>The website has all this time been incorrectly labelled “by our automated tools” as spam, according to the spokesperson. “Our apologies for the inconvenience.”
It seems the large tech companies just have a policy to automate as much as possible and if it impacts some folks unfairly, that's just how it works and they've no interest in dealing with it unless it gets PR. Otherwise screw those little people.
I had a domain through blogger that I registered ages ago on the blogger site. Google started emailing me that it was expiring and directed me to Gsuite.... but I don't have a Gsuite account and google didn't make one for me...
The domain didn't appear in my Google domains account.
Google had just pointed blogger domain users to Gsuite and called it a day.
Google was no help, I never got a response from the handful of ways (none of them good) trying to reach out to them.
Finally I found the old registrar google used behind the scenes and they let me renew the domain.
I never heard back from google other than all the spam about my domain expiring and asking me to login to Gsuite... repeatedly.. sent to an email without a Gusite account.. someone just flipped a switch and screw everyone I guess.
FB predictably reacted only when an article came out. It seems likely that they blatantly censor all kinds of things for their own partisan reasons. It is only when you have a friend close to the media outlets and are able to generate some publicity that they go into damage limitation mode and blame it on "automated tools". How convenient!
Making things right 100% of the time costs a ton. Sometimes the business is willing to pay: something related to money or legal compliance, the serious stuff.
Sometimes it's cheaper to have things work, say, 90% of time, and maybe manually fix some stuff when badly needed, on a best-effort basis. Often it's the only viable way. Usually, if there's no written contract, best-effort is the only treatment you can expect. (Even Google's support is said to be much better for paid users.)
> It seems the large tech companies just have a policy to automate as much as possible
Mistakes happen at scale regardless of whether it's automated or human-controlled. Having actual humans do the work is hardly a magic bullet, because people make mistakes frequently as well. Worse yet, humans are more prone to being compromised or acting maliciously, such as in recent attacks on prominent companies.
It's not so much as a policy as a necessity. Facebook's number of users is counted in the billions. They have about 50,000 users for each Facebook employee.
Most importantly: People aren't paying Facebook. It's just not realistic to expect a free platform serving billions of users to have 100% perfect execution.
Facebook is trying to administer a 2 billion member virtual city with about 20k people.
Most of the fires that start and actual administration details are just conveniently left to real world politicians, bureaucracies, journos, school boards, parents and police depts to work out.
This retarded unsustainable model has been sold as the magic of Scale.
Scaling user base = Scaling up issues. No free lunch.
Regulators can be asking a simple question - how many people are needed to administrate a 2 billion member city? How many does Facebook have to do the job. And if they dont have enough how to charge them for all the resource/energy drainage they offload to the real world.
We not only don't charge them, our governments actually give them money to do it. The Netherlands actually gave Microsoft 500 million euro in free energy credit (by building them subsidized windmills) just so they would build their enormous data center here, an enormous datacenter that is going to employ only 125 people.
And those windmills, they were pitched to the people as being able to power 370.000 households. The kicker of course that they won't power even a single one, as 100% of the energy has been sold to Microsoft.
It's the problem anyone who moderates a system faces, when the users vastly outnumbers the moderators your moderation has to have some level of opaqueness and unpredictability or else you have no chance of keeping up with people gaming the system.
> And if they dont have enough how to charge them for all the resource/energy drainage they offload to the real world.
That's the million (billion?) dollar question for me. I observe that it will sadly follow the precedent of the oil industry and other industries -- a slap on the wrist to the tune of a fraction of the true damage, with society left to bear the brunt of the externality in perpetuity and prosecutors able to say "at least we tried!"
I can't help but wonder if there isn't a better way.
What fraction of the 2B actually post vs “just” read & like?
If it’s 1% then the moderator to writer ratio is 1:1000 instead of 1:100,000.
And presumably the moderators are working full time (?) whereas the posters hopefully don’t spend more than 1h or so on average per day writing. So the moderator hours to writer hours ratio may be closer to 1:200?
Add some AI based admin tools and it doesn’t seem quite so ridiculous?
This assumes that facebook creates the problems that exist on their platform.
All of Facebook's problems exist independent of Facebook. Facebook's existence guarantees that those problems will become a part of them.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be held responsible for not doing their due diligence, but the argument that they ought to be charged for "offloading" problems on the "real world" isn't great. That's like saying car manufacturers need to be charged for offloading automotive deaths on society.
