No. Mandating real people won't help. I've dealt with real support people who are exactly as useless as the website's FAQ. They're powerless to make any special exceptions to the predefined process or even to escalate to someone who can.
As an example, I can't use my main email address for an Apple ID account because apparently somebody else set it as their backup email and I may have carelessly clicked the accept link when I got the confirmation. I talked to a human Apple support person and his higher level colleague and was told that's probably what happened but they can't know for sure and even if they did, they can't fix it. The end. Bye.
Mandating real people COULD help, bust sometimes it doesn't - yet this is by design. For example, Amazon Seller Support renders humans into bots because they can only reply with templates (it's like they have humans teaching machines what to reply from a fixed set of replies) - of course this is a shitshow.
If you get a cryptic reply, you have to figure it out, just to reply and get the same response, and then to finally get a "case is closed".
To be fair one of the major drivers of quack medicine is that there are still a lot of problems where science based medicine will eventually go "We don't know what's wrong with you, but it's probably not something we can fix, so it just sucks to be you right now."
It may be the best most honest answer, but a lot of people would rather have a name for what's wrong with them, even if there's no cure, and a treatment, even if it doesn't work.
In the UK you have a right to have automated decisions on e.g. loan applications reviewed by a human. Broadening a right like that would certainly be worth considering.
While that would be good, I don't think this would solve anything on Youtube. In the end Youtube is heavily courting the music companies with the way they do things, it's not about the actual law.
See the whole world of educational music youtubers, they are well within their rights to do quite a few things, but in reality they can't even perform certain short guitar riffs themselves without getting flagged.
Especially noteworthy here:
> The data protection law establishes that you have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated means, if the decision produces legal effects concerning you or significantly affects you in a similar way.
That seems to me (IANAL etc) like it could be used to argue that you need to be able to appeal to a real person who actually has the power to do something about the problem. Because these examples like in the GP(?) where one gets hold of a real person who claims they can't do anything because "that's just how the system works"... Well, then they're not really "a person" in the sense that I'm fairly sure has to be the one meant here; they're just another cog in the automated means.
I didn't know this. Thank you. I hope FB finally allows me to appeal against the block they have placed on my domain on sharing debugger citing "community guidelines".
