20 ms·

It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. At the very least, companies must be

by _qulr 6y ago

It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. At the very least, companies must be legally required to present you in writing with the so-called violation of terms they're accusing you of, evidence of the violation, and a phone # or other immediate contact so that you can dispute the accusations. It's insane that these basic legal rights don't even exist. You could of course sue Google, but that's an extremely expensive and time-consuming option, rarely worth it for a mere consumer. Going to court certainly won't make your suspended account become unsuspended any quicker.

Hamuko 6y ago
>You could of course sue Google Unless you've waived that right when you agreed to the Terms of Service.
- Semaphor 6y ago
  > Unless you've waived that right when you agreed to the Terms of Service. Which would be meaningless in the EU (I think. Possibly just Germany) as you can’t waive that right.
  - greatpatton 6y ago
    It's the same in France and I think most of EU as the highest french court ruled that forced arbitration was against EU law.
    - vaduz 6y ago
      > It's the same in France and I think most of EU as the highest french court ruled that forced arbitration was against EU law. For consumers or businesses? Not being nitpicky here: I am not familiar with the French ruling, so I would genuinely want to know - as regulations tend to differ (businesses, even single sole trader ones, do not enjoy consumer protections). Not really relevant for the Terraria dev as it is his personal account that is banned, from the sound of it - but important.
      - greatpatton 6y ago
        As a consumer, every time the clause is not specifically negotiated, it is considered "abusive" and void (for businesses it may be different). If as a consumer you negotiate a contract with an arbitration clause it will be enforceable however if it is a generic clause in the terms& condition it will not.
      - ohgodplsno 6y ago
        Forced arbitration is against French law. Google cannot force you to go to a specific company for arbitration (that, conveniently enough, happens to always rule in their favor). It has to be explicitly negotiated between the two parties. This also holds true for companies. It has to be explicitly negotatied.
      - Semaphor 6y ago
        I think in Germany it would be legal for businesses. B2B contracts allow most things that are illegal in a B2C context.
      - himinlomax 6y ago
        > For consumers or businesses? For consumers. Businesses are considered to have both more (legal) resources to conduct deals as well as a need for more flexibility. However in this case this sounds like the account was personal, so even if it was used for business purposes, the deal was personal. In Europe (France here) typically the distinction is not in the use but in the contracting party. A business is registered with tax authorities and has an identifying number, if you contract a service without such a number you're doing so personally so for such purposes you're a consumer and bound by consumer laws. Indeed, all registration forms for services ask you for that number and business address. Services that don't want to / can't be subject to consumer protection laws or are not allowed to sell to private individuals require that number and verify it. Services that allow both individuals and businesses ask for it and may treat you differently based on it.
- KMag 6y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that U.S. courts have found that suing is a right that can't be waived by contract. Certainly an agreement to enter arbitration can be introduced as evidence against you in a a lawsuit, but any decent lawyer should be able to prevent an arbitration agreement from getting your lawsuit thrown out.
  - thgaway17 6y ago
    You are 99.5% wrong. See Federal Arbitration Act and ATT v Concepcion.
    - KMag 6y ago
      Thanks. I stand corrected.
  - CPLX 6y ago
    That's not an accurate description of current consumer arbitration precedent in the US.
anthony_r 6y ago
You're not seeing the other side of the coin - the huge amount of spam and abuse that such systems correctly identify and remove. If every abuser requests those explanations (which they will) there will be far more spam going around the Internet. Just think about the army of "Facebook content moderators" who were a popular topic on HN recently due to the concerns over their mental health. (I am offering no solutions here, for I know none)
- fredgrott 6y ago
  no if the AI can be used to automate the banning it can be used to provide the electronic news email of the rule violated.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Well their main argument against it is that if you don't tell scammers which rule exactly they are breaking they can't improve until the app is approved. But of course that hits normal customers too. It's the equivalent of arresting random people on the street and not telling them why - surely, innocent people will just get their lawyer to free them.
    - bildung 6y ago
      aka due process
- _qulr 6y ago
