> It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything.

Ahem...

In the UK/EU Let me introduce you to article 22 of the GDPR

The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.

i.e. If subjected to an algorithm making decisions, you have an automatic right of appeal to a _human_.

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/

You need to adopt a sensible data protection law if you don't want to be exploited.

If you look into it more carefully, you'll find this doesn't apply to social media moderation, but only more consequential AI-biased decisions.

(In the excerpt you quoted: "legal effects" / or "significantly affects").

Oh no! It's against the law. That'll definitely stop companies from doing it with impunity.

Yes. It will.

Though presumably you would prefer the alternative; that such companies are unrestrained in what they may do and the population at large must simply bend over and grab their ankles with both hands?

Nope, I don't want that at all. What I want is a law with actual enforcement behind it and penalties that actually deter bad actors. You don't just write a law and then stop there declaring job done.

GDPR penalties DO deter bad actors. It's so effective that many American companies without a European presence at all take actions