5 ms·

There's rules about discrimination for specific reasons: you can't discriminate based on age, race, gender, etc. "Which credit card" you use isn't one of those

There's rules about discrimination for specific reasons: you can't discriminate based on age, race, gender, etc. "Which credit card" you use isn't one of those categories, so it's legal to discriminate based on it. (And is often done, though not to this extent; many places, for example, will accept Visa and Mastercard but not Discover.)

alanfranz 7y ago
> many places, for example, will accept Visa and Mastercard but not Discover. But that's explicit and the same for everybody. If you accepted Discover from somebody and not from somebody else, THAT would be discrimination. Discriminating the credit card somebody is using without telling anybody... well, could still be discrimination. Younger people could be more prone to use an Apple card, couldn't them? Can you demonstrate the "feature" you're discriminating about can't be tied to age, race, gender, etc?
- vageli 7y ago
  > > many places, for example, will accept Visa and Mastercard but not Discover. > But that's explicit and the same for everybody. If you accepted Discover from somebody and not from somebody else, THAT would be discrimination. > Discriminating the credit card somebody is using without telling anybody... well, could still be discrimination. Younger people could be more prone to use an Apple card, couldn't them? Can you demonstrate the "feature" you're discriminating about can't be tied to age, race, gender, etc? FYI discriminating against people on the basis of age is not illegal when applied to youth, at least in the United States. This is obviously the case as we use age as a gate for many privileges.
  - alanfranz 7y ago
    Right. I got a terrible example.
jaclaz 7y ago
>so it's legal to discriminate based on it. (And is often done, though not to this extent; many places, for example, will accept Visa and Mastercard but not Discover.) Sure, but one thing is: "Sorry, I cannot accept Discover, do you happen to have another means of payment?" and another one is: "Sorry, I cannot accept Discover, and since you presented one of those cards to me once, then you are prevented for the rest of your life to enter these premises again".
- r00fus 7y ago
  The relief for that would be for the customer to talk to everyone and tell them how bad the vendor is, and go to another vendor who offers the same service. In this case, Google is effectively a monopoly/2Big2Fail in advertising. So that remedy is not available or is impractical. So the issue is not necessarily the behaviors (while reprehensible) but the size of the company.
  - tfha 7y ago
    Yeah the real issue is the choice. If there were 5 or 10 reasonable alternatives, this kind of thing wouldn't bother me at all. But if the options are "obey Google or fail", suddenly it's a big problem.
- mayank 7y ago
  Unfortunately both your scenarios are perfectly legal. Credit cards are not a protected class.
  - alanfranz 7y ago
    Imagine if that very thing happened at a grocery store. You're in a small town, no alternative, and you've got no driving licence. Would you like to starve because of no reason? Btw, I'm not saying it's illegal. I'm saying it SHOULD be illegal.
    - pb7 7y ago
      It should be illegal as soon as the District Attorney decides to prosecute every instance of criminal fraud.
jbarberu 7y ago
But most places won't shun you if you merely try to use the wrong card. Imaging bringing out your Amex and being escorted off the premises and permanently banned.
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
I'm so glad it isn't my job to fight fraud. I worked at a place that would blacklist entire countries from signing up for their service, as a disproportionate number if fraudulent sign ups came from those countries. Every now and then I'd be contacted by an apparently regular customer who just wanted to try the service, and there was nothing I could do to help them, even when I really wanted to. I hated every part of feeling dealing with that stupid fraud system.
- filoleg 7y ago
  Your situation isn't even as bad as what google did. It is one thing to proactively prevent sign-ups from potentially "fraudulent" users and another to permaban existing users on their first "offense" with no explanation and/or opportunity to appeal that decision. The latter should always be an option for permabans, no matter what.
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    How many dollars should Google be required to spend handling these appeals? Do you think fraudsters won't appeal as well? Some don't, but actually many of the most indignant/irate "customers" are the ones who have been caught in a scam, particularly if they are caught before they've actually closed the lid on it. They probably won't blog about it, but they'll definitely try to force the company to spend as much as possible dealing with them.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Such is life when dealing with the public. Some people will need individual attention. They may well cost you more than you make from them. You make it up with the averages. If you don’t like it, don’t sell to the public. Your local grocery store has far better customer service than this despite razor-thin margins. Payment problems? They’ll work with you. Product is bad? Refund. Sale not ringing through properly? They’ll fix it. Surely Google can afford to have some actual people to help you when you have problems.
      - deleted 7y ago

