alt Hacker NewsI agree.
But wouldn't you want a human to be involved in this process?
Let's say you run a legitimate SaaS company, and a cloud provider suspends your account due to an allegation of fraud. Wouldn't you prefer a human is involved?
To me that seems pretty reasonable when people's livelihood is at stake.
Replies
I don’t think Uber or any other platform would automatically suspend the account based on one incident. It would have been multiple people complaining about a driver and then got suspended.
Drivers should be able to appeal and in that case a human should manually review before making the suspension permanent. Most probably that’s how it happens right now, but article doesn’t say anything about how the appeals are processed.
Depends how pervasive the issue. I agree a human in the loop for reasonable redress is appropriate
> But wouldn't you want a human to be involved in this process?
The article says human review was used for the final decisions. The accounts were temporarily suspended during the investigation.
Investigations take time because you need to allow time for the person to respond with their side of the story and then to have human reviewers investigate, which can take multiple rounds.
Having human review is as simple as having one person watch a dashboard of accounts flagged for fraud and then press the suspend-account button after skimming it. I fully expect that’s what they switched to after getting hit with this.
> To me that seems pretty reasonable when people's livelihood is at stake.
What about the riders who are on the receiving end of fraudulent drivers in the best case, abusive or dangerous drivers in the worst case? It is possible to go to far in trying to protect workers for things that impact paying customers. Thinking of it only as big bad companies versus innocent workers misses the real problems.