4 ms·
Financial implications as a consequences of committing theft with jail for repeat offence is actually the norm in civilized society. It's pretty radical to sug
by harry8 6y ago
Financial implications as a consequences of committing theft with jail for repeat offence is actually the norm in civilized society.
It's pretty radical to suggest that we have a situation where you should avoid consequence for it.
Where on earth are you seeing "off with their heads?" Not from me.
Are you really supporting financial incentive to make and not fix errors in your own favour? Should we apply that principle to bank tellers and shop assistants too or only if a computer is involved? Does it need to be a statistical algorithm? Or is an if statement good enough to shield you?
I think maybe you're having a completely different argument with someone else?
- renewiltord 6y agoOh yeah, I'm not buying what you're selling. There isn't any theft here. And "in your favour"? Give me a break. Failing to complete payments is not in PayPal's favour, and I don't even mean some "in the long term no one will trust" crap. They literally make money off transactions. Transactions that cannot be completed do not make them money.
- harry8 6y agoIt's been my experience that paypal take the money and then sit on it as a matter of policy. That's theft. Taking money under false pretense agreeing to a contract to perform a service then wreaking havoc on a business not performing it with no ability to even discuss the non-performance. Do you prefer the word fraud for that? In principle, imagine your government wrecking your business doing the exact same thing. Hey why not the IRS! Equality before the law. No consequences. No restitution. The algorithm has spoken. Because your principle has been established and you have to stick to it.