In the UK we have something called the Data Protection Act. It's actually quite robust and predates GDPR. In the USA I don't think they have this but in the UK we do.
It was originally created for scenarios such as where you sign up for credit but they decline. Perhaps it turns out someone else lied about you giving some reference or you have the same name as anyone else.
Anyway, they need to not only give you all data you create but all data for pertains to you. Lets say someone on twitter moderation team says user X is a douche.
Then you have the data user Y says user X is a douche. The X pertains to you so that's your personal data, what they said about you. Shocking I know but people don't realise this and the inherent power of the legislation. They have to strip the Y but not what they said. So you can send a SAR for it. They have to give you your data including other user's reports on you. It either just can't be personally identifiable or they have to also include you a kind of umbrella NDA.
If they say but then we won't be able to stop spammers is immaterial. You need to have all the same data they have in making a decision to contest it on equal grounds. An automatic decision does not only mean machine. It mostly applies even if humans are part of the automation process.
What we need to do is to get all UK Pedes on board with this and hammering these companies when they're doing it here to demand the right to contest anything.
For example, I posted a comment to youtube then it magically disappeared. I have the legal right to contest that legal decision, to know how it was made and the data it was based on then demand human intervention. If they refuse to fully obey the SAR giving me incomplete data and only the data I produced then I have a serious legal challenge to raise with them because they did no give me all the data that pertains to me, only that which comes from me. Listen carefully. I does not matter where it comes from as long as it relates to you and is personally identifiable to you. That means that if you're Z, X sent an emails to Y saying Z sucks, they have to hand it over. They may have to strip the X and Y so it's not personally identifiable to them but they have to give you all the rest. The whole point of it was people realising the horrible circumstances of being at the mercy of a mystery system making decisions that could significantly impact your life. They foresaw a situation a little like Wall-E.
The law was made here just for this kind of nightmare scenario, ironically out of tech paranoia and we need to use it more. Every software developer here is taken on training courses about this but hardly anyone uses it.
If we did then big tech would grind to a halt. They would not be able to operate in the UK any longer. We'd go after their tax and company registrations, their payment providers, etc.
They don't have this I think in the USA but we should consider it to help US Pedes. We don't even use it to help ourselves. Big tech should have been crushed under this. It's ironic because usually our law is more draconian and anti-freedom but like the US have the 1st and we don't we have the DPA and they don't so we need to combine powers and mighty morph.
Many companies think they can unwrite your writes in the EULA, etc but they're not law makers nor law unmakers and it's just a paper tiger. Challenge them. I have and they fold. Either way it can't hurt to try.
The UK law is pretty complex. For example, did you know all communications are potentially illegal? There's a law that if someone subjectively finds a communication malicious then it's criminal. A lot of what Twitter is doing in the UK where all communications are basically illegal if someone doesn't like it is lopsided.
To be quite honest if people use the MCA and DPA to the max big tech is actually impossible to operate over here. Let alone the Equality Act. For example, tech companies here saying BLM and stuff, that's actually illegal under anti-discrimination laws if they either offer services here or hire here. If there moderation services are supporting black people standing up for themselves on account of race even when in the wrong, such as BLM but not white people standing up for their race even when in the right then they are breaking the Equality Act and you can sue them for discriminatory practice. It doesn't matter what their TOS says. They are not elected lawmakers. They cannot make up the law as they go along. If they provide a service they also have to provide people with their guaranteed rights. They cannot arbitrarily revoke those as they please.
This applies especially to private enterprise. That's what it's aimed at. For example a reseller cannot simply revoke your right of return for defective products or mislabelled products in the small print. If that were the case literally every private business would revoke your rights and it would be entirely pointless for the government to issue such rights in the first place.
Sainburies for example is actually breaking the Equality Act with Critical Theory. One thing we have here in the UK is that our anti-racism laws are stronger so you can't get away with AF or things like saying racism is only white on black. The legal code clearly says it's any race on any race.
This is a big problem with the Anglosphere. People here think US law and legal precedent applies here. It doesn't and the same in reverse. We need to start getting our shit straight. The US has some murky stuff on AF we don't have. Like the US had a case that never should have went through saying it's not discrimination if instead you have a scoring system and give people massive points for being black because technically white people can still get in if they max out all the other scores.
If you're in the UK and either working for Sainsburies or a customer then you have an open and shut civil suit. They copied US trends seeing you could get away with it there thinking then you can do it in the UK. You can't. I hope Sainsburies has deep pockets. Contact a lawyer today. Idiots copying what's legally safe in the US thinking it's the same in the UK. If you're a white customer put off shopping at Sainburies for them adopting CT on account of being white, singled out for your race, and it scapegoating you blaming everything wrong in this world today on you then boom you have a case. It's pretty much the same as having a sign outside saying whites not welcome or whites not appreciated or give us your white pound so we can hire black people in a process that required discriminating against white candidates. It's all highly racist and highly illegal. The law here has nothing in writing nor prior cases to exclude or diminish white people from protection for their racial characteristic. Such a law would be in conflict with the law itself.
The biggest problem here is that it's really hard for people to access the law. In the USA you hear about people suing everyone for anything. Here there's no shortage of people doing things you can sue for but no one can bloody afford it nor knows the legal protocols to do it themselves because it's all some esoteric nonsense. Seriously it's easier to look up the RFC for TCP and know how to communicate that way by hand than it is to learn the legal protocols.