zlacker

>>benhur+(OP)
It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. At the very least, companies must be legally required to present you in writing with the so-called violation of terms they're accusing you of, evidence of the violation, and a phone # or other immediate contact so that you can dispute the accusations. It's insane that these basic legal rights don't even exist.

You could of course sue Google, but that's an extremely expensive and time-consuming option, rarely worth it for a mere consumer. Going to court certainly won't make your suspended account become unsuspended any quicker.

>>_qulr+em
You're not seeing the other side of the coin - the huge amount of spam and abuse that such systems correctly identify and remove. If every abuser requests those explanations (which they will) there will be far more spam going around the Internet.

Just think about the army of "Facebook content moderators" who were a popular topic on HN recently due to the concerns over their mental health.

(I am offering no solutions here, for I know none)

>>anthon+dn
> If every abuser requests those explanations (which they will)

It's not a request, it's a requirement. If your account is suspended, you deserve an explanation. You should get one without having to request it.

I'm not saying that companies shouldn't be able to suspend accounts temporarily. I'm simply saying that there needs to be a way to get your account unsuspended if you're innocent. The way it "works" now is that innocent consumers are without any recourse whatsoever.

>>_qulr+Cn
I heard on a podcast recently that a trading system needs to keep logs of why a particular trade was executed for several years just in case the authority wants it. So it isn't too much effort to build a similar report or log of behaviour to explain why someone was banned.

Obviously this will also help the spammers who will use this information to get around the filters.

>>daemin+no
Complete speculation because I don't actually know how this works, but I wonder if the explanation would be something like this:

"You've been banned because our black box ML algorithm says your usage patterns share similar traits to those of known spammers."

>>gibspa+Bw
Some government decisions are indirectly forbidden from using black box "algorithms" because they are obligated by law to explain (on demand) the steps that the algorithm took to reach its decision. Maybe something like this should also apply to some private companies ?