  > If every abuser requests those explanations (which they will) It's not a request, it's a requirement. If your account is suspended, you deserve an explanation. You should get one without having to request it. I'm not saying that companies shouldn't be able to suspend accounts temporarily. I'm simply saying that there needs to be a way to get your account unsuspended if you're innocent. The way it "works" now is that innocent consumers are without any recourse whatsoever.
  - daemin 6y ago
nvahalik 6y ago
> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies I get where you're going, but I think far more costly to them and advantageous for us is to simply show them that they are unnecessary. If we can drop them so easily, they can't pull stuff like this anymore. It is possible to drop Google and Facebook. They do this stuff because people _need_ them and they know that people won't just drop them en mass.
- vonwoodson 6y ago
  > drop them en mass The libertarian in me wants to believe that reputation is enough to make business act in the interests of the consumers and that personal responsibility would prevent customers from acting in their best interests: but we all know this is not true. And, I know enough to know that any public policy that essentially says “Everything will be fine if everyone just does [X]” is bad policy, regardless of what ‘X’ is.
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    > The libertarian in me wants to believe that reputation is enough to make business act in the interests of the consumers and that personal responsibility would prevent customers from acting in their best interests: but we all know this is not true. And that's also why monopolies and giant corporations can and will always form in the current economic system. Crony capitalism is not a bug, it's a feature.
- ryanbrunner 6y ago
  What's stopping the next Google from doing the same? Providing poor justification for bans and removal from platforms is by no means limited to the big companies - it's endemic throughout tech - we just hear about Google and Facebook more because they're higher visibility and are considered more essential.
  - zitterbewegung 6y ago
    Dropping Google / Facebook is not just signing up with another service. You could self host your own email and just quit Facebook entirely.
comeonseriously 6y ago
>It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights"... Maybe? But I worry that politicians will use that as a tool. Look what DeSantis is trying down here in Florida. He wants to fine "Big Tech" for banning politicians during an election. Personally, I'm tired of the lies and provocations and hate speech of some politicians and I don't think any company should be compelled to share those messages.
- Yizahi 6y ago
  So those evil politicians will do what? Force corporations to indiscriminately ban arbitrary people without possibility of appeal? Oh, wait a minute...
VLM 6y ago
The Kafka solution to this will be our terms of service prohibit single spacing after periods and you are in violation. Therefore we can terminate your account at any time of our choosing. Alternately we could prohibit posting in any language other than Latin and Klingon, or using the letter e, or accessing our services using any unapproved operating system (and our only approved OS is windows 3.11 with winsock drivers). Anyway the point is now the company can ban you for any reason at all. Being the wrong religion, voting for the wrong candidate, being the wrong race, etc.
- ConceptJunkie 6y ago
  Not just "can", but "will". And given how effectively these companies are using their size and power (and m-word) to crush the competition, it's long past time for some anti-trust action.
MisterTea 6y ago
> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. Google is a private company who offers free internet services in exchange for your privacy being violated. They have no customer service because you are not a customer as customers pay. You have no rights on their platform because again, you are not a paying customer. And you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up. They don't owe you anything at that pont. So stop expecting "paying customer" treatment from a shady adware dealer who gives you "free" "integrated platform" stuff to get you hooked. That's an old drug dealer tactic anyway. Want to be treated like a person? You have to pay for that. Otherwise stop whining about the tyranny of "free" platforms such as google, twitter, facebook, etc. The only thing the government should do is fund PSA's to warn people of the rights and privacy hazards of free internet platforms.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  > The only thing the government should do is fund PSA's ... Should governments allow caller ID spoofing, spam bordering on harassment, or lazy oligopolies to be negligent? Governments should do whatever we agree they should. Both governments and companies serve the humans.
- Sayrus 6y ago
  To be fair, even as a paying customer, you don't get much more "customer service". The same also applies for Google Play Store where without a doubt you paid at least once and continue for every in-app purchase.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Want to be treated like a person? You have to pay for that. Andrew Spinks, the author of the linked tweet, was a business partner of Google's. That didn't save him.