There are so many ways to have a problem with Facebook and be unable to get help. The list of ways grows...
My "favorite" is if you once had a spare FB account for playing some game, and later FB has blocked that account (for inactivity, or being obviously fake _after_ they instituted the real name policy)... but you still get occasional emails from FB begging you to come back and login - your friends miss you! Of course you cannot login, and you cannot stop the fucking emails from FB. There's no process for dealing with this, so you ultimately have to write a custom filter to process these zombie FB emails.
I urge everyone, no matter what your "need" to have an account on FB is, to just stop logging in. Don't delete the account... just never login again.
Facebook will continue as a bad and irresponsible actor of global proportions until we collectively send it the way of MySpace.
This reminds me of studying ethics from a deontological and utilitarian model. The discussion was about whether it’s better to optimize for the greater good or to have a rules based system of right and wrong.
To me, utilitarian seems like the best outcome because the most people are improved. But the way to get there, I think, is through deontological methods because it’s actually unclear what actions can be taken to lead to an outcome. So trying to optimize in the short term can lead to unexpected side effects.
Having a rules based system and following it even if it costs $1M to fix a $1 problem seems better in the long run because it is predictable and solves hidden problems.
It seems Facebook is MLing itself into a feedback loop that is missing any core value other than “let’s make it work for 99% and not worry.” But I think this piles up little slices of technical debt until it eventually breaks.
The company changes his name to ‘Hans De Zwart’, with a capitalized D. A small annoyance, but for De Zwart it signifies something bigger
Oh yes. At some point this was a very annoying problem on Facebook. Our last name has ‘de’ as well and Facebook refused to have ‘de’ in lowercase in my wife’s name unless she sent them a photo copy of her ID.
At some point they started permitting lowercase Dutch ‘tussenvoegsels’ again.
But it showed so little appreciation of other languages and cultures. (It’s like Apple/Siri and others pretending that everyone uses a single language in their daily life.)
> He immediately gets angry at Facebook messing up his name. The company changes his name to ‘Hans De Zwart’, with a capitalized D. A small annoyance, but for De Zwart it signifies something bigger: “It is the arrogance of a giant American corporation which considers the correct spelling of the names of millions of Dutch people an edge case.”
This reminds me of the excellent "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names" [1].
As a person with a hyphen in his first name I also get regularly mistreated by all kinds of web forms, worst of all flight tickets, which is especially ironic as you are usually explicitly requested to provide the name as stated in the passport.
Yeah, in the Netherlands we also don't use the "de" and "van" for sorting so it was confusing to find my badge under the "v" at American conferences the first time. Ah well, what can you do? A friend of mine had his FB acount blocked for failing to provide a real name (his last name is "Fun"), ironically after he gave FB a false name they did accept it.
One example I remember from high school is a person whose first name is Admin. Granted, it's an uncommon name, but he's unable to use his real name in many, many online services (Facebook being one of them of course).
Sites used to refuse the "van der " in my last name all the time. Had to remove the whitespaces to get it to work.
Also, sites out my last name under v, which isn't how names are sorted here.
"van der Name" is usually written as "Name, van der" in printed lists to make checking for names easier.
And many dutch IT systems have a separate field for this. We call it a "tussenvoegsel". Which would roughly translate to a "middle addition". It's not a middle/second name either. Cause those are processed separately here as well.
Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso
(https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso)
Another thing is overlooked, which is strange since these companies hire so many statisticians and much about their work is about understanding populations and individual preferences.
When you have huge populations (2B) you're outliers are going to be similarly huge. The meaning and usefulness of means and medians over large and/or disparate populations loses its meaning. There are tons of distinguishable subpopulations (Dutch) which are pointless to lump in with Americans. Etc etc etc. You'd think someone would be familiar with subpopulations and the limitations of treating 2B users as a normal distribution, but yet that seems yet to be discovered.
I am still surprised that the two-character icons which Zoom uses for accounts without profile pictures become "A�" for anyone called "Alice Ørland" or similar.
It is even more surprising that Ö, Š, etc. become �, but 文军 shows up fine.
I always worry with plane tickets because I have a middle name on my passport but many buying services don't take middle names into account.
