3 ms·

I just had a thought, and it might be a very bad one: why can't robocallers be de-platformed in the same way Facebook and Twitter de-platforms accounts they con

I just had a thought, and it might be a very bad one: why can't robocallers be de-platformed in the same way Facebook and Twitter de-platforms accounts they consider to be harmful on their platforms?

MiddleEndian 7y ago
There's no moral reason for any of these actions. AT&T makes money from spammers, so do the other networks, and it's hard to switch phone providers, so they won't stop them. Unless they are forced to either block the calls or forced to forward the origination information so users can block whatever callers they want using a ublock/adblock style subscription list, this won't stop.
- ergothus 7y ago
  Are you equating moral reasons and economic reasons?
  - MiddleEndian 7y ago
    I'm saying that AT&T will never take a moral stand against spammers, and they have no incentive to take an economic stand. Companies like Twitter that "deplatform" (see: ban) users do do because it's more profitable to do so than not for a variety of reasons. So the only shortish term solution is a legislative one. The long term solution I see is that people will stop using phone service entirely if the reliability does not improve. I'd be fine with that. AT&T wouldn't be but that's beyond their next few fiscal years so I doubt anyone working there now cares.
- krageon 7y ago
  > There's no moral reason Of course there is a moral reason. There are moral reasons we can come up with for every possible human action, because morals are subjective. Thus, the statement "There's no moral reason" is always false. The opposite is meaningless (in the same way that saying "water is wet" would be meaningless).
  - MiddleEndian 7y ago
    This is nothing but pedantry. All I'm saying is that AT&T isn't going to come up with a good solution to spammers out of the kindness of their hearts.
    - krageon 7y ago
      In the same way that what I said is pedantic, claiming a moral reason is obvious or self-evident is self-righteous. You are implying that to you there is an obvious moral reason and it should be obvious to the reader what that moral reason is. What I was trying to tell you is that it is not obvious to me. Even now that you've explained the effect of your moral reasoning, I don't understand what makes this moral (or even a reason). Is it a moral reason when they continue to exploit the situation as it is even though it is unfriendly to their customers and stimulates abuse of the system?
      - MiddleEndian 7y ago
        We seem to be in agreement that AT&T is exploiting a bad situation. The top poster asked why they don't come up with a more effective solution to eliminate spam calls for good. All I'm saying is that it's naive to assume any phone company will implement such a solution unless forced to do so.

I just had a thought, and it might be a very bad one: why can't robocallers be de-platformed in the same way Facebook and Twitter de-platforms accounts they consider to be harmful on their platforms?

MiddleEndian 7y ago

There's no moral reason for any of these actions. AT&T makes money from spammers, so do the other networks, and it's hard to switch phone providers, so they won't stop them. Unless they are forced to either block the calls or forced to forward the origination information so users can block whatever callers they want using a ublock/adblock style subscription list, this won't stop.

ergothus 7y ago
Are you equating moral reasons and economic reasons?
- MiddleEndian 7y ago
  I'm saying that AT&T will never take a moral stand against spammers, and they have no incentive to take an economic stand. Companies like Twitter that "deplatform" (see: ban) users do do because it's more profitable to do so than not for a variety of reasons. So the only shortish term solution is a legislative one. The long term solution I see is that people will stop using phone service entirely if the reliability does not improve. I'd be fine with that. AT&T wouldn't be but that's beyond their next few fiscal years so I doubt anyone working there now cares.
krageon 7y ago
> There's no moral reason Of course there is a moral reason. There are moral reasons we can come up with for every possible human action, because morals are subjective. Thus, the statement "There's no moral reason" is always false. The opposite is meaningless (in the same way that saying "water is wet" would be meaningless).
- MiddleEndian 7y ago
  This is nothing but pedantry. All I'm saying is that AT&T isn't going to come up with a good solution to spammers out of the kindness of their hearts.
  - krageon 7y ago
    In the same way that what I said is pedantic, claiming a moral reason is obvious or self-evident is self-righteous. You are implying that to you there is an obvious moral reason and it should be obvious to the reader what that moral reason is. What I was trying to tell you is that it is not obvious to me. Even now that you've explained the effect of your moral reasoning, I don't understand what makes this moral (or even a reason). Is it a moral reason when they continue to exploit the situation as it is even though it is unfriendly to their customers and stimulates abuse of the system?
    - MiddleEndian 7y ago
      We seem to be in agreement that AT&T is exploiting a bad situation. The top poster asked why they don't come up with a more effective solution to eliminate spam calls for good. All I'm saying is that it's naive to assume any phone company will implement such a solution unless forced to do so.