I have a similar, though less horrible story.
We recently launched an app where we wanted to have a Facebook sign-in button since our target audience would be people that use Facebook a lot. Being Gen Z and not having a Facebook account at all (anymore) I made one for Meta developers, set everything up for development and tested stuff for a few weeks.
When we finally did want to go live, we went through the Meta for Business verification process, which succeeded, but a minute later my account got banned. I got to appeal (sending a video of your face looking multiple directions), but for some reason that wasn’t enough for them. I got fully banned with the only option to appeal going to court.
So now apparently I have a Facebook developer account and a verified business, both of which I cannot access at all anymore.
We do not currently have a Facebook sign-in button in our production app.
hofrogs · 4h ago
You now have a banned account, and Meta has a video of your face looking multiple directions and data about your business and development activity. A fair and common trade from the big tech point of view.
distalx · 3h ago
Yeah, I had a similar frustrating time. Not a personal ban, but trying to help a friend verify their business for the WhatsApp API.
We followed the process twice, really carefully. Both times Facebook failed to verify the business. No clear reason why.
We posted everything on their developer forum hoping for help, but got nothing back. Just silence!! Many people were facing the same issue like us.
Ended up having to give up and tell my friend I couldn't help. Honestly, the fear of getting banned mysel if I kept pushing stopped me from trying it one more time.
these platforms are difficult to deal with when things go wrong.
yellow_lead · 5h ago
I've reported a lot of prostitution ads on Instagram, but they always responded to the report with "we found nothing wrong". After reporting these ads, Meta decided I liked them and started showing me more and more, but I've given up on reporting them, since no action is taken.
Meta seem to not actually check reports. My theory is that they just rely on some percentage of reports maybe relating to followers, reports, and time. If it exceeds a threshold, there's an action. Otherwise, no action.
dsign · 5h ago
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 photo of somebody under 18 wearing less than a full-body skimo wolly suit, but I'm not allowed to ask for an ID to know the user's age. What am I supposed to do? Deploy a trigger happy AI? I just did!"
So, in a sense, we live in the best world possible.
May I suggest that you just block and mute the prostitutes, if they offend your sensibilities? That's what I do. Because in the next iteration of censorship, we might lose the social networks altogether.
surgical_fire · 5h ago
> we might lose the social networks altogether.
Don't tempt me with a better world.
spicybright · 1h ago
I honestly think that's the way things are going. People are tired of AI generated junk and doom scrolling. I notice a lot of young people have migrated to places like discord or group chats lately. A tight knit circle of friends without a "feed" run by algos. I'm excited if this holds true!
surgical_fire · 1h ago
That's what forums used to be, but running them is more a chore than simply establishing a closed group somewhere.
actionfromafar · 5h ago
Don't threaten me with a good time.
bigfatkitten · 5h ago
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 in my feed.
voidUpdate · 5h ago
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.
philistine · 3h ago
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.
lynx97 · 5h ago
I suspect not reacting to that kind of problem is intentional. Just like YouTube didn't do anything against the pirated music uploads in the 2010 years, simply because being able to play your favourite pop song via YouTube was attractive to early users. Same with audio books these days. Some pirated accounts are being used to upload complete Audible books. They dont even bother to remove the "This isAudible" intro, which apparently could easily be used to autodetect such uploads. As said, I am guessing porn ads do provide Meta some form of income, and thats why they don't do anything about it. Big tech is shady like f**.
immibis · 5h ago
My Occam's razor is they do whatever makes them the most money. Are the prostitutes paying lots for ads? Leave them up. Are you complaining a bunch and not paying for ads? Ban you. Are people complaining about you a bunch (including 1000 identical complaints from sockpuppets) and you're not paying for ads? Ban you.
yellow_lead · 4h ago
Right, banning their customers will lose them money in this case.
graemep · 4h ago
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.
thrance · 4h ago
They changed their TOS recently to allow calling LGBT people "mentally ill" or saying racist slurs in an attempt to please the bigoted GOP.
db48x · 5h ago
> 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 horrible thing, and the menu is invariably a PDF (because they had to send something to the printer, and they don’t know how to put something nicer on the web). Sometimes you have to allow third–party JS to get their webpage to render so that you can get the PDF though.