  - MisterTea 6y ago
    Partner is not a customer. They don't care about any human on their platform because their platform is not designed to care about humans, only exploit them.
michaelbuckbee 6y ago
This is in part what the GDPR mandates - that companies provide reasoning for how an automatic process works and also that there is a means to dispute that (Section 4 / Article 22) https://www.varonis.com/blog/gdpr-requirements-list-in-plain-english/ https://www.varonis.com/blog/gdpr-requirements-list-in-plain...
- conradfr 6y ago
  But then ... https://twitter.com/Cleroth/status/1348036873885806596 https://twitter.com/Cleroth/status/1348036873885806596
prepend 6y ago
You know it’s funny that lots of the basic functions of business with consumers (eg, ability to return items) were set and codified in the US as the Uniform Commercial Code [0] that was established in 1952. Before then it was wild and variable. What’s really interesting is that it seems like of hacker-like in how it was implemented. It was published as a guide and then states passed laws to implement. Reminds me of a de facto standard that is then implemented by vendors. I suppose we could start up some form of Uniform Consumer Commercial Code (UC3) that set up practices that are good that could then be passed by states. I shudder to think through all the arguments about how it would specify some “don’t be evil on social cause X” that it almost smarts my conspiracy brain that the “corporations” started this trend to bikeshed/scissor statement society so they can’t make meaningful economic and commercial policy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  The original reason for free speech was to allow people of different creeds to work together against government. The Bill of Rights is establishing as a baseline the policies that were found to reduce tribal conflicts in the European empires — having a strong central identity as a state (eg “American Destiny”), but allowing individual tribes under the state a great deal of freedom in religious practices. As a secondary purpose, it tamped down the worst state abuses. The anti-religious messaging, the anti-conservative messaging, etc undermine this and are bringing back sectarian strife inside the state.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  The problem with this sort of thing is that because it's interstate commerce, states usually do not have standing to regulate effectively. The Federal government struggles to implement new regulatory authority because of political challenges. Various groups of stakeholders will declare any such regulation an infringement on free speech (ie. "The constitution gives me the right to sell fake penis pills to fund my radical political agenda!"), biased against marginalized minority or cultural groups ("My marginalized constituency of blind, alcoholic yak herders have a religious prohibition against reading contracts"), or a unfair mandate restraint of trade ("The Chamber of Meme Commerce believes that this rule will cost 10,000,000 jobs in the meme industry and kill puppies."), etc.
hertzrat 6y ago
I think we’re in a post consumer lawsuit era. Almost every terms of service on earth requires arbitration, or else absolves the vendor of any liability whatsoever
- gowld 6y ago
  Arbitration isn't so bad. It still costs the company every time they have to deal with a case. Mass/automated arbitration claims can turn the tables, and lawsuits can be filled to challenge the neutrality of arbitrators.
arrosenberg 6y ago
> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. Nope. That gives players like Google a platform to negotiate from now and in the future, and it won't curb abuses long term. These abuses are a symptom of economic concentration and a lack of competitive markets. The only resolution guaranteed to work is to break up these companies down to smaller parts until they no longer act like quasi-governments.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > The only resolution guaranteed to work is to break up these companies down to smaller parts until they no longer act like quasi-governments. Why not both? A consumer bill of rights and breaking up Google are not mutually exclusive. Consumer protection laws protect consumers from all companies big and small, present and future. Breaking up Google won't do anything about the "next Google". It's a bit strange to think that antitrust is a long-term solution when the successful antitrust case against Microsoft didn't prevent Google, Facebook, and Apple from arising.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    It's a bit strange to think a nebulous "consumer bill of rights" is going to protect you when the actual Bill of Rights is routinely violated. We have utility designations for instances where it makes sense, and even then you see customer abuses. Forcing companies to focus on competition and survival is the best way to make sure they treat their customers well. Abuses pop up when customers don't have the choice to take their business elsewhere. > Breaking up Google won't do anything about the "next Google". The same regulator that has the power to break them up also has the power to prevent the next Google. Good pricing regulations have the power to prevent the next Google. These are solved problems, we just don't enforce the laws on the books or modernize them appropriately. > It's a bit strange to think that antitrust is a long-term solution when the successful antitrust case against Microsoft didn't prevent Google, Facebook, and Apple from arising. That's probably because it wasn't successful in the classical sense. Geroge Bush won the 2000 election and settled the case before it went to judgment. If it had, and Microsoft had been forced to break up, we may not be in the current situation.
