zlacker

>>benhur+(OP)
You’d think that there’d be a “this person is high profile and any automated bans will cause a stink” flag on accounts to require human review on such decisions, but apparently one of the richer companies in the world just can’t be bothered to hire a few extra people to avoid a PR problem.

That or they’re convinced that they’re this close to fixing the automated system, which they obviously are not.

>>ashton+9d
> You’d think that there’d be a “this person is high profile and any automated bans will cause a stink” flag on accounts

What does high profile mean? I've heard of Leon Spinks, the boxer, but I've never heard of Andrew Spinks in my life until today. People with 5 digit Twitter follower counts are actually a dime a dozen.

Even people who were obscure can become "high profile" for a day. That's how going viral works.

>>_qulr+Gq
Surely the creator of a video game that's sold tens of millions of copies, who also has an on-going business relationship with your company passes the bar?

>>oneeye+Ut
My point is that literally millions of people could be considered "high profile". Does (the recently deceased) Leon Spinks pass the bar? I could go on naming semi-famous people indefinitely, they all ought to pass this bar.

>>_qulr+Ou
I agree that it's a trickier line to draw than I initially considered. However, there are only ~200 developers building games for Google Stadia. If Google cannot guarantee it won't cut any of them off at a moment's notice, with — seemingly — no right to appeal, then I think that bodes very badly for the ongoing viability of Stadia.