Also the name of my town has a "Ą" letter in it, which also is problematic in online forms and I often just write A instead just to be on the safe side.
Note that this sentence (and the whole article) contains the same mis-capitalization the articles complains Facebook is doing. It is most likely an aggressive final pass of spellcheck or auto-correct that wasn't re-incorrected before publishing, but really ironic all the same.
I'm not a web developer but whenever this kind of thing happens I just wonder why there isn't a single standard library in every common web language to deal with this and if there is, why it's not being used more often.
I got this problem with several payment processors as the allowed name and name on my credit/debit cards never match. After a few years, I changed(modified) my name.
> He immediately gets angry at Facebook messing up his name. The company changes his name to ‘Hans De Zwart’, with a capitalized D. A small annoyance, but for De Zwart it signifies something bigger: “It is the arrogance of a giant American corporation which considers the correct spelling of the names of millions of Dutch people an edge case.”
I am really confused. I am assuming the correct spelling is "de Zwart" ... since a human is writing this article, it shouldn't have been too hard for him to use the correct spelling or check the work of any computer involved in publishing the piece.
It was actually translated into English by De Zwart himself. I believe that proper capitalisation of Dutch names with 'de' is to keep the 'd' lowercase if stating the full name (Hans de Zwart), but to capitalise the 'd' if stating just the last name (De Zwart), which the article seems to do consistently (except when quoting Facebook's mangling of the name).
Are you really willing to assume someone spelled their own name wrong before you question your own knowledge about Dutch names? That seems a bit unreasonable. It's much more likely that your assumption is incorrect than someone wrote their name incorrectly.
This is the premise that should drive software as far as user input goes. The rule should simply be "Trust that the user entered their data correctly and don't try to 'fix' it programmatically." Validate it, sanitize it, but don't change it.
The way it's used in the article is correct. His full name is "Hans de Zwart", but if you want to refer to him by just his last name, you always capitalize the tussenvoegsel: "De Zwart".
I did notice the juxtaposition in the paragraph there, but everything is correctly written here.
I was under the same impression, until I reached the end of the article and noticed first the return to "de", and second that the author is de Zwart himself
I have experienced this many times. It's unfortunately a sign of the times.
One morning, my bank account was frozen by the tax office. It took me two days and many calls to even understand what was going on. There was no warning, no apparent reason why direct debit would fail that one time, but it took me 7 days to get access to my account again. Meanwhile, I couldn't buy groceries. I got a few late payment fees and a mark on my credit score. No one apologised. No one even noticed.
This is not a tech problem. It's a scaling problem. An increasingly large part of your life is at the mercy of automated systems. If you don't fit on a flowchart designed by a white collar guy in California, you don't exist.
If one in a billion users has an issue, they must be really loud for one in twenty thousand employees to pay attention.
Back when I got my driver's license in the late 90s, Pennsylvania couldn't handle Scottish surnames, so my last name ended up "MC BETH" after I wrote it on the form as "McBeth" (which is ludicrous, there have been Scots people in Pennsylvania far longer than there have been licenses). When I moved to Virginia 7 years ago, Virginia could handle it, but my PA license showed a "MC BETH", so my VA license shows "MC BETH".
Before they issue the license, they give you a form to review. They warn you to check the form for errors, because errors are "serious business" with "serious consequences". So I point out the space on the form, that it is not the correct spelling of my name.
The clerk got quite surly with me. It didn't matter that all the other documentation I had to submit--including my birth certificate--along with my change of residency showed "McBeth". Apparently, the PA DMV of 1998 was infallible and I'm now trying to pull some sort of fraud fastball in VA in getting that space removed.
One can only wonder how much the economic damage is from such small annoyances.
I always have to check under the D for Dutch, N for Netherlands, and T for The when filling in my nationality or my postal address on an international form. Its a minor annoyance till you encounter very important forms without an easy way to scroll or some other broken UI making input hard.
People are commenting that the FB's bureaucratic system is idiotic and unsustainable.
I don't understand why: bureaucracies are a brilliant response by oversized institutions/businesses to force people to reveal how much they care about solving an issue.
Don't really need your website to be cleared? You won't make a fuss about it.
Is it unjust and inequitable? Yes. Is it unsustainable? Cannot see why.
