• misk@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    That’s also what many other social media would do because it’s easier to ban posting of personal information regardless of where it came from because you can’t trust moderation you outsourced to some third world country to do proper checks.

    Example:

    Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone’s personal information or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.

    Posting someone’s personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.

    https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452-Is-posting-someone-s-private-or-personal-information-okay

    Dunno if Bsky has something similar but it’s more of a cost optimisation than anything so people are getting pointlessly angry at individual companies rather than the system which has this sort of behaviour as a guaranteed outcome.

    • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      A competent programmer could write an algorithm to knock out the low hanging fruit, like public Facebook pages, in about five minutes.

      Might take me a couple hours. Someone genuinely good and familiar with the space would have been done in less time than it took to write this comment.

      Can’t imagine why they would do that, or why they would want to extend protections they politically must extend to marginalized people who take real precautions to assholes who know they’ll always be protected by power.

      • misk@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        They don’t want to deal with the slightest risk of dealing with legal consequences. The ole corpo risk matrix + risk appetite as assessed by lawyers resulted in this, no IT involved ever probably.

        • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Totally, corporations will always go fasch, not just because they want to¹ but because it’s what they are

          But

          can’t trust moderation

          There is low hanging fruit that can be procedurally verified.

          They chose this, obviously, clearly

          ¹they always want to

          • misk@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Your solution doesn’t fully eliminate risk on it’s own and addressing that costs money - that’s about as far as a rational company has to go. They know going nuclear and banning all personal info means not having to deal with it at all and it’s a niche thing that will affect negligible amount of users. Bean counting is the core of meeting regulatory and legal requirements in case of for-profit organisations.

    • 73ms@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      16 hours ago

      can always come up with rationalizations but the fact remains there are other platforms that will not “cost optimize” it away.

      • misk@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Those platforms are irrelevant. Yes, I realise I’m using an irrelevant platform but being relevant is something I actively avoid in social networks.