zlacker

>>benhur+(OP)
If you've got an automated vetting process with a 99.999% success rate, but are dealing with billions of accounts, that's still tens of thousands of false positives.

At that level, "percentage" is an insufficient measure. You want "permillionage", or maybe more colloquially "DPM" for "Defects Per Million" or even "DPB".

You'll still get false positives though, so you provide an appeal process. But what's to prevent the bad actors from abusing the appeal process while leaving your more clueless legitimate users lost in the dust?

(As the joke goes: "There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists" [1])

Can you build any vetting process, and associated appeal process, that successfully keeps all the bad actors out, and doesn't exclude your good users? What about those on the edge? Or those that switch? Or those who are busy, or wary?

There's a lot of money riding on that.

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/security_is_a...

>>AceJoh+YM1
The lesson here is: you are too big. If you were smaller, you could manage these issues. But you choose to be big instead.

>>esja+UO1
You can't choose to stay small unless you're someone like clubhouse which still has a long waitlist for sign-ups, and even then they're trying to build their infrastructure wide enough to accompany everyone. Not offering service to all/99.9% of potential customers is effectively lost value and goes against shareholders' expectations.

>>judge2+QP1
Then lets regulate size if the market is going to push companies towards inhumane choices.