Well, I guess the national chains don’t post a PDF these days. They give you a real menu and even offer online ordering and delivery. Most people probably don’t need to look at a McDonald’s menu to know what they sell though.
reginald78 · 4h ago
The other day I went to view my kid's elementary school class page and was hit with an instagram login prompt.
ghssds · 26m ago
Is this even legal?
OsrsNeedsf2P · 5h ago
I doubt they'll stay with custom websites for long, given 1. The new generation grew up with Social Media as a native service and 2. How much easier it is to run a Business account vs your own website
db48x · 4h ago
That’s why I mentioned services like Wix. They host your site and give you an online page builder, then you just point your domain at their servers. It’s basically just Geocities, but without the stigma. I believe Square runs one that is fairly popular, and there are others.
No more technical skill is required to use these service than is required to use Instagram, but the difference is that Instagram takes away all control from their users while these services give their users control over everything (except of course that hosting millions of restaurant websites lets these services collect a lot of data about the visitors that they can sell behind the scenes for extra profit, of course).
AStonesThrow · 5h ago
What I've found very useful is Google Maps for ordering online. I typically use DoorDash, which can access and aggregate almost any restaurant I'd care to patronize, but if the restaurant isn't listed, Google Maps can accurately direct me not only to the restaurant's main website, but also to their menu, and a complete list of online ordering services.
I've been able to reliably target a restaurant 20 minutes away by bus, select my order, pay for it online, and have it ready for pickup by the time I disembark. It's a pretty sweet arrangement.
If your chosen restaurant directs you to some dumb QR code and Instagram, try just looking them up on Google Maps. You'd be surprised what resources are available there, including plenty of reviews and customer-submitted photos of the very dishes you're looking to order!
antonvs · 6h ago
> In Australia, a vast majority of people purely use Facebook Messenger as the way to keep in touch with people.
My condolences.
philistine · 3h ago
Canada's the same.
ValdikSS · 46m ago
I 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.
j1elo · 5h ago
> I couldn’t access their menus. They were only on Instagram, and it’d force a sign in before showing me the content.
> so many restaurants and cafes here purely use Instagram (or sometimes Facebook) to host their menus.
That's idiotic. Really, reaaaally idiotic. Like, "talk to the manager and tell them they are doing a very stupid thing" levels of idiotic. </Rant>
This "we're too modern and digital to get out heads out of our asses" attitude towards adopting "cool technology" with complete disregard for an analog Plan B gets to my nerves.
Here, since Covid, lots of places stopped offering physical menus, instead they put a QR code to some webpage or gigantic PDF file that contains the menu (and can be updated every day to push prices up if needed, heh).
I hate that services assume you must have a hundreds-dollar device on your pocket at all times to even be able to access the basic service they provide. I just power off my phone and tell them "look I ran out of battery, what should we do?". They usually do have a physical menu, thankfully.
But other things aren't so nice. My employer offers a restaurant card, and because now we live in a "digital era", they don't issue physical cards any more, only digital ones to be used with Google Wallet on Android. Turns out I'd like to install GrapheneOS on my Pixel, and you got it: Wallet doesn't work on GrapheneOS for payments! I'd want my physical restaurant card, please.
kassner · 4h ago
I really don’t understand why some societies rely so much on Meta services, specially considering they are SO MUCH WORSE to administer, specially for a non-tech user, compared to creating a website in Wix (or even a free Wordpress.com account), or maybe updating your Google Maps business with the right information.
Maybe that shows a lack of critical thinking in the general population? I.e.: people must be using FB/IG because it’s the only thing they know, and never questioned themselves if there are other avenues?
philistine · 3h ago
They simply go where the eyeballs spend their time. It sucks there, but what are you going to do? You're competing with 20 other restaurants, and they're all on Instagram.
ajross · 5h ago
> This "we're too modern and digital to get out heads out of our asses" attitude towards adopting "cool technology" with complete disregard for an analog Plan B gets to my nerves.
All restaurants have an "analog plan B", it's called walking in and asking for a menu. These are tiny businesses run by people who love food, not tech. It really is asking too much to expect them to work at and understand the ideas behind digital freedom, at least if you want them to serve you good food.
Notably Google Maps curates a photo set of the physical menu of basically every restaurant in the urban USA, if not everywhere. I find a lot of people don't actually know this. I never bother looking at restaurant sites anymore except for places where I know they're likely to have changed the menu (and even then it's a crapshoot, per your original point).
kassner · 4h ago
> All restaurants have an "analog plan B", it's called walking in and asking for a menu
At least every second month I walk out of a new restaurant I’ve discovered because they don’t even care to have it.
