Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

2
  • 1
    Just a caveat– I don't think the post claimed at any point that the Company is "able to measure the rate of false positive bans on the site"; in fact, they say exactly the opposite: "Under this assumption, it is impossible for us to generate a list of cases where we know moderators have made a mistake. ... Instead, the most we can do is state that we just can’t tell.". I don't think it weakens your argument per say, but I also think it's important to identify theirs accurately. Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 16:26
  • 5
    I read their argument more as "We have reason to believe GPT posts have fallen off, but suspensions have not. That implies heavy false-positives." Which, as you point out, is sound, if the GPT-rate data is accurate, which seems to be the main gripe of most folks who feel it doesn't match their experience at all. Commented Jun 8, 2023 at 16:26