alanfranz 7y ago

> many places, for example, will accept Visa and Mastercard but not Discover. But that's explicit and the same for everybody. If you accepted Discover from somebody and not from somebody else, THAT would be discrimination. Discriminating the credit card somebody is using without telling anybody... well, could still be discrimination. Younger people could be more prone to use an Apple card, couldn't them? Can you demonstrate the "feature" you're discriminating about can't be tied to age, race, gender, etc?

vageli 7y ago
> > many places, for example, will accept Visa and Mastercard but not Discover. > But that's explicit and the same for everybody. If you accepted Discover from somebody and not from somebody else, THAT would be discrimination. > Discriminating the credit card somebody is using without telling anybody... well, could still be discrimination. Younger people could be more prone to use an Apple card, couldn't them? Can you demonstrate the "feature" you're discriminating about can't be tied to age, race, gender, etc? FYI discriminating against people on the basis of age is not illegal when applied to youth, at least in the United States. This is obviously the case as we use age as a gate for many privileges.
- alanfranz 7y ago
  Right. I got a terrible example.

jaclaz 7y ago

>so it's legal to discriminate based on it. (And is often done, though not to this extent; many places, for example, will accept Visa and Mastercard but not Discover.) Sure, but one thing is: "Sorry, I cannot accept Discover, do you happen to have another means of payment?" and another one is: "Sorry, I cannot accept Discover, and since you presented one of those cards to me once, then you are prevented for the rest of your life to enter these premises again".

r00fus 7y ago
The relief for that would be for the customer to talk to everyone and tell them how bad the vendor is, and go to another vendor who offers the same service. In this case, Google is effectively a monopoly/2Big2Fail in advertising. So that remedy is not available or is impractical. So the issue is not necessarily the behaviors (while reprehensible) but the size of the company.
- tfha 7y ago
  Yeah the real issue is the choice. If there were 5 or 10 reasonable alternatives, this kind of thing wouldn't bother me at all. But if the options are "obey Google or fail", suddenly it's a big problem.
mayank 7y ago
Unfortunately both your scenarios are perfectly legal. Credit cards are not a protected class.
- alanfranz 7y ago
  Imagine if that very thing happened at a grocery store. You're in a small town, no alternative, and you've got no driving licence. Would you like to starve because of no reason? Btw, I'm not saying it's illegal. I'm saying it SHOULD be illegal.
  - pb7 7y ago
    It should be illegal as soon as the District Attorney decides to prosecute every instance of criminal fraud.

jbarberu 7y ago

But most places won't shun you if you merely try to use the wrong card. Imaging bringing out your Amex and being escorted off the premises and permanently banned.

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

I'm so glad it isn't my job to fight fraud. I worked at a place that would blacklist entire countries from signing up for their service, as a disproportionate number if fraudulent sign ups came from those countries. Every now and then I'd be contacted by an apparently regular customer who just wanted to try the service, and there was nothing I could do to help them, even when I really wanted to. I hated every part of feeling dealing with that stupid fraud system.

filoleg 7y ago
Your situation isn't even as bad as what google did. It is one thing to proactively prevent sign-ups from potentially "fraudulent" users and another to permaban existing users on their first "offense" with no explanation and/or opportunity to appeal that decision. The latter should always be an option for permabans, no matter what.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  How many dollars should Google be required to spend handling these appeals? Do you think fraudsters won't appeal as well? Some don't, but actually many of the most indignant/irate "customers" are the ones who have been caught in a scam, particularly if they are caught before they've actually closed the lid on it. They probably won't blog about it, but they'll definitely try to force the company to spend as much as possible dealing with them.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Such is life when dealing with the public. Some people will need individual attention. They may well cost you more than you make from them. You make it up with the averages. If you don’t like it, don’t sell to the public. Your local grocery store has far better customer service than this despite razor-thin margins. Payment problems? They’ll work with you. Product is bad? Refund. Sale not ringing through properly? They’ll fix it. Surely Google can afford to have some actual people to help you when you have problems.
    - deleted 7y ago