Employees treat you like it’s your fault that you can’t see the prices behind a Meta auth wall. They won’t even offer to read it out to you or show in a device of their own.
Nowadays, if I see a triangle-shaped cardboard with a QR code on top of each table, I’m 95% sure I will walk out of there hungry. And angry.
crazygringo · 29m ago
I've never been to a restaurant without backup menus.
Even if they have QR codes, they have some paper menus or tablets.
And it's not even for people without devices or logins -- it's because phone batteries run out and they run out all the time. Restaurants don't generally make a lot of profit, and they need every customer they can get.
Do you bother to ask? Or do you just assume?
kranke155 · 5h ago
This is literally the new normal in a lot of places in Europe. I have no idea where you are that you think you could complain about this, they would just eye roll at you.
j1elo · 3h ago
> Whoa, wait a minute, Doc. What are you talkin’ about? What happens to us in the future? What, do we become assholes or somethin’?
OsrsNeedsf2P · 5h ago
Not only Europe, it's common in Asia too. You can hate it, but you can't fight the tide.
fweimer · 5h ago
> I did end up speaking to a few engineers at Meta through connections, either directly or through others, many of which recommended suing Meta to unlock my accounts. This was extra complicated due to me living in Australia, so it’s not something I tried.
Why is this complicated? Do the Meta ToS include a choice-of-venue clause for consumer accounts?
decimalenough · 5h ago
Suing people across jurisdictions is a nightmare. As a trivial example, anybody can theoretically sue any Singaporean entity in Singapore's Small Claims Tribunal, but if you don't have Singaporean ID, you need to show up in person in Singapore to register for the CJTS Pass system. Then you need to send registered mail from Singapore to the person you're using, apply for a special exception to be able to appear over Zoom instead of in person, provide proof that your home jurisdiction permits you to testify over video in Singapore, etc etc. And this is just for small claims!
fweimer · 4h ago
You wouldn't sue across jurisdictions, though? This would be an Australian suing under Australian law in an Australian court, potentially even an Australian entity.
raverbashing · 5h ago
Or: hire a lawyer in Singapore (or a solicitor, I'm not sure how's their legal system) to navigate these small bureaucracies
Rebuff5007 · 4h ago
There is so much that is sad and infuriating about this.
How can a stranger have so much hate towards someone who's content they want to consume?
Why are meta engineers suggesting suing their own company instead of pointing to someone to walk through a basic appeals process?
The obvious, why do so many things in the world not work without a smartphone and a google/facebook account with internet access?
Why isn't anyone doing anything about any of this? PMs at facebook? Congressmen/women?
The system is not working.
n4r9 · 6h ago
Sounds like an awful experience. It's easy to create fake FB or Insta accounts to get around the restaurant menus problem, but getting WhatsApp banned must be a nightmare. I didn't even know that could happen!
reginald78 · 4h ago
Is it easy? Last time I tried to create a throwaway account it demanded a video of my head. This was after automatically banning on creation my account.
cube00 · 4h ago
Good luck getting past the sign up flow to even get an account if your fingerprinted device is on their ban list.
stevage · 4h ago
I also lost my Facebook account a few years ago, because someone tried to hack it I think.
Similarly there were no open avenues of appeal.
By a big fluke I actually did some work for FB and in the process they unlocked it.
But yeah, monopolies controlling access to public services with no oversight sucks.
wil421 · 2h ago
My buddy forgot his old Facebook but some scammer found his old password on one of those pwned websites. A year ago his old account started selling random things like a huge swing set in California. I always wondered what they were up to with his account of Facebook marketplace.
nickdothutton · 5h ago
Users reporting users is a terrible way to manage account misuse/bad behaviour. Your average user on your average platform is a low form of life incase you hadn’t noticed.
