Having worked at Facebook, albeit a long time ago. It’s far more likely that a conflict of events caused a false positive of an Automated spam system than Facebook giving a crap about privacy campaigns that hurt revenue.
But alas, we humans love our conspiracy theories because they tell a more interesting story.
but in the end the outcome is the same. malicious or not, facebook blocks what it should not block and that in itself is the problem. it being a false positive is not an excuse. if they don't fix this it just shows that facebook doesn't care about false positives either.
If Facebook could have a false positive rate of 0% and a false negative rate of 0%, they would absolutely make that happen. Unfortunately, due to the way statistics work, Facebook can pick its false positive rate or its false negative rate, but it's impossible to get to 0% false positives without just giving up on moderation altogether.
We're not talking about capital punishment here, we're talking about social media, and Facebook appears to have made the very reasonable decision that it's worth accidentally rate limiting some innocent accounts in order to keep spam lower than would otherwise be possible.
In this case some actual conspiracies have been ousted. Like when Cambridge Analytica used Facebook data to influence elections. There's a track record here.
Not saying this is true but sadly sometimes it is.
em-bee|2 years ago
lolinder|2 years ago
We're not talking about capital punishment here, we're talking about social media, and Facebook appears to have made the very reasonable decision that it's worth accidentally rate limiting some innocent accounts in order to keep spam lower than would otherwise be possible.
wkat4242|2 years ago
Not saying this is true but sadly sometimes it is.
tcfhgj|2 years ago
And unfortunately, some conspiracy theories are true
smrtinsert|2 years ago
xuhu|2 years ago
guax|2 years ago
freedomben|2 years ago
I would be overjoyed if someday that changes, but that still wouldn't be relevant to a flagging today.