maclured 6y ago
Its not fair when you have to get attention on twitter before getting issues like this resolved. Some of us don't use twitter for one thing
pavon 6y ago
Agreed. We generally allow companies to refuse service for nearly any reason, and in most cases this is a good policy. However, there are exceptions to that rule. One extreme are utilities which as both monopolies and essential services are required to do business with nearly any paying customer, and have strict rules processes about shutting of service for lack of payment. Residential rentals are another example. They don't hold a monopoly, but are an essential service, and as such they can generally choose who to do business with (although not quite as freely as your average business), but have strict legal processes they have to follow regarding evictions. I think there are online business who are essential enough that some consumer protections are applicable. Very few reach the level of monopoly that utilities have in my mind, and even those it isn't clear to me that they are "natural" monopoly like utilities, and as such other antitrust approaches may be more beneficial. However, I think there are a number of competitive, yet essential services online that deserve a legal protections regarding service termination. Identity providers absolutely fall in that category IMO - it is unacceptable for example for Facebook to lock your account in a manner that prevents you from not only using their services but every other third-party service which you authenticate using "Logon with Facebook". I think email is another that rises to this level. At a minimum email providers should be required to forward mail for a fixed period of time after choosing to stop doing business with a customer.
- saurik 6y ago
  I think there also needs to be a law that, once you have accepted responsibility for storing someone else's data, that you can't delete it "on a whim" without offering some minimum retention period ok your data. As an example: a storage facility is allowed to stop doing business with me, but they legally can't just destroy all my stuff on a moment's notice... we have laws for minimum retention periods.
  - zerd 6y ago
    Also if you violate the storage facilities rules and they cancel the lease, they can't turn off the electricity at your house just because they happen to have the same parent company.
jsmith45 6y ago
The EU recently proposed The Digital Services Act, which is a DCMA like legislation (with both copyright infringement and other illegal content like CP as targets). Part of that draft law pretty clearly states that companies must have a proper appeal process for banned accounts. This would apply to "decisions taken by the online platform on the ground that the information provided by the recipients is illegal content or incompatible with its terms and conditions", which in practice covers basically all bans except for Age restriction or non-payment based bans. They must provide details of what part of the Terms of Service they claim you violated: "where the decision is based on the alleged incompatibility of the information with the terms and conditions of the provider, a reference to the contractual ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be incompatible with that ground". If the internal appeals process fails, the consumer can take the company to online binding arbitration (with the consumer's choice of accredited arbitrators certified by the member state). The company always pays its own costs in the process, and must reimburse the user's costs if the company loses.
- smartties 6y ago
  > which in practice covers basically all bans except for Age restriction or non-payment based bans. Google avoid this EU restriction by suspending accounts/app indefinitely instead of banning them. You can see a Google employee explaining this here : https://github.com/moneytoo/Player/issues/37#issuecomment-767276277 https://github.com/moneytoo/Player/issues/37#issuecomment-76...
  - izacus 6y ago
    Claiming that "an indefinite suspension" is just a type of temporary suspension and different from a ban will have you laughed out of any actual court.
arendtio 6y ago
> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. It isn't the only solution to this problem. Not using their products is another one. However, in some sectors (e.g. smartphones) it is next to impossible to not use their products, especially because they are build on centralized schemes. But regulating those things is probably harder than a consumer rights bill. But the downside is probably, that a consumer rights bill would not just affect the few large corporations, but many smaller ones too.