A big part of this I think is due to "uncommon" TLDs. I had a joke "quiz" .website domain that was insta-blocked by Facebook for no reason and was impossible to get revoked. That was a complete waste of time when the main way I intended for it to get some traction was through Facebook shares.
I registered a .as domain for my last name (ending in 'as') and managed to set it as my primary email on Facebook shorty before they decided to block that domain for no apparent reason. For years (until I deleted my FB account), I had a message on the top of my feed asking me to confirm my email even though it was already confirmed but I could never do it because of the block. Tried many times to get it resolved but no success. And to this day, people cannot send posts or messages that contain my domain (website or email) anywhere on Facebook and Instagram.
He should go to small claims court (or the Dutch equivalent) to get his 5 euros back. There was actually a case in Germany where the largest ISPs continously ignored a customer whom they charged too much at some point (similar order as the 5 euros) . The story ended with a court bailiff (?) going into the main ISP office and seizing a printer I believe. Big PR disaster and much higher cost then the original amount.
These big companies do these things all the time calculating on people just giving up. We should take the advantage of the courts to teach some lessons as much as possible.
There is an episode on the simpsons, which I think illustrates the problem with the modern times.
Everyone overreacting to a snippet of information, without knowing what came before or after. The overreacting to the overreactions. Its two villages making up stories about what happens in the other village, and each turn, the story gets embellished.
This is the result of monopolies.
The internet is meant for communication by defining protocols to connect all computers with each other. This allows everyone to participate and at the same time creates redundancy, which minimises failures.
Companies like FB are a perversion of this purpose, instead of using free protocols, communication is done by a few programs.
This creates the basis for censorship and forms a bottleneck or a predetermined breaking point.
I also had my website "reported" as suspicious in facebook. There is no official way to get more information or unblock your website. I see this as a darker pattern where facebook algorithms are tuned to block 3rd party external information content. In this way facebook is promoting sharing information only created within facebook platform.
Once, I had a message on WhatsApp not delivered to the recipient. I contacted WhatsApp support about this. I haven't received a response yet. I sent them the screenshots and all details they requested off me.
This was 2 years ago and I still have the request number with me.
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
It seems the large tech companies just have a policy to automate as much as possible and if it impacts some folks unfairly, that's just how it works and they've no interest in dealing with it unless it gets PR. Otherwise screw those little people.
I had a domain through blogger that I registered ages ago on the blogger site. Google started emailing me that it was expiring and directed me to Gsuite.... but I don't have a Gsuite account and google didn't make one for me...
The domain didn't appear in my Google domains account.
Google had just pointed blogger domain users to Gsuite and called it a day.
Google was no help, I never got a response from the handful of ways (none of them good) trying to reach out to them.
Finally I found the old registrar google used behind the scenes and they let me renew the domain.
I never heard back from google other than all the spam about my domain expiring and asking me to login to Gsuite... repeatedly.. sent to an email without a Gusite account.. someone just flipped a switch and screw everyone I guess.
[+] [-] SagelyGuru|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nine_k|5 years ago|reply
Sometimes it's cheaper to have things work, say, 90% of time, and maybe manually fix some stuff when badly needed, on a best-effort basis. Often it's the only viable way. Usually, if there's no written contract, best-effort is the only treatment you can expect. (Even Google's support is said to be much better for paid users.)
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|5 years ago|reply
Mistakes happen at scale regardless of whether it's automated or human-controlled. Having actual humans do the work is hardly a magic bullet, because people make mistakes frequently as well. Worse yet, humans are more prone to being compromised or acting maliciously, such as in recent attacks on prominent companies.
It's not so much as a policy as a necessity. Facebook's number of users is counted in the billions. They have about 50,000 users for each Facebook employee.
Most importantly: People aren't paying Facebook. It's just not realistic to expect a free platform serving billions of users to have 100% perfect execution.
[+] [-] op03|5 years ago|reply
Most of the fires that start and actual administration details are just conveniently left to real world politicians, bureaucracies, journos, school boards, parents and police depts to work out.
This retarded unsustainable model has been sold as the magic of Scale.
Scaling user base = Scaling up issues. No free lunch.
Regulators can be asking a simple question - how many people are needed to administrate a 2 billion member city? How many does Facebook have to do the job. And if they dont have enough how to charge them for all the resource/energy drainage they offload to the real world.