Rastonbury · 2h ago
Worse is if your competitors report you and get you banned while having profitable ads, there goes a large marketing channel and likely a chunk of revenue, think shopify stores, restauranteurs. Reddit is full of these stories
grishka · 5h ago
It's an okay way as long as the ultimate decisions are made by real humans.
cosmicgadget · 2h ago
Real humans are really good at choosing the path of least resistance. E.g. Reddit's outsourced 'Anti Evil' team.
maxehmookau · 6h ago
This author sticking around is far more than that community deserves. If I ever received that sort of message from a user of anything I'd built, I'd walk away forever.
fmajid · 5h ago
And she is aa woman, which means she probably gets 100x the abuse a man would from entitled gamergate incels.
immibis · 5h ago
What if that was actually what the troll wanted?
maxehmookau · 5h ago
Not sure if I'd care. Depends on the context, but sometimes letting the bullies win is worth it for your own peace.
dangus · 7h ago
This unfortunately is why anonymity is so important on the Internet. I would not want to be a part of many of these communities with an account that is connected to my real life accounts in any way. Different email, different username, no discernible connection to my real identity.
But also, shame on Meta and most other gigantic companies for having no due process for anything like this. I have no idea how they just go along with it and decide in favor of the reporter with zero evidence. Sure, maybe bans need to be proactive but there should at least be an appeals process.
There should probably be more laws that cover permanent bans for business platforms that have a marketshare above a certain size. You shouldn’t be able to be permanently banned from services like this that dominate their respective markets without a robust process. There should probably be cases where even the violation of certain aspects of ToS can’t get you banned permanently, where law overrides ToS. Imagine if you were banned from getting phone service from AT&T in the 1980s and how devastating that could be.
jjav · 6h ago
While I sbsolutely agree there needs to be laws preventing account bans for any website larger than some threshold, this is also a reminder why it is so incredibly vital to support open standards that are not owned by anyone. Like email, IRC.
Every walled garden with a single corporate owner will 100% guaranteed abuse that ownership power.
The only way forward is open protocols that interoperate without anyone having a controlling interest.
chrismorgan · 6h ago
> 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 bad.
Under the Law of Moses, a discovered false witness in court was to receive the punishment he tried to cause, explicitly as an enduring deterrent to dishonesty. Deuteronomy 19:16–21:
> If an unrighteous witness rises up against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and behold, if the witness is a false witness, and has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he had thought to do to his brother. So you shall remove the evil from amongst you. Those who remain shall hear, and fear, and will never again commit any such evil amongst you. Your eyes shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
I presume Meta knows who made the report. I wonder if they ever make diligent inquisition, and ban the troll. I doubt it, but suppose, just suppose they did apply a standard like this.
Imagine if the account-reporting procedure stated a clear policy: “if we find your report vexatious, we will ban your account instead”; or “if we find your report vexatious, we will tell your target your account details so they can pursue legal action if they desire”. (This is, of course, overly simplified, and would probably deter legitimate reports too.)
Such harassment and threats as these frequently break laws, but anonymity is one factor that makes it much harder to pursue in a legal system. (Though it’s hardly the only thing; jurisdiction problems are a rather big deal with online stuff, and legal systems are often not tuned for pettier squabbles.)
Returning to the original case: if there were no anonymity at all, and the guy had to threaten via his real identity, I doubt it would have happened, and remedy might have been easier if it did.
I’m not against anonymity, I just feel the total picture is more nuanced than you’re presenting it as. Anonymity has both advantages and disadvantages.
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 such a scheme would actually work well? Not at all. People are involved.)
antonvs · 6h ago
I had a reddit account permanently banned for saying something to the effect that a certain out of control billionaire could be dealt with by launching him into space in an electric vehicle that one of his companies manufactures.
Apparently "reddit legal" thought that was a credible threat. I find that strangely encouraging.
verzali · 4h ago
Reddit once banned my account for "report abuse". The content I had reported was then removed by them for being against their rules. No amount of appeals could get a response from them.
lynx97 · 5h ago
Reads like a good decision on the side of Reddit. If you can't see how this type of statement is not OK, even after the fact, shows banning you was the right decision.
Macha · 4h ago
I can understand the motivation for acting on death threats like someone claiming they would like to stab another person. Who knows how plausible that is? Without knowing much about the poster, you kind of have to assume the most plausible interpretation in a lot of settings.
Launching someone in a rocket to space is clearly beyond the reach of any single individual. It's also not particularly violent in the scheme of things. It's clearly intended to be hyperbole, and hyperbole against a public figure is common. Musk himself, despite his thin skin, has often said much worse, I guess his ban from Twitter should be coming any day now?
antonvs · 4h ago
Thanks, you expressed my position well.
Cesura · 4h ago
Do you read French history and find yourself sympathetic to the plight of Marie Antoinette?
