Thats frankly ridiculous and just shows how poorly this awful automated moderation has been implemented.
I could think of a million different contexts where a messaging app would be mentioned in a message which wouldn;'t have been a suggestion to use said application.
Fab isn't unique in having poorly implemented a feature that should never have been turned on in the first place. I've even seen membership-based websites die because of it.
Bottom line is the crude methods used have zero context, zero ability to understand intent and zero ablity to consider severity on a case by case basis. Humans do have this ability (well some do).
This sort of moderation could be useful if as an alerting system for actual moderators to consider if a sanction is appropriate and it should be transparent to users. If you really must have automated warnings and suchlike piped out to members then limit it to that. Warning someone and giving them a right to reply is fair however auto-banning them with little chance to even get a response afterwards isn't.
And the `site supporter thing is a really worrying element. If someone has 5 days site supporter remaining and receives an automated 5 day ban when they don't consider having done anything to warrant it, means the site is taking peoples money but not providing them with the service in a situation where the context may mean they haven't broken any terms and therefore should not have been sanctioned.
I've recently had two bans, both are where a sanction wasn't warranted as both were situations where the bots lack of time awareness triggered the ban. If you inadvertently included one of the 'banned' words on your profile a year or two ago and forgot about it, auto moderation spotting it now doesn't mean you have just committed the 'crime' and shouldn't have a ban, also mentioning some banned expression (used with no nefarious intent) in chat twice during a session, and the bot considering this as two offences, one warranting a warning and the other a ban (for ignoring the warniung) despite the user not having read the first warning is ridiculous.
I actually had an apology and some extra site supporter days for that second scenario, however the first I didn't and it cost my 5 days - I didn't even receive a courtesy response.
I really like Fab and have used for many years but having to walk on eggshells to avoid accidentality triggering a sanction spoils the experience.
And when it does happen, lack of reliable responses, vague directions to appeal, impression given that some functions work but don't, wastes peoples time (lets you compose a message but nothing is posted for example).
This is an adult orientated site for people to meet for sex, ultimately. I'd think that such a site could treat peple like adults and not hitting them with a stick if they mention this word or that word. I'd hardly think any word should be 'banned' as contextually any one may be appropriate in an adult environment.
What the site SHOULD be doing, instead of harassing and making life difficult for members, is focusing on repeated offences of abuse, stalking, aggression, racism or other isms that cause actual real world distress to other members. THOSE are the sort of activities you really want to banish and sensible use of auto moderation to ALERT human mods to assess the severity would be good.
And while we are at it, why IS Fab one of the only hook up sites I know of that actively bans members for deciding to migrate onto other (much more secure and encrypted) messaging applications once full contact has been made? Fab can't offer that privacy and security so why shouldn't stop people move across once they have estabished contact. Quite the opposite.
It's not keeping Fab 'sticky' to drive membership renewals, it's just making Fab look petty, behind the times and not member-centric. Moving to a more secure and appropriate messaging system once mutually desired should be the advice Fab gives out, not banning people for doing it or even discussing it.
It needs sorting for sure, if the good work over the years creating this site is't going to tarnish its reputation through something is idiotic as the notoriously awful auto-moderation function. |
