71–80 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were like a military thing. They'd likely be an officer, maybe even a chief of some kind.
I’m just imagining going up to somebody in the c-suite and telling them what team I work for and what I do. I guarantee they would have no idea we exist. I once sat next to the manager who is three levels above me at a lunch meeting. She had zero idea who my team was or what we did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were like a military thing. They'd likely be an officer, maybe even a chief of some kind.
I’m just imagining going up to somebody in the c-suite and telling them what team I work for and what I do. I guarantee they would have no idea we exist. I once sat next to the manager who is three levels above me at a lunch meeting. She had zero idea who my team was or what we did.
I don’t get this. There was no actual punishment for Facebook — so what will make them change their behaviour? Secondly, how can the lawyers just LIE and say he deleted his account when the company itself must have records of that. If they didn’t have the logs to prove it then they couldn’t have known he deleted it. If they did have logs they could have proven it. So they were lying. Why shouldn’t that be punished wi…
I'm not a lawyer or even from the US, but is it in the power of small claims to impose a 100m fine??
"The maximum amount you can claim in a small claims action is $10,000. If your claim exceeds $5,000, the claim will be subject to mandatory mediation."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a pretty shitty defence. Facebook were trying to argue that Section 230 somehow gave them immunity from their own terms and conditions.
Let alone a contract with payments involved. Too bad they weren't hit with tortious interference.
I assume by “they” you mean FB/IG. They aren’t the ones who filed suit, so it’s a hard case to make. But I do feel there’s an implicit contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I get it. I'm not business illiterate. 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 I…
Then why are you saying they should do something that, if you're not business illiterate, you know they can't do at scale?
> They know they ban a ton of users erroneously.
Yes. And they also know...
> They should have an appeals process for this.
...that anything like this that involves humans will not scale. That's why they don't do it: because they can't and still operate at scale.
> banned users should be able to export their data.
Which, again, they cannot support at scale.
Again, the only way this could ever be fixed would be for Meta and Google (and others) to abandon the ad-supported business model. But the only way that will ever happen is if they lose enough users to get their attention. In other words, stop feeding the monster. Complaining that the monster is bad and is doing bad things is pointless now.
> Impossible to get back.
Which, unfortunately, is why you shouldn't depend on them to store such data in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get it. I'm not business illiterate. 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 I…
Don’t conflate the concepts of user and customer . “You are a product” as a user is not an exaggeration but ground truth. They run a business, not a charity or government-subsidized public service, and their paying customers are advertisers. If you have a problem with Big Social banning your free account, you have a problem not with Meta but with this business model being legal . Offering free “service” to collect an…
I'm not sure this would actually fix the problem. The existing Big Social companies are so committed to this business model that I don't think they are capable of switching. I think some other company (that doesn't exist now) would have to figure out how to run the all-users-are-paying-customers business model at scale for things like search and social media. But who would run such a company? The company that was in the best position to do this, twenty or so years ago, was...Google. They had the tech resources, and they had the "Don't be evil" motto, which back then they were actually making some effort to live up to. And yet nobody there tried to get this done. Who is going to do it now?
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?
> Soldati’s win wasn’t just a win for him, he said, but a win for all Instagram users and small business owners who have faced similar problems with the tech company. This is just boilerplate nonsense used in every story like this. It is false. It was purely just a win for him. Anyone else wanting to sue Meta over a deleted account will have to go through almost exactly the same thing. The fact that Soldati may have…
This shows you have no idea how the US court system works. Meta's defeat leads to a build up of case law, making it harder for meta and similar companies to win unlike class action lawsuits, which lead to nothing. It does take time for these cases to build up the appeals process and such, but it does get there. In short, he does win in the short term, but everyone wins in the long term.
In many states, precedent can't be set in a small claims court.