Philpax · 4h ago
How many people do you think Elon Musk has indirectly killed as a result of his actions, especially through his work with DOGE? I would not make such a threat myself, but I can certainly see why one would be inspired to.
antonvs · 4h ago
My comment was not a threat. A threat is a statement of intent.
However, the lawyers reddit employs are apparently similarly confused on that point.
mschuster91 · 5h ago
Well... getting rid of too powerful people by means of executing them has been a staple of societies across all cultures for millennia.
The fact that people openly cheer on re-introducing this, or on those following through with such plans (Luigi), is just showing how fed up wide masses of society are - and Reddit's admins have been hellbent on quenching even verbal forms of dissatisfaction.
The problem is, all that does is keeping pressure bottling up and eventually, if the issues with inequality and absurd amounts of power grabbing aren't dealt with, the explosion will be much harder than if people had a relatively safe way of voicing their dissent.
db48x · 4h ago
No, mostly it just reminds us that ordinary people are mostly evil. At best they’re purely self–interested. There’s no dissent there.
There’s a good book called “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland” by Christopher Browning which explores this. The Reserve Police Battalions were created by Germany to police captured territory, but they were seen by ordinary Germans as a way to avoid the war and conscription. The members were not Nazis, and almost to a man they joined because it was an honorable way to avoid participating in the evils happening all around them. They were only trained for ordinary honest police work, but in the end many of them were being used to hunt down and murder Jews. They were sent out into forests to comb them for underground shelters. They rounded up Jews and herded them into mass graves.
Almost none of them complained or tried to avoid participating. No one punished them if they didn’t participate. No one coerced them into participating. A few asked for and received transfers, if I recall correctly. The best that can be said about the rest is that many of them are believed not to have actually fired their weapons. Some of them probably went the whole war without actually killing anyone, technically. They were just assigned the job so they did it.
antonvs · 4h ago
You’re cherry-picking, generalizing without any basis, and apparently projecting.
db48x · 4h ago
If you say so then it must be true.
antonvs · 4h ago
The first paragraph of your previous comment states some conclusions that you've assumed.
Your second paragraph gives a single example which is apparently supposed to support that conclusion. That's a definitional example of cherry-picking and hasty generalization.
The projection comes in because it's difficult to see how you would reach those conclusions from the available evidence, unless you're projecting.
db48x · 3h ago
No, I didn’t quote all available evidence in an internet comment. I’d never finish, if I did that. Instead I picked one salient but infrequently encountered body of evidence. I recommend reading the book.
And if you want more evidence than that, then I suggest reading about Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments. A little quote:
Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become
patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions
incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively
few people have the resources needed to resist authority.
I think that if you want yet more evidence then you can probably acquire it yourself. Personally I must sleep.
antonvs · 3h ago
That "quote all available evidence" line is disingenuous. A substantial argument doesn't require that, but you didn't make any argument.
If you're unaware of all the criticism of Milgram's experiments, then you have some studying to do before we can have a meaningful discussion about this.
While you're catching up on the history of social psychology since 1961, you might want to ask yourself why it is that you're so eager to believe that "ordinary people are mostly evil". Do you have a religious background, perhaps? "Original sin" and all that?
danaris · 3h ago
Anyone who takes the Milgram Experiments or the Stanford Prison Experiment seriously needs their head examining.
lynx97 · 5h ago
Extremism is bad, no matter if it left or right-sided. I have turned away from the left with a huge amount of disgust since I started to realize how hatred is rampant on both sides. Wanting someone dead, and saying so, it a warning sign. Are we supposed to go back to "an eye for an eye"? I for one are happy this "staple" is a thing from the past. Cheering for it coming back is horryfing behaviour.
Karsteski · 4h ago
You're lucky we have the luxury of such opinions like yours. With the way the world is going towards extreme financial inequality, and with the US becoming more hostile to other nations, I suspect that opinion will become harder and harder to justify for many people.
antonvs · 4h ago
> You're lucky we have the luxury of such opinions like yours.
“Civility” is the first recourse of the privileged.
mschuster91 · 4h ago
> Wanting someone dead, and saying so, it a warning sign. Are we supposed to go back to "an eye for an eye"? I for one are happy this "staple" is a thing from the past. Cheering for it coming back is horryfing behaviour.