[+] [-] tinco|5 years ago|reply
And those windmills, they were pitched to the people as being able to power 370.000 households. The kicker of course that they won't power even a single one, as 100% of the energy has been sold to Microsoft.
[+] [-] kokey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yowlingcat|5 years ago|reply
That's the million (billion?) dollar question for me. I observe that it will sadly follow the precedent of the oil industry and other industries -- a slap on the wrist to the tune of a fraction of the true damage, with society left to bear the brunt of the externality in perpetuity and prosecutors able to say "at least we tried!"
I can't help but wonder if there isn't a better way.
[+] [-] jariel|5 years ago|reply
Search is altogether another problem, because we really do depend on it.
[+] [-] jacobn|5 years ago|reply
If it’s 1% then the moderator to writer ratio is 1:1000 instead of 1:100,000.
And presumably the moderators are working full time (?) whereas the posters hopefully don’t spend more than 1h or so on average per day writing. So the moderator hours to writer hours ratio may be closer to 1:200?
Add some AI based admin tools and it doesn’t seem quite so ridiculous?
[+] [-] RIMR|5 years ago|reply
All of Facebook's problems exist independent of Facebook. Facebook's existence guarantees that those problems will become a part of them.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be held responsible for not doing their due diligence, but the argument that they ought to be charged for "offloading" problems on the "real world" isn't great. That's like saying car manufacturers need to be charged for offloading automotive deaths on society.
[+] [-] blunte|5 years ago|reply
My "favorite" is if you once had a spare FB account for playing some game, and later FB has blocked that account (for inactivity, or being obviously fake _after_ they instituted the real name policy)... but you still get occasional emails from FB begging you to come back and login - your friends miss you! Of course you cannot login, and you cannot stop the fucking emails from FB. There's no process for dealing with this, so you ultimately have to write a custom filter to process these zombie FB emails.
I urge everyone, no matter what your "need" to have an account on FB is, to just stop logging in. Don't delete the account... just never login again.
Facebook will continue as a bad and irresponsible actor of global proportions until we collectively send it the way of MySpace.
[+] [-] prepend|5 years ago|reply
To me, utilitarian seems like the best outcome because the most people are improved. But the way to get there, I think, is through deontological methods because it’s actually unclear what actions can be taken to lead to an outcome. So trying to optimize in the short term can lead to unexpected side effects.
Having a rules based system and following it even if it costs $1M to fix a $1 problem seems better in the long run because it is predictable and solves hidden problems.
It seems Facebook is MLing itself into a feedback loop that is missing any core value other than “let’s make it work for 99% and not worry.” But I think this piles up little slices of technical debt until it eventually breaks.
[+] [-] microtonal|5 years ago|reply
Oh yes. At some point this was a very annoying problem on Facebook. Our last name has ‘de’ as well and Facebook refused to have ‘de’ in lowercase in my wife’s name unless she sent them a photo copy of her ID.
At some point they started permitting lowercase Dutch ‘tussenvoegsels’ again.
But it showed so little appreciation of other languages and cultures. (It’s like Apple/Siri and others pretending that everyone uses a single language in their daily life.)
[+] [-] ascar|5 years ago|reply
This reminds me of the excellent "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names" [1].
As a person with a hyphen in his first name I also get regularly mistreated by all kinds of web forms, worst of all flight tickets, which is especially ironic as you are usually explicitly requested to provide the name as stated in the passport.
[1] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...
[+] [-] teekert|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] input_sh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ClikeX|5 years ago|reply
Also, sites out my last name under v, which isn't how names are sorted here.
"van der Name" is usually written as "Name, van der" in printed lists to make checking for names easier.
And many dutch IT systems have a separate field for this. We call it a "tussenvoegsel". Which would roughly translate to a "middle addition". It's not a middle/second name either. Cause those are processed separately here as well.
[+] [-] dontchooseanick|5 years ago|reply
Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso (https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso)
[+] [-] brnt|5 years ago|reply
When you have huge populations (2B) you're outliers are going to be similarly huge. The meaning and usefulness of means and medians over large and/or disparate populations loses its meaning. There are tons of distinguishable subpopulations (Dutch) which are pointless to lump in with Americans. Etc etc etc. You'd think someone would be familiar with subpopulations and the limitations of treating 2B users as a normal distribution, but yet that seems yet to be discovered.