by _qulr 6y ago

Hamuko 6y ago

>You could of course sue Google Unless you've waived that right when you agreed to the Terms of Service.

Semaphor 6y ago
> Unless you've waived that right when you agreed to the Terms of Service. Which would be meaningless in the EU (I think. Possibly just Germany) as you can’t waive that right.
- greatpatton 6y ago
  It's the same in France and I think most of EU as the highest french court ruled that forced arbitration was against EU law.
  - vaduz 6y ago
    > It's the same in France and I think most of EU as the highest french court ruled that forced arbitration was against EU law. For consumers or businesses? Not being nitpicky here: I am not familiar with the French ruling, so I would genuinely want to know - as regulations tend to differ (businesses, even single sole trader ones, do not enjoy consumer protections). Not really relevant for the Terraria dev as it is his personal account that is banned, from the sound of it - but important.
    - greatpatton 6y ago
      As a consumer, every time the clause is not specifically negotiated, it is considered "abusive" and void (for businesses it may be different). If as a consumer you negotiate a contract with an arbitration clause it will be enforceable however if it is a generic clause in the terms& condition it will not.
    - ohgodplsno 6y ago
      Forced arbitration is against French law. Google cannot force you to go to a specific company for arbitration (that, conveniently enough, happens to always rule in their favor). It has to be explicitly negotiated between the two parties. This also holds true for companies. It has to be explicitly negotatied.
    - Semaphor 6y ago
      I think in Germany it would be legal for businesses. B2B contracts allow most things that are illegal in a B2C context.
    - himinlomax 6y ago
      > For consumers or businesses? For consumers. Businesses are considered to have both more (legal) resources to conduct deals as well as a need for more flexibility. However in this case this sounds like the account was personal, so even if it was used for business purposes, the deal was personal. In Europe (France here) typically the distinction is not in the use but in the contracting party. A business is registered with tax authorities and has an identifying number, if you contract a service without such a number you're doing so personally so for such purposes you're a consumer and bound by consumer laws. Indeed, all registration forms for services ask you for that number and business address. Services that don't want to / can't be subject to consumer protection laws or are not allowed to sell to private individuals require that number and verify it. Services that allow both individuals and businesses ask for it and may treat you differently based on it.
KMag 6y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that U.S. courts have found that suing is a right that can't be waived by contract. Certainly an agreement to enter arbitration can be introduced as evidence against you in a a lawsuit, but any decent lawyer should be able to prevent an arbitration agreement from getting your lawsuit thrown out.
- thgaway17 6y ago
  You are 99.5% wrong. See Federal Arbitration Act and ATT v Concepcion.
  - KMag 6y ago
    Thanks. I stand corrected.
- CPLX 6y ago
  That's not an accurate description of current consumer arbitration precedent in the US.

anthony_r 6y ago

You're not seeing the other side of the coin - the huge amount of spam and abuse that such systems correctly identify and remove. If every abuser requests those explanations (which they will) there will be far more spam going around the Internet. Just think about the army of "Facebook content moderators" who were a popular topic on HN recently due to the concerns over their mental health. (I am offering no solutions here, for I know none)

fredgrott 6y ago
no if the AI can be used to automate the banning it can be used to provide the electronic news email of the rule violated.
- gambiting 6y ago
  Well their main argument against it is that if you don't tell scammers which rule exactly they are breaking they can't improve until the app is approved. But of course that hits normal customers too. It's the equivalent of arresting random people on the street and not telling them why - surely, innocent people will just get their lawyer to free them.
  - bildung 6y ago
    aka due process
_qulr 6y ago
> If every abuser requests those explanations (which they will) It's not a request, it's a requirement. If your account is suspended, you deserve an explanation. You should get one without having to request it. I'm not saying that companies shouldn't be able to suspend accounts temporarily. I'm simply saying that there needs to be a way to get your account unsuspended if you're innocent. The way it "works" now is that innocent consumers are without any recourse whatsoever.
- daemin 6y ago

nvahalik 6y ago

> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies I get where you're going, but I think far more costly to them and advantageous for us is to simply show them that they are unnecessary. If we can drop them so easily, they can't pull stuff like this anymore. It is possible to drop Google and Facebook. They do this stuff because people _need_ them and they know that people won't just drop them en mass.

