> She recommended a few cafes, and I went to look at their menus. To my surprise, I couldn’t access their menus. They were only on Instagram, and it’d force a sign in before showing me the content. Wow. There are over 30 restaurants within a mile of where I live, and not one of them uses Instagram to host anything as far as I know. They always have a real web page, even if it’s cobbled together on Wix or some other h…
The other day I went to view my kid's elementary school class page and was hit with an instagram login prompt.
The dark side of account bans
91–100 of 120 posts
Re: The dark side of account bans
#92I don't know about the country you live in, but the usual 100% bullet-proof method to make your message seen by the living human being is to send a paper snail mail. You won't necessary receive the answers for your questions, but you'll get back your account. If the simple message did not help, you file a pre-trial claim and send it to them.
Re: The dark side of account bans
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that part of the problem is how trigger happy the platforms are to reports of CSAM and other "black issues". They don't do any research, they just ban and call it a day. Your government could go to them and say, "hey, you should do due research before banning a user,", and the platform will turn back and say "you passed a law last month where I would be banned from operating in the country if I allowed any…
Meta don't seem to care much about actual CSAM at all. I have a throwaway account on Facebook that follows no pages and has no friends. In the absence of anything else to go on, Facebook somehow decided that I would most like to see anti-vax conspiracy, flat earth theory and child sexual abuse material. Every report I've made about the CSAM has met the same "we found nothing wrong" response, and it keeps bubbling up…
Re: The dark side of account bans
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta don't seem to care much about actual CSAM at all. I have a throwaway account on Facebook that follows no pages and has no friends. In the absence of anything else to go on, Facebook somehow decided that I would most like to see anti-vax conspiracy, flat earth theory and child sexual abuse material. Every report I've made about the CSAM has met the same "we found nothing wrong" response, and it keeps bubbling up…
Might be worth reporting to the FBI, at that point.
EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, f'rex.
Re: The dark side of account bans
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same reason twitch don't ban big accounts that break ToS, only the small ones. The big accounts make them money so they don't want to ban them. I recommend watching an Amouranth stream and keeping the ToS open in another window, and counting the violations.
It is possible that those high-value users sign different terms of service once they reach a treshold. Doesn't make it better, but it's an interesting thought.
Re: The dark side of account bans
#96I don't know about the country you live in, but the usual 100% bullet-proof method to make your message seen by the living human being is to send a paper snail mail. You won't necessary receive the answers for your questions, but you'll get back your account. If the simple message did not help, you file a pre-trial claim and send it to them.
The country she lives in is plastered all over the article you didn't read :)
Re: The dark side of account bans
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This unfortunately is why anonymity is so important on the Internet. I’m not convinced by your argument. I acknowledge that maintaining an isolated identity for the Discord/whatever accounts would have limited the scope of the damage, but it’s often not very practical for a variety of reasons, and perhaps more importantly, the anonymity is part of the problem too: the trouble-maker has anonymity, and uses it for ba…
I see that it’s time to link this again: https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22R... >
I've attempted to archive the link at both Internet Archive and Archive Today, though both fail to show content.
Re: The dark side of account bans
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only time I reported anything to Meta, I reported a blatantly racist comment to FB ("do not interbreed with them because they are evil") and the assessment was that it did not breach their community standards.
They changed their TOS recently to allow calling LGBT people "mentally ill" or saying racist slurs in an attempt to please the bigoted GOP.
Re: The dark side of account bans
#99https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/gfl/fairwork-small-claims>
The law is what provides justice, the mechanism is the court system. There are many who try to dissuade you from this option because it is effective. Use it.
Write your consumer protection entity. In much of the US that is your state attorney general's office. I believe you can start with the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), here:
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-...>
Write your government representatives.
- City council members.
- County supervisors / local councils.
- State representatives / MRA.
- Federal representatives / MPs.
Call their office(s).
Write their office(s). Email and postal mail.
Follow up with them. If you don't get a sufficient response, let the office know.
Australian governmental organisation: https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-...>
Contact NGOs advancing personal digital rights in your country. For Australia this seems to be Digital Rights Watch (https://digitalrightswatch.org.au/>) and EFF Australia (https://efa.org.au/>). These and similar organisations elsewhere should already be very familiar with account-lock-out and similar problems, and can likely direct you as to how to register your claim most effectively.
Tweeting, blogging, and throwing up your hands is what Meta would most like you to do.
Do more and cause them pain.
Organise.
Re: The dark side of account bans
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see that it’s time to link this again: https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22R... >
That doesn’t invalidate what I said. Anonymity protects both “good” and “bad” people. My argument was just that it doesn’t seem fair to use this case to justify anonymity, when removing anonymity would also probably have solved it. It’s not the conclusion I’m disagreeing with, just the logic. (Perhaps I undermined this aspect by indulging in the thought experiment where accountability was actually held. Do I think su…