Ridiculous.
[+] [-] m4lvin|5 years ago|reply
It is even more surprising that Ö, Š, etc. become �, but 文军 shows up fine.
[+] [-] skocznymroczny|5 years ago|reply
Also the name of my town has a "Ą" letter in it, which also is problematic in online forms and I often just write A instead just to be on the safe side.
[+] [-] thiagocsf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barkingcat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fantod|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rusticpenn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Uberphallus|5 years ago|reply
Mine either doesn't go through, or goes through and is silently trimmed down to whatever amount of chars they support.
[+] [-] nanis|5 years ago|reply
> He immediately gets angry at Facebook messing up his name. The company changes his name to ‘Hans De Zwart’, with a capitalized D. A small annoyance, but for De Zwart it signifies something bigger: “It is the arrogance of a giant American corporation which considers the correct spelling of the names of millions of Dutch people an edge case.”
I am really confused. I am assuming the correct spelling is "de Zwart" ... since a human is writing this article, it shouldn't have been too hard for him to use the correct spelling or check the work of any computer involved in publishing the piece.
[+] [-] _-___________-_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onion2k|5 years ago|reply
Are you really willing to assume someone spelled their own name wrong before you question your own knowledge about Dutch names? That seems a bit unreasonable. It's much more likely that your assumption is incorrect than someone wrote their name incorrectly.
This is the premise that should drive software as far as user input goes. The rule should simply be "Trust that the user entered their data correctly and don't try to 'fix' it programmatically." Validate it, sanitize it, but don't change it.
[+] [-] timvdalen|5 years ago|reply
I did notice the juxtaposition in the paragraph there, but everything is correctly written here.
[+] [-] Deukhoofd|5 years ago|reply
The first character of the name is capitalized. Just a Dutch grammar quirk.
[+] [-] tdons|5 years ago|reply
We also have variants that we insert between first and lastname: 'van' (from), 'van de' (from the), and many others.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] butokai|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] input_sh|5 years ago|reply
Still unopened because I haven't owned a DVD player since.
[+] [-] nicbou|5 years ago|reply
One morning, my bank account was frozen by the tax office. It took me two days and many calls to even understand what was going on. There was no warning, no apparent reason why direct debit would fail that one time, but it took me 7 days to get access to my account again. Meanwhile, I couldn't buy groceries. I got a few late payment fees and a mark on my credit score. No one apologised. No one even noticed.
This is not a tech problem. It's a scaling problem. An increasingly large part of your life is at the mercy of automated systems. If you don't fit on a flowchart designed by a white collar guy in California, you don't exist.
If one in a billion users has an issue, they must be really loud for one in twenty thousand employees to pay attention.
[+] [-] moron4hire|5 years ago|reply
Before they issue the license, they give you a form to review. They warn you to check the form for errors, because errors are "serious business" with "serious consequences". So I point out the space on the form, that it is not the correct spelling of my name.
The clerk got quite surly with me. It didn't matter that all the other documentation I had to submit--including my birth certificate--along with my change of residency showed "McBeth". Apparently, the PA DMV of 1998 was infallible and I'm now trying to pull some sort of fraud fastball in VA in getting that space removed.
[+] [-] kalium-xyz|5 years ago|reply
I always have to check under the D for Dutch, N for Netherlands, and T for The when filling in my nationality or my postal address on an international form. Its a minor annoyance till you encounter very important forms without an easy way to scroll or some other broken UI making input hard.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] qq12as|5 years ago|reply
I don't understand why: bureaucracies are a brilliant response by oversized institutions/businesses to force people to reveal how much they care about solving an issue. Don't really need your website to be cleared? You won't make a fuss about it.
Is it unjust and inequitable? Yes. Is it unsustainable? Cannot see why.
[+] [-] richrichardsson|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keraf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cycomanic|5 years ago|reply
These big companies do these things all the time calculating on people just giving up. We should take the advantage of the courts to teach some lessons as much as possible.
[+] [-] jungletime|5 years ago|reply
How To Cook For Forty Humans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxI7B758XBQ
[+] [-] croes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brisky|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] satyanash|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tchalla|5 years ago|reply
This was 2 years ago and I still have the request number with me.