51–60 of 99 posts
Sounds like Meta. I once had to solve a Facebook business page issue (another erroneous automated decision) that went unanswered for a year, and the only way I got it moving was to send a legal threat to Meta on a lawyer’s letterhead. Ended up solving the problem within a couple weeks.
Back in ~2006 I had a similar issue. I submitted a request to FB and I got the Page and URL. In 2019, with similar trademark issue I was rejected. This reads like I should escalate, outside of technical channels, to claim our rightfully owned name on their platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are billions of Meta users. If even 0.005% ever challenges Meta, that’s too much to handle for the company. So they’ll just enact better policies. I lost my Instagram account because I was on a VPN while browsing Instagram website. Nothing malicious. Just a normal user. This is good news for users because they build up years of history and connections on these apps.
> There are billions of Meta users. But the vast majority of them are not paying users, as this cafe owner was. At best this lawsuit sets a precedent for people who are paying for business account services. It does not help ordinary free users at all.
Insane.
I don't think Meta and Google should be allowed to ban people without anyway for innocent users to recover the account or to download their own data after a permanent ban.
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.
> In court, Soldati said Facebook attorneys were condescending and patronizing to him, but he took it seriously because it was his livelihood and because he thought that someone needed to fight them. He says it was “100%” worth it.
Condescending and patronizing sounds about right. "We went to Yale and Harvard, and now work for Meta, no puny coffee shop owner is going to oppose us! This should be a walk in the park". It's pretty glorious how they lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are billions of Meta users. But the vast majority of them are not paying users, as this cafe owner was. At best this lawsuit sets a precedent for people who are paying for business account services. It does not help ordinary free users at all.
Interestingly, if you look at Reddit sub regarding Instagram, a lot of people go there for help after they've been banned erroneously. One of the top recommendations was to make a paid account for ads just to get a human to look at their request. Insane. I don't think Meta and Google should be allowed to ban people without anyway for innocent users to recover the account or to download their own data after a permanen…
The only way I would ever see this getting fixed would be for them to abandon the ad-supported business model and actually charge ordinary users for their services. Whether you like it or not, "you get what you pay for" is a thing. If you are getting a service for free, you actually have no right to any kind of support. You just have to take whatever you get. Yes, it sucks, but unfortunately the only way to make sure you aren't a victim is to not trust anything you care about to these services. Which is why I don't.
The judge found:
> The defendant provided two conflicting reasons for the deletion
Isn't this lying under oath? How is it not perjury?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, if you look at Reddit sub regarding Instagram, a lot of people go there for help after they've been banned erroneously. One of the top recommendations was to make a paid account for ads just to get a human to look at their request. Insane. I don't think Meta and Google should be allowed to ban people without anyway for innocent users to recover the account or to download their own data after a permanen…
If Meta and Google had to provide actual support of the kind you describe to non-paying users, they would not be able to run their operations at scale. When the number of your users runs into nine or ten figures, even tiny error rates in your automated algorithms mean large numbers of people are being erroneously banned, and that is simply unfixable because your being able to operate at scale requires almost all of y…
However, it's still human on the other end. They know they ban a ton of users erroneously. They should have an appeals process for this. For example, maybe allow banned users to pay $1.99 to get a human review. Or provide an actual appeals process or invest in better spam detection.
In my case, it was obvious that it was a mistake. I used NordVPN, a very popular VPN, to browse Instagram.com on my laptop while logged in. Instant ban.
At the very least, banned users should be able to export their data. I had a ton of old contacts on my IG follower/following list that I lost. Impossible to get back.
Could someone ELI5 this to me? The judge found: > The defendant provided two conflicting reasons for the deletion Isn't this lying under oath? How is it not perjury?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand precedents. How much can it help? The goal isn't just to win (which the guy did, after all) but not spend years. Suppose the existence of precedent knocks it down from 6 to 3 years. That's twice better, but still poor. Most people will give up.
There are billions of Meta users. If even 0.005% ever challenges Meta, that’s too much to handle for the company. So they’ll just enact better policies. I lost my Instagram account because I was on a VPN while browsing Instagram website. Nothing malicious. Just a normal user. This is good news for users because they build up years of history and connections on these apps.
soldati was a paying customer