That's my point. When people see no other way out of resolving the exploding wealth and power inequality crisis than violence, it shows that democracy is on the verge of failure.
It's horrifying, agreed, but it happening is completely understandable IMHO given that democratic systems seem to be completely and thoroughly corrupted by big money.
It's no longer a question if open violence erupts, it's a question of when - and Western governments all seem to ignore the issue and show zero intent to actually do something to ease the life of the wide masses. The system is headed straight for collapse.
immibis · 5h ago
Reddit's been way out of control on this and I'm surprised people still use it at this point. Though the vast majority of Reddit content is posted by bots to manipulate users - so maybe they don't. Reddit is a Dead Internet existing here and now in front of our eyes.
In addition to platform-wide bans most popular subreddits also use subreddit bans to create false impressions of consensus.
Last scandal I heard was they banned people who upvoted memes about Mario's green brother.
thrance · 4h ago
I really wish Europe would consider a continent-wide ban on Meta and X. We gain nothing positive from these companies, they only serve to destabilize our democracies, disinfom citizens and ostracize people.
dredds · 6h ago
We're at the point that MAMAA/FAANG (might as well call them MAGA now) can dictate 0% tax in the UK instead of a measly 2% because those platforms were co-opted by foreign countries to promote Brexit, leading to economic servitude. Starlink is now being foisted upon economically susceptible countries leading to a potential monopoly of connectivity, giving ultimate power to broker even more concessions down the line, not to mention increasing political thought-control.
Welcome to 2025's take on 1984.
louthy · 5h ago
> can dictate 0% tax in the UK instead of a measly 2%
This hasn't happened (yet, at least).
dredds · 5h ago
Thanks, i heard it's included, but services agreement may come separately.
"Britain's digital services tax, imposed on U.S. companies like Amazon, Google and Meta, will not be changed under the terms of the trade deal agreed between the two countries on Thursday"
louthy · 5h ago
There is a "tech agreement" coming which will augment the agreement announced yesterday. Essentially, they announced an agreement before agreeing everything! Probably Trump needed it to get some positive news after his recent nonsense.
Personally, I don't mind the tax being dropped as long as the UK gets something in return that's worth the equivalent or more. We (the UK) export more services to the US than we get in return, so it would seem preferable to make services trade as friction-less as possible.
teddyh · 5h ago
> This experience was eye opening; it shocked me at how fundamental online platforms owned by companies have actually become to modern life.
Oh no! If only there was some way you could have known!
We do not currently have a Facebook sign-in button in our production app.
We followed the process twice, really carefully. Both times Facebook failed to verify the business. No clear reason why.
We posted everything on their developer forum hoping for help, but got nothing back. Just silence!! Many people were facing the same issue like us.
Ended up having to give up and tell my friend I couldn't help. Honestly, the fear of getting banned mysel if I kept pushing stopped me from trying it one more time.
these platforms are difficult to deal with when things go wrong.
Meta seem to not actually check reports. My theory is that they just rely on some percentage of reports maybe relating to followers, reports, and time. If it exceeds a threshold, there's an action. Otherwise, no action.
So, in a sense, we live in the best world possible.
May I suggest that you just block and mute the prostitutes, if they offend your sensibilities? That's what I do. Because in the next iteration of censorship, we might lose the social networks altogether.
Don't tempt me with a better world.
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 in my feed.
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 horrible thing, and the menu is invariably a PDF (because they had to send something to the printer, and they don’t know how to put something nicer on the web). Sometimes you have to allow third–party JS to get their webpage to render so that you can get the PDF though.
Well, I guess the national chains don’t post a PDF these days. They give you a real menu and even offer online ordering and delivery. Most people probably don’t need to look at a McDonald’s menu to know what they sell though.
No more technical skill is required to use these service than is required to use Instagram, but the difference is that Instagram takes away all control from their users while these services give their users control over everything (except of course that hosting millions of restaurant websites lets these services collect a lot of data about the visitors that they can sell behind the scenes for extra profit, of course).
I've been able to reliably target a restaurant 20 minutes away by bus, select my order, pay for it online, and have it ready for pickup by the time I disembark. It's a pretty sweet arrangement.
If your chosen restaurant directs you to some dumb QR code and Instagram, try just looking them up on Google Maps. You'd be surprised what resources are available there, including plenty of reviews and customer-submitted photos of the very dishes you're looking to order!
