Yes, well, Google & all sites also has a right to defend the network against attackers, which these people constitute. They actively degraded the site's quality & looked like & were an attack. Ultimately I think it's the right of these sites to handle matters as they may, and to a large degree caveat emptor us users.
But I also very much want there to be forgiveness somewhere in these systems. The historical, classic, "It was just a joke" doesn't cut it, but I also am not heartless, don't think the punishment here ought to be forever. I want there to be reconciliation, reform, appeals available. I personally am a huge fan of better digital justice efforts. But these efforts need to start & take off as ground roots, voluntary systems, to avoid premature & hardening regulation. I think we need some banner sites to bother trying to do better, which so far no one at all has. Trying to force change at the top seems foolish when we have tried so little, when we still know nothing.
I'd love to see some newspapers build "Digital Juries"[1] for abuse/moderation, or see some transparency floated. Just having more open processes would also be very helpful, versus how close to the chest these things are played today.
My concern is that Google has built a system in which for a large portion of the population it's the one who controls whether individuals are allowed access to the Internet (via Android devices dominating the low-end of the smartphone market and many people now using smartphones as their primary/only access), and in addition it controls one of the dominant online entertainment options. So, control of whether you can get online plus decisions about that which can be based on what you do while online.
Oh, and it's profit-driven so there's strong incentive to reduce costs, needs to do expensive content and comment moderation, has what could be classified as a toxic internal structure and a bunch of techies, which leads to automated moderation (e.g. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/youtube-moderation-b...). Because automated moderation can be scaled cheaply, doesn't need to be paid wages and benefits, doesn't complain about mental health, and if something goes wrong, you just point and say "it was a computer problem" and that blunts most of the complaints because who's even responsible at that point?
And while it has all this control it has limited options for punitive actions - Google can't really levy fines, its punishment options are effectively full or limited bans from some services (e.g. no commenting ability), temporary complete bans and permanent bans. If those bans can be circumvented easily they're kind of toothless, so with the information it has it can easily detect most bypass attempts.
So financial incentives to automate and reduce appeal options, plus limited enforcement options weighted to the heavy end, plus widespread use as an identity provider. There are probably a lot of people out there for whom a week in jail would be less of a long-term life disruption than loss of their Google account.
> My concern is that Google has built a system in which for a large portion of the population it's the one who controls whether individuals are allowed access to the Internet, and in addition it controls one of the dominant online entertainment options. So, control of whether you can get online plus decisions about that which can be based on what you do while online.
Neither Google Search, nor Android, nor Youtube require a Google account.
If you want to follow someone on Youtube, Microsoft Edge will let you do so, without an account. Because it's just a web property & not an app, this sort of thing is trivially easy to do.
> There are probably a lot of people out there for whom a week in jail would be less of a long-term life disruption than loss of their Google account.
This is really a great point, and I totally agree. It makes me wish for two things: as you say, a lot more use of temporary bans. AFAIK Google does not do this anywhere. This is a powerful warning & wake up, with less long term impact. Second, a "strikes" policy that has some forgiveness built in. Someone who is one offense away from a forever-ban is in a miserable spot for their whole life, and they should have some ability to get back into graces. That should be part of the system too.
Ah my apologies, that is ridiculous. I should have read in. I thought it was a case of them being told to go flood another channel.
Right now we don't really have any way to know: was this corrected? Maybe Google doesn't do this anymore! But we have no idea. It would be a more moral & just stance for Google to actually talk about this kind of stuff, but, like most companies, there is little communication or updates on how these things work. The triplines are all invisible, the effect happens at digital speed. I find that to be one of the worst things about where we are; it is a intense info-industrial mechanization.
I still don't see how except automation we expect to build affordable at-scale systems. But the AI deciding your are an enemy & flipping the bit suddenly, like it does, is reckless, cruel, & shoddy.
But I also very much want there to be forgiveness somewhere in these systems. The historical, classic, "It was just a joke" doesn't cut it, but I also am not heartless, don't think the punishment here ought to be forever. I want there to be reconciliation, reform, appeals available. I personally am a huge fan of better digital justice efforts. But these efforts need to start & take off as ground roots, voluntary systems, to avoid premature & hardening regulation. I think we need some banner sites to bother trying to do better, which so far no one at all has. Trying to force change at the top seems foolish when we have tried so little, when we still know nothing.
I'd love to see some newspapers build "Digital Juries"[1] for abuse/moderation, or see some transparency floated. Just having more open processes would also be very helpful, versus how close to the chest these things are played today.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.06393