Re:Facebook Says It’s Policing Fake Accounts, but They’re St...
by marcinzm on Monday November 06, 2017 @12:57PM
(#15637276)
The issue is also one of false-positives. Even if you could spot fake accounts 100% of the time if you also flagged 1% of legitimate accounts as fake by that approach then it's non-viable. Remember that at Facebooks scale a 1% false-positive rate means 20 MILLION accounts. That's too much to even try sending for manual review.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Facebook Says It’s Policing Fake Accounts, but They’re St...
by pbhjpbhj on Monday November 06, 2017 @02:38PM
(#15638337)
Trust networks seem to work here: for example I've reported accounts like "Blacksmith Arms" (not a real example) for being not a real person. Blacksmith Arms is a common pub name, it's a business account masquerading as a user which is (or was) against Facebook rules.
Facebook responded on a couple of such reports but the accounts weren't altered.
If my account had sufficient standing then the action could have been automated. My accounts actions could then be meta-moderated by other accounts that are more trusted.
You make decisions using reports from trusted accounts, and verify them with multiple more-trusted accounts. Verified actions improve an accounts trust level.
Surely Facebook already use such a system? I imagine Google Maps are using such a trust network too?
Use the scale of the system to manage itself.
Re:Facebook Says It’s Policing Fake Accounts, but They’re St...
by SomeStupidPoint on Monday November 06, 2017 @09:05PM
(#15640549)
20 million reviews per year * 1/(2000 hours per personyear * 10 reviews per personhour) = 1000 people
Facebook could afford a thousand fulltime account reviewers, they just don't want to.