My condolences.
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.
That's idiotic. Really, reaaaally idiotic. Like, "talk to the manager and tell them they are doing a very stupid thing" levels of idiotic. </Rant>
This "we're too modern and digital to get out heads out of our asses" attitude towards adopting "cool technology" with complete disregard for an analog Plan B gets to my nerves.
Here, since Covid, lots of places stopped offering physical menus, instead they put a QR code to some webpage or gigantic PDF file that contains the menu (and can be updated every day to push prices up if needed, heh).
I hate that services assume you must have a hundreds-dollar device on your pocket at all times to even be able to access the basic service they provide. I just power off my phone and tell them "look I ran out of battery, what should we do?". They usually do have a physical menu, thankfully.
But other things aren't so nice. My employer offers a restaurant card, and because now we live in a "digital era", they don't issue physical cards any more, only digital ones to be used with Google Wallet on Android. Turns out I'd like to install GrapheneOS on my Pixel, and you got it: Wallet doesn't work on GrapheneOS for payments! I'd want my physical restaurant card, please.
Maybe that shows a lack of critical thinking in the general population? I.e.: people must be using FB/IG because it’s the only thing they know, and never questioned themselves if there are other avenues?
All restaurants have an "analog plan B", it's called walking in and asking for a menu. These are tiny businesses run by people who love food, not tech. It really is asking too much to expect them to work at and understand the ideas behind digital freedom, at least if you want them to serve you good food.
Notably Google Maps curates a photo set of the physical menu of basically every restaurant in the urban USA, if not everywhere. I find a lot of people don't actually know this. I never bother looking at restaurant sites anymore except for places where I know they're likely to have changed the menu (and even then it's a crapshoot, per your original point).
At least every second month I walk out of a new restaurant I’ve discovered because they don’t even care to have it.
Employees treat you like it’s your fault that you can’t see the prices behind a Meta auth wall. They won’t even offer to read it out to you or show in a device of their own.
Nowadays, if I see a triangle-shaped cardboard with a QR code on top of each table, I’m 95% sure I will walk out of there hungry. And angry.
Even if they have QR codes, they have some paper menus or tablets.
And it's not even for people without devices or logins -- it's because phone batteries run out and they run out all the time. Restaurants don't generally make a lot of profit, and they need every customer they can get.
Do you bother to ask? Or do you just assume?
Why is this complicated? Do the Meta ToS include a choice-of-venue clause for consumer accounts?
How can a stranger have so much hate towards someone who's content they want to consume? Why are meta engineers suggesting suing their own company instead of pointing to someone to walk through a basic appeals process? The obvious, why do so many things in the world not work without a smartphone and a google/facebook account with internet access? Why isn't anyone doing anything about any of this? PMs at facebook? Congressmen/women?
The system is not working.
Similarly there were no open avenues of appeal.
By a big fluke I actually did some work for FB and in the process they unlocked it.
But yeah, monopolies controlling access to public services with no oversight sucks.
But also, shame on Meta and most other gigantic companies for having no due process for anything like this. I have no idea how they just go along with it and decide in favor of the reporter with zero evidence. Sure, maybe bans need to be proactive but there should at least be an appeals process.
There should probably be more laws that cover permanent bans for business platforms that have a marketshare above a certain size. You shouldn’t be able to be permanently banned from services like this that dominate their respective markets without a robust process. There should probably be cases where even the violation of certain aspects of ToS can’t get you banned permanently, where law overrides ToS. Imagine if you were banned from getting phone service from AT&T in the 1980s and how devastating that could be.
Every walled garden with a single corporate owner will 100% guaranteed abuse that ownership power.
The only way forward is open protocols that interoperate without anyone having a controlling interest.
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 bad.
Under the Law of Moses, a discovered false witness in court was to receive the punishment he tried to cause, explicitly as an enduring deterrent to dishonesty. Deuteronomy 19:16–21:
> If an unrighteous witness rises up against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and behold, if the witness is a false witness, and has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he had thought to do to his brother. So you shall remove the evil from amongst you. Those who remain shall hear, and fear, and will never again commit any such evil amongst you. Your eyes shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
I presume Meta knows who made the report. I wonder if they ever make diligent inquisition, and ban the troll. I doubt it, but suppose, just suppose they did apply a standard like this.
