Comment by AshamedCaptain
5 years ago
For the record, they don't give away these explanations because such explanation would hint the spammer to what they should _not_ do next time, to avoid getting caught. Same as with anticheat software.
5 years ago
For the record, they don't give away these explanations because such explanation would hint the spammer to what they should _not_ do next time, to avoid getting caught. Same as with anticheat software.
> they don't give away these explanations because such explanation would hint the spammer to what they should _not_ do next time
We've heard this excuse countless times, but it's simply not acceptable. The foundation of our legal system is that it's better to let a criminal go than to punish an innocent person. How many innocents have to get caught in the crossfire before we start protecting them?
This isnt criminal law. This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out. There are some limits on that (e.g. a restaurant can't kick black people out) but for the most part a business that doesnt want your business doesnt have to serve you, right or wrong.
> This isnt criminal law.
Not yet, but that's my whole point, it needs to be: It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies.
You can't really compare getting kicked out of a bar with losing access to your gmail. There are no "algorithms" automatically kicking innocent people out of bars. Getting kicked out of a bar is a direct human interaction, which is exactly what I'm demanding.
The reason people are incensed about FAANGMP doing so is because, in their respective markets, they're monopolies.
No one would care if Google banning a developer meant they could list their app through a non-Play app store with decent exposure, or a non-App Store at all.
But that's not the reality we live in.
So it's more like if Walmart moved into my podunk town, put all the local shops out of business, and then banned me.
5 replies →
> This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out.
Not exactly?
It's certainly not criminal law. Proof beyond reasonable doubt has no place here.
But it's also not exactly the relationship between a host and guest, where the guest has no rights save what the host grants. Website terms of service purport to be contracts, so there is a contractual rather than ex gratia basis for the relationship.
So, begin interpreting website terms of service as contracts of adhesion, and read in a duty for website operators to enforce those terms fairly, with a reasonable basis (on the balance of probabilities) for harmful decisions.
This isn't the current law, of course, but it's not hard to imagine the law reaching that place from here.
But then they should be required to refund your purchases, fx in the app store or their movie store.
>>e.g. a restaurant can't kick black people out
Well they can, just not for the sole reason of being black...
>>This isnt criminal law.
No it is Civil Tort law, but that does not mean your rights are completely removed, nor that principle does not apply
>>This is the right a private property owner (say the owner of a bar) has to kick you out. There are some limits on that
Absolutely, and those limits are normally set either by over riding civil / businessl law passed the government, or a contract entered into by 2 parties
The problem with Google and many other online platforms is their ToS (their contract) is sooooooo one side that IMO it should be considered an unconscionable contract thus void and unenforeable.
Also we have things like Truth in Advertising laws, many times these platforms Public messaging, and advertisement in no way match their terms of service
I am fully in support of the right of a private business to choose who they want to do business with. I am not however in favor of allowing business to use marketing manipulation, false advertisement, and unconscionable contracts in the form of ClickWrapped Terms of Service to abuse the public
the "mah private business" defense is a weak one, very weak, and it is telling that people defending the large companies with this defense often times do not support it in other contexts.
Google has every right to choose who it does business with, but it need to make those choices in transparent, and public manner.
the legal system deals with a finite number of people; the internet enables that finite number of people to act as a potentially infinite number of entities, without a great way of disaggregating them into people.
E.g. if a spammer can pretend they're 10 million different people, and each of those "people" requests an explanation, the whole system grinds to a halt.
This is the reason behind a push for more KYC-like verification on these platforms (e.g. asking for IDs). But this comes at a huge privacy cost for legitimate users. So one way or another people who are real, legitimate and with good intentions somehow pay the cost of the harm that is being done on the internet. This is a hard problem.
Source: am thinking/working on this sort of stuff; not representing my employer, my opinions are my own etc. etc.
> This is the reason behind a push for more KYC-like verification on these platforms (e.g. asking for IDs). But this comes at a huge privacy cost for legitimate users.
A way to square this circle is to have rights engage at the point of payment.
A truly pseudonymous account with no monetization (going either way) has little intrinsic value, and less need for KYC-like identification.
On the other hand, an account with some sort of payment history (either giving money in the case of purchases or receiving money in the case of developers/website hosts placing advertising) faces a higher standard. There's a reasonable probability of real economic harm if the account is nuked arbitrarily, and at the same time any money flow is open to theft or money laundering concerns, triggering moral if not legal KYC obligations.
The latter should also help prevent the proliferation of straw bad actors, since providing payment imposes a direct cost, while the KYC rules open up the possibility of more direct action for flagrant breaches of contract / use of the platform for other abuses.
The "spammer" can only pretend to be 10 million different people because e-mail is free. Paying a tenth of a penny per e-mail has been one of those long-standing impossible anti-spam measures, but walled gardens can implement something like this at their whim.
1 reply →
> E.g. if a spammer can pretend they're 10 million different people, and each of those "people" requests an explanation, the whole system grinds to a halt.
Again, it's not a "request".
If spam detection and account suspension can be automated, then suspension notifications can also be automated.
I'm not sure I understand where the 10 million number is coming from. Are you suggesting that 1 spammer can create 10 million accounts on your system (which appears to be Facebook)?
Regardless, no spammer has the time to get on the phone and personally dispute 10 million account suspensions — disputes which are unlikely to succeed if there is good evidence — so I'm not sure how the system grinds to a halt.
4 replies →
Out of curiosity, what's current thinking (broad strokes) on methods to address this?
My first guess would be third-party attestation of identity, with stored credential disposal on a short schedule? Essentially normal-user-verification-as-a-service?
3 replies →
When someone is in court on charges of child abuse, maybe we don't want them to know in case they (After serving their sentence) or their friends go for reprisals. Maybe the next child abuser might know their likely avenue of getting caught. Yet still we tell them the charges and evidence and give them a chance to defend themselves. Often in my country, given the damage such allegations could cause to both the victim and alleged (but not yet proven) perpetrator, we don't even reveal the identities of culprits until there's a guilty verdict.
If we can extend that courtesy to people accused of child abuse, surely we should extend it to people accused of internet spam?
I imagine if that happen in real courts. And You got jail without any info on why on how to evade - or You will behave properly on not go in jail
Well it would still be better, because it's at least documented what kind of activity will lead into that.
You don't have to tell them how you detected them but you can tell them what they did wrong. A lot of times when these cases come up there is nothing in the reason you got banned that would help you avoid the ban. It's purely to avoid any kind of accountability (if they say you got banned for a reason that is plainly not true because their algorithms suck)
It would also give non-spammers a better understanding of why they were banned and teach them to be better humans. It’s this lack of empathy that’s leading to more and more anger online.
Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/810/