whom I would even talk to find out. With nearly 100,000 employees and I have no idea how many thousands of departments and teams, I don’t think anyone really has the big picture of what everyone is doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve worked for the same Fortune 500 company for 20+ years. 99% of the time I have zero idea what team does what and whom I would even talk to find out. With nearly 100,000 employees and I have no idea how many thousands of departments and teams, I don’t think anyone really has the big picture of what everyone is doing.
It sounds like there's a job for people who knows the bird eye's view as well as the ground truth of an organization.
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.
Agreed, it seems like a disproportionate response. Handling the situation quietly when the court case was filed might have avoided this bad-for-Meta legal precedent. Taking it to trial seems like the most risky move, I'm interested if anyone can see Meta's legal logic here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like there's a job for people who knows the bird eye's view as well as the ground truth of an organization.
Thats crazy talk, what would such a role even be called?
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
They had to either fight the case, or figure out what team could actually sort this out and convince their manager to take a look.
In the unlikely event they managed the first of those tasks, the second would present an insurmountable hurdle.