Imagine if the account-reporting procedure stated a clear policy: “if we find your report vexatious, we will ban your account instead”; or “if we find your report vexatious, we will tell your target your account details so they can pursue legal action if they desire”. (This is, of course, overly simplified, and would probably deter legitimate reports too.)
Such harassment and threats as these frequently break laws, but anonymity is one factor that makes it much harder to pursue in a legal system. (Though it’s hardly the only thing; jurisdiction problems are a rather big deal with online stuff, and legal systems are often not tuned for pettier squabbles.)
Returning to the original case: if there were no anonymity at all, and the guy had to threaten via his real identity, I doubt it would have happened, and remedy might have been easier if it did.
I’m not against anonymity, I just feel the total picture is more nuanced than you’re presenting it as. Anonymity has both advantages and disadvantages.
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 such a scheme would actually work well? Not at all. People are involved.)
Apparently "reddit legal" thought that was a credible threat. I find that strangely encouraging.
Launching someone in a rocket to space is clearly beyond the reach of any single individual. It's also not particularly violent in the scheme of things. It's clearly intended to be hyperbole, and hyperbole against a public figure is common. Musk himself, despite his thin skin, has often said much worse, I guess his ban from Twitter should be coming any day now?
However, the lawyers reddit employs are apparently similarly confused on that point.
The fact that people openly cheer on re-introducing this, or on those following through with such plans (Luigi), is just showing how fed up wide masses of society are - and Reddit's admins have been hellbent on quenching even verbal forms of dissatisfaction.
The problem is, all that does is keeping pressure bottling up and eventually, if the issues with inequality and absurd amounts of power grabbing aren't dealt with, the explosion will be much harder than if people had a relatively safe way of voicing their dissent.
There’s a good book called “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland” by Christopher Browning which explores this. The Reserve Police Battalions were created by Germany to police captured territory, but they were seen by ordinary Germans as a way to avoid the war and conscription. The members were not Nazis, and almost to a man they joined because it was an honorable way to avoid participating in the evils happening all around them. They were only trained for ordinary honest police work, but in the end many of them were being used to hunt down and murder Jews. They were sent out into forests to comb them for underground shelters. They rounded up Jews and herded them into mass graves.
Almost none of them complained or tried to avoid participating. No one punished them if they didn’t participate. No one coerced them into participating. A few asked for and received transfers, if I recall correctly. The best that can be said about the rest is that many of them are believed not to have actually fired their weapons. Some of them probably went the whole war without actually killing anyone, technically. They were just assigned the job so they did it.
Your second paragraph gives a single example which is apparently supposed to support that conclusion. That's a definitional example of cherry-picking and hasty generalization.
The projection comes in because it's difficult to see how you would reach those conclusions from the available evidence, unless you're projecting.
And if you want more evidence than that, then I suggest reading about Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments. A little quote:
I think that if you want yet more evidence then you can probably acquire it yourself. Personally I must sleep.If you're unaware of all the criticism of Milgram's experiments, then you have some studying to do before we can have a meaningful discussion about this.
While you're catching up on the history of social psychology since 1961, you might want to ask yourself why it is that you're so eager to believe that "ordinary people are mostly evil". Do you have a religious background, perhaps? "Original sin" and all that?
“Civility” is the first recourse of the privileged.
That's my point. When people see no other way out of resolving the exploding wealth and power inequality crisis than violence, it shows that democracy is on the verge of failure.
It's horrifying, agreed, but it happening is completely understandable IMHO given that democratic systems seem to be completely and thoroughly corrupted by big money.
It's no longer a question if open violence erupts, it's a question of when - and Western governments all seem to ignore the issue and show zero intent to actually do something to ease the life of the wide masses. The system is headed straight for collapse.
In addition to platform-wide bans most popular subreddits also use subreddit bans to create false impressions of consensus.
Last scandal I heard was they banned people who upvoted memes about Mario's green brother.
Welcome to 2025's take on 1984.
This hasn't happened (yet, at least).
"Britain's digital services tax, imposed on U.S. companies like Amazon, Google and Meta, will not be changed under the terms of the trade deal agreed between the two countries on Thursday"
Personally, I don't mind the tax being dropped as long as the UK gets something in return that's worth the equivalent or more. We (the UK) export more services to the US than we get in return, so it would seem preferable to make services trade as friction-less as possible.
Oh no! If only there was some way you could have known!
<https://xkcd.com/743/>