vonwoodson 6y ago
> drop them en mass The libertarian in me wants to believe that reputation is enough to make business act in the interests of the consumers and that personal responsibility would prevent customers from acting in their best interests: but we all know this is not true. And, I know enough to know that any public policy that essentially says “Everything will be fine if everyone just does [X]” is bad policy, regardless of what ‘X’ is.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  > The libertarian in me wants to believe that reputation is enough to make business act in the interests of the consumers and that personal responsibility would prevent customers from acting in their best interests: but we all know this is not true. And that's also why monopolies and giant corporations can and will always form in the current economic system. Crony capitalism is not a bug, it's a feature.
ryanbrunner 6y ago
What's stopping the next Google from doing the same? Providing poor justification for bans and removal from platforms is by no means limited to the big companies - it's endemic throughout tech - we just hear about Google and Facebook more because they're higher visibility and are considered more essential.
- zitterbewegung 6y ago
  Dropping Google / Facebook is not just signing up with another service. You could self host your own email and just quit Facebook entirely.

comeonseriously 6y ago

>It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights"... Maybe? But I worry that politicians will use that as a tool. Look what DeSantis is trying down here in Florida. He wants to fine "Big Tech" for banning politicians during an election. Personally, I'm tired of the lies and provocations and hate speech of some politicians and I don't think any company should be compelled to share those messages.

Yizahi 6y ago
So those evil politicians will do what? Force corporations to indiscriminately ban arbitrary people without possibility of appeal? Oh, wait a minute...

VLM 6y ago

The Kafka solution to this will be our terms of service prohibit single spacing after periods and you are in violation. Therefore we can terminate your account at any time of our choosing. Alternately we could prohibit posting in any language other than Latin and Klingon, or using the letter e, or accessing our services using any unapproved operating system (and our only approved OS is windows 3.11 with winsock drivers). Anyway the point is now the company can ban you for any reason at all. Being the wrong religion, voting for the wrong candidate, being the wrong race, etc.

ConceptJunkie 6y ago
Not just "can", but "will". And given how effectively these companies are using their size and power (and m-word) to crush the competition, it's long past time for some anti-trust action.

MisterTea 6y ago

> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. Google is a private company who offers free internet services in exchange for your privacy being violated. They have no customer service because you are not a customer as customers pay. You have no rights on their platform because again, you are not a paying customer. And you agreed to their terms of service when you signed up. They don't owe you anything at that pont. So stop expecting "paying customer" treatment from a shady adware dealer who gives you "free" "integrated platform" stuff to get you hooked. That's an old drug dealer tactic anyway. Want to be treated like a person? You have to pay for that. Otherwise stop whining about the tyranny of "free" platforms such as google, twitter, facebook, etc. The only thing the government should do is fund PSA's to warn people of the rights and privacy hazards of free internet platforms.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
> The only thing the government should do is fund PSA's ... Should governments allow caller ID spoofing, spam bordering on harassment, or lazy oligopolies to be negligent? Governments should do whatever we agree they should. Both governments and companies serve the humans.
Sayrus 6y ago
To be fair, even as a paying customer, you don't get much more "customer service". The same also applies for Google Play Store where without a doubt you paid at least once and continue for every in-app purchase.
_qulr 6y ago
> Want to be treated like a person? You have to pay for that. Andrew Spinks, the author of the linked tweet, was a business partner of Google's. That didn't save him.
- MisterTea 6y ago
  Partner is not a customer. They don't care about any human on their platform because their platform is not designed to care about humans, only exploit them.

