For example, it avoids them actively having to say they have a “fake accounts team” (which would in turn indicate they have a fake accounts problem). Instead it’s part of the “Community Integrity team”.
Teams have absolutely been identified by specific problem areas, so your reasoning doesn’t hold up. For example, “FNRP” stands for Fake, Not Real Person (which distinguishes from celebrity impersonation etc) per https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebo...
At this point, its research is nearly 40 years out of date. Is it still worth reading? And are there more up-to-date versions?
I recommend this book to everyone with a white-collar job. It's an incredible read. The research is a bit out of date, but the truths still hold. If anything, the age of the research is somewhat helpful. The phenomena these days are more subtle, and many of us work in companies with flatter hierarchies than the 25+ level pyramids the author studied. So the distance in time forces you to reflect on what has changed and whether the results are relevant to you.
You will recognize so many of the situations as reminiscent of things you have experienced and haven't been able to put into words. It is 100% worth the read.
"Advertising" for example could mean the benign "show me a picture of some product" or it could mean "identify who I am, how I behave, where I work, how much I make, who I know, and maintain and share a dossier on all of it"
But if parent is correct, the role is to enforce things users want (regarding spam/fraud/illegal goods), which matches standard notions of integrity, so it’s not doublespeak.
Gotta love these headlines /s