Content is one thing. But it gets me really concerned about these kind of appeal processes when it comes to more critical things like your identity or proof of personhood.

It is not hard to imagine getting a black mark in some invisible proprietary profile that determines if you can access Uber Eats, LinkedIn, etc. and have no recourse to fix it or get another chance.

▲

throwawaysleep 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

You don’t need to imagine. It happens frequently.

	▲	ceejayoz 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		And not just for stuff like Uber. You can get locked out of the IRS, Social Security, etc. in the same way. https://www.id.me/government

▲

jonbiggums22 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm thinking of people who bought an Occulus Rift, which Meta then purchased and then forced people to associate a facebook account with it which they could then ban causing you to lose access to the hardware (and any games you purchased). A strong incentive to use the facebook account as little as possible since making a throwaway facebook account is now such a PITA. Infuriating since it was a bait and switch on an expensive piece of hardware. I guess the only winning move was to sell the device to some other sucker the moment the facebook purchase of Occulus was announced.

Don't worry this requirement was removed. Now you just need a Meta account which is totally different!

▲

pavlov 4 days ago | parent [-]

The Facebook acquisition of Oculus was in March 2014. The hardware that Oculus sold before that was a developer prototype.

There was no bait and switch because there was no consumer product.

There’s a lot to dislike about Meta, but this complaint doesn’t make sense. If anything, Meta has put millions more of VR devices into consumers’ hands by selling the Quest at a loss. Nobody has to buy it.

	▲	Rebelgecko 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		When I bought my Quest, I was allowed (initially) to only use an Oculus account. The FB requirement came later.
	▲	freedomben 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not accurate. I'm not a Facebook hater, but they definitely did a bait and switch. We were advertised Linux support, but that got canned plenty after people had pre-ordered. I'll likely never forgive them for that

▲

j45 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The online "sign in with X/Y/Z" services are a digital identity provider.

We are citizens of private corporations that are social networks.

There are not many laws there for recourse or communication.

▲

pndy 4 days ago | parent [-]

OpenID was aiming to be a decentralized digital identity solution for everyone but then companies opted out for own solutions.

I'm seeing more and more sites pushing for signing with facebook/apple/google accounts and I'm afraid how the Internet may look like in a few years. It seems we're on path on total sanitization of online services, sites and content to the point where everything will be "safe", verified and authorized and so will be users.

	▲	j45 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm sure there's enough folks here who have gone through the single sign on fun, which anecdotally can expose you to the independent ID hosting. I believe it's still possible to run independent identity services and route it through one of the cloud providers in some cases. Creating your own email address on your own domain and then enrolling your own domain in identity accounts seems to be one practice I saw being mentioned the last time I was brushing up on SSO.