michaelbuckbee 6y ago

This is in part what the GDPR mandates - that companies provide reasoning for how an automatic process works and also that there is a means to dispute that (Section 4 / Article 22) https://www.varonis.com/blog/gdpr-requirements-list-in-plain-english/ https://www.varonis.com/blog/gdpr-requirements-list-in-plain...

conradfr 6y ago
But then ... https://twitter.com/Cleroth/status/1348036873885806596 https://twitter.com/Cleroth/status/1348036873885806596

prepend 6y ago

You know it’s funny that lots of the basic functions of business with consumers (eg, ability to return items) were set and codified in the US as the Uniform Commercial Code [0] that was established in 1952. Before then it was wild and variable. What’s really interesting is that it seems like of hacker-like in how it was implemented. It was published as a guide and then states passed laws to implement. Reminds me of a de facto standard that is then implemented by vendors. I suppose we could start up some form of Uniform Consumer Commercial Code (UC3) that set up practices that are good that could then be passed by states. I shudder to think through all the arguments about how it would specify some “don’t be evil on social cause X” that it almost smarts my conspiracy brain that the “corporations” started this trend to bikeshed/scissor statement society so they can’t make meaningful economic and commercial policy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code

AnHonestComment 6y ago
The original reason for free speech was to allow people of different creeds to work together against government. The Bill of Rights is establishing as a baseline the policies that were found to reduce tribal conflicts in the European empires — having a strong central identity as a state (eg “American Destiny”), but allowing individual tribes under the state a great deal of freedom in religious practices. As a secondary purpose, it tamped down the worst state abuses. The anti-religious messaging, the anti-conservative messaging, etc undermine this and are bringing back sectarian strife inside the state.
Spooky23 6y ago
The problem with this sort of thing is that because it's interstate commerce, states usually do not have standing to regulate effectively. The Federal government struggles to implement new regulatory authority because of political challenges. Various groups of stakeholders will declare any such regulation an infringement on free speech (ie. "The constitution gives me the right to sell fake penis pills to fund my radical political agenda!"), biased against marginalized minority or cultural groups ("My marginalized constituency of blind, alcoholic yak herders have a religious prohibition against reading contracts"), or a unfair mandate restraint of trade ("The Chamber of Meme Commerce believes that this rule will cost 10,000,000 jobs in the meme industry and kill puppies."), etc.

hertzrat 6y ago

I think we’re in a post consumer lawsuit era. Almost every terms of service on earth requires arbitration, or else absolves the vendor of any liability whatsoever

gowld 6y ago
Arbitration isn't so bad. It still costs the company every time they have to deal with a case. Mass/automated arbitration claims can turn the tables, and lawsuits can be filled to challenge the neutrality of arbitrators.

arrosenberg 6y ago

> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. Nope. That gives players like Google a platform to negotiate from now and in the future, and it won't curb abuses long term. These abuses are a symptom of economic concentration and a lack of competitive markets. The only resolution guaranteed to work is to break up these companies down to smaller parts until they no longer act like quasi-governments.

_qulr 6y ago
> The only resolution guaranteed to work is to break up these companies down to smaller parts until they no longer act like quasi-governments. Why not both? A consumer bill of rights and breaking up Google are not mutually exclusive. Consumer protection laws protect consumers from all companies big and small, present and future. Breaking up Google won't do anything about the "next Google". It's a bit strange to think that antitrust is a long-term solution when the successful antitrust case against Microsoft didn't prevent Google, Facebook, and Apple from arising.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  It's a bit strange to think a nebulous "consumer bill of rights" is going to protect you when the actual Bill of Rights is routinely violated. We have utility designations for instances where it makes sense, and even then you see customer abuses. Forcing companies to focus on competition and survival is the best way to make sure they treat their customers well. Abuses pop up when customers don't have the choice to take their business elsewhere. > Breaking up Google won't do anything about the "next Google". The same regulator that has the power to break them up also has the power to prevent the next Google. Good pricing regulations have the power to prevent the next Google. These are solved problems, we just don't enforce the laws on the books or modernize them appropriately. > It's a bit strange to think that antitrust is a long-term solution when the successful antitrust case against Microsoft didn't prevent Google, Facebook, and Apple from arising. That's probably because it wasn't successful in the classical sense. Geroge Bush won the 2000 election and settled the case before it went to judgment. If it had, and Microsoft had been forced to break up, we may not be in the current situation.

maclured 6y ago

Its not fair when you have to get attention on twitter before getting issues like this resolved. Some of us don't use twitter for one thing

pavon 6y ago

Agreed. We generally allow companies to refuse service for nearly any reason, and in most cases this is a good policy. However, there are exceptions to that rule. One extreme are utilities which as both monopolies and essential services are required to do business with nearly any paying customer, and have strict rules processes about shutting of service for lack of payment. Residential rentals are another example. They don't hold a monopoly, but are an essential service, and as such they can generally choose who to do business with (although not quite as freely as your average business), but have strict legal processes they have to follow regarding evictions. I think there are online business who are essential enough that some consumer protections are applicable. Very few reach the level of monopoly that utilities have in my mind, and even those it isn't clear to me that they are "natural" monopoly like utilities, and as such other antitrust approaches may be more beneficial. However, I think there are a number of competitive, yet essential services online that deserve a legal protections regarding service termination. Identity providers absolutely fall in that category IMO - it is unacceptable for example for Facebook to lock your account in a manner that prevents you from not only using their services but every other third-party service which you authenticate using "Logon with Facebook". I think email is another that rises to this level. At a minimum email providers should be required to forward mail for a fixed period of time after choosing to stop doing business with a customer.

saurik 6y ago
I think there also needs to be a law that, once you have accepted responsibility for storing someone else's data, that you can't delete it "on a whim" without offering some minimum retention period ok your data. As an example: a storage facility is allowed to stop doing business with me, but they legally can't just destroy all my stuff on a moment's notice... we have laws for minimum retention periods.
- zerd 6y ago
  Also if you violate the storage facilities rules and they cancel the lease, they can't turn off the electricity at your house just because they happen to have the same parent company.

jsmith45 6y ago

The EU recently proposed The Digital Services Act, which is a DCMA like legislation (with both copyright infringement and other illegal content like CP as targets). Part of that draft law pretty clearly states that companies must have a proper appeal process for banned accounts. This would apply to "decisions taken by the online platform on the ground that the information provided by the recipients is illegal content or incompatible with its terms and conditions", which in practice covers basically all bans except for Age restriction or non-payment based bans. They must provide details of what part of the Terms of Service they claim you violated: "where the decision is based on the alleged incompatibility of the information with the terms and conditions of the provider, a reference to the contractual ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be incompatible with that ground". If the internal appeals process fails, the consumer can take the company to online binding arbitration (with the consumer's choice of accredited arbitrators certified by the member state). The company always pays its own costs in the process, and must reimburse the user's costs if the company loses.

smartties 6y ago
> which in practice covers basically all bans except for Age restriction or non-payment based bans. Google avoid this EU restriction by suspending accounts/app indefinitely instead of banning them. You can see a Google employee explaining this here : https://github.com/moneytoo/Player/issues/37#issuecomment-767276277 https://github.com/moneytoo/Player/issues/37#issuecomment-76...
- izacus 6y ago
  Claiming that "an indefinite suspension" is just a type of temporary suspension and different from a ban will have you laughed out of any actual court.

arendtio 6y ago

> It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. It isn't the only solution to this problem. Not using their products is another one. However, in some sectors (e.g. smartphones) it is next to impossible to not use their products, especially because they are build on centralized schemes. But regulating those things is probably harder than a consumer rights bill. But the downside is probably, that a consumer rights bill would not just affect the few large corporations, but many smaller ones too.