6 ms·

At this point they, and other giants, successfully demonstrated that they cannot regulate themselves over these random terminations and that the public needs to

At this point they, and other giants, successfully demonstrated that they cannot regulate themselves over these random terminations and that the public needs to step in.

whatshisface 6y ago
Rather than further secure their market positions by forcing them to treat their customers well, why not replace the entire company by competition from less insane providers?
- gambiting 6y ago
  No. Absolutely hard disagree. To give you an example of this working well: In some countries(UK) regulators recognized that you cannot operate in the society without a bank account. So a rule was made that a bank cannot close down your bank account without a court order. They can block your access to nearly all other services, block all of your cards, but at the end of the day, you cannot lose access to your basic bank account and money in that account unless a judge says otherwise. The solution to the problem of "every citizen needs a bank account to function" wasn't "let the free market sort it out". It was to force banks to maintain access to a basic checking account no matter what until a court order is given. In my opinion, Google should be forced to do exactly the same - no matter what, you should never lose access to your google account without a court order. It might be placed under severe restrictions(no new uploads, restriction to storage etc) pending review, but until a lawful court agrees that you broke the rules somehow and google is free to kill your account? They should be forced by law to keep providing their service.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    And how helpful is that when they can stop card access? That seems like a perfect example of a regulation that ended up being almost entirely useless.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      They actually supply a type of card that is limited in what it can do, and you can always go in and use the counter service.
    - ambivalence 6y ago
      What's up with the loaded rhetoric? You can still do most things without card access: - keep standing orders flowing; - transfer your money out through the mobile app or website; - withdraw money from an ATM using an authenticator (nation-wide example in Poland: https://www.blik.com/); https://www.blik.com/); - if push comes to shove, go to a branch and withdraw your money in person.
      - yellowapple 6y ago
        > What's up with the loaded rhetoric? How is that rhetoric loaded? What rhetoric? > if push comes to shove, go to a branch and withdraw your money in person. When I was starting out in my IT career, the nearest branch of my credit union was more than an hour away by car, and for much of that time I didn't even have a car. If my credit union had restricted my account to "thou must visiteth a branch and speaketh with a representative", I would've been screwed - on a level of "freezing and starving". > transfer your money out through the mobile app or website; Assuming this wouldn't be one of the first things shut off alongside the card.
        gambiting 6y ago
        >>When I was starting out in my IT career, the nearest branch of my credit union was more than an hour away by car But then.....why did you open an account with a bank without a branch nearby? Not being funny, but that's your own failing, not of the bank.
        yellowapple 6y ago
        When I first signed up for that credit union (right after I graduated high school) it was a 5 minute walk from where I lived. Then I moved, because I couldn't find work in my hometown. I could've switched banks, but the only option in my new town was Bank of America, and after they screwed my folks over I'd sooner store my money in a mattress like my great grandma did in the Depression than trust my money with them.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > you cannot lose access to your basic bank account and money in that account unless a judge says otherwise. "Losing access to the money in that account" is blatantly stealing from you. It's should be obvious that no company should be able to do this under any circumstances, but that is a separate issue from the question of adequate competition. You still need competition because a monopoly can find an unlimited number of ways to abuse their customers and regulators can only address the ones they foresee ahead of time. > The solution to the problem of "every citizen needs a bank account to function" wasn't "let the free market sort it out". Which allows banks to remain an uncompetitive yet inherently necessary market. But how is that better than having enough competition between banks that anyone can find one willing to provide service?
    - ttt0 6y ago
      > Which allows banks to remain an uncompetitive yet inherently necessary market. But how is that better than having enough competition between banks that anyone can find one willing to provide service? Just because the market is regulated doesn't mean there is no competition. It's better because the banks can't gang up on you like tech companies do. At least in the EU.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        But regulation is being proposed as an alternative to competition. It can't do that. You need competition whether or not you have regulation. Look at what a dumpster fire every regulated private monopoly is. "Success" is a stagnant inefficient bureaucracy that ossifies everything it touches. Failure is the F-35 wasting a number of public dollars with twelve zeroes after it.
        ttt0 6y ago
        As a solution to this particular problem, not banking overall. And we're not talking about central banks, but normal banks. The competition is still there. Tell me, why shops are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? Why not just have competition deal with that?

At this point they, and other giants, successfully demonstrated that they cannot regulate themselves over these random terminations and that the public needs to step in.

whatshisface 6y ago

Rather than further secure their market positions by forcing them to treat their customers well, why not replace the entire company by competition from less insane providers?

gambiting 6y ago
No. Absolutely hard disagree. To give you an example of this working well: In some countries(UK) regulators recognized that you cannot operate in the society without a bank account. So a rule was made that a bank cannot close down your bank account without a court order. They can block your access to nearly all other services, block all of your cards, but at the end of the day, you cannot lose access to your basic bank account and money in that account unless a judge says otherwise. The solution to the problem of "every citizen needs a bank account to function" wasn't "let the free market sort it out". It was to force banks to maintain access to a basic checking account no matter what until a court order is given. In my opinion, Google should be forced to do exactly the same - no matter what, you should never lose access to your google account without a court order. It might be placed under severe restrictions(no new uploads, restriction to storage etc) pending review, but until a lawful court agrees that you broke the rules somehow and google is free to kill your account? They should be forced by law to keep providing their service.
- kortilla 6y ago
  And how helpful is that when they can stop card access? That seems like a perfect example of a regulation that ended up being almost entirely useless.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    They actually supply a type of card that is limited in what it can do, and you can always go in and use the counter service.
  - ambivalence 6y ago
    What's up with the loaded rhetoric? You can still do most things without card access: - keep standing orders flowing; - transfer your money out through the mobile app or website; - withdraw money from an ATM using an authenticator (nation-wide example in Poland: https://www.blik.com/); https://www.blik.com/); - if push comes to shove, go to a branch and withdraw your money in person.
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      > What's up with the loaded rhetoric? How is that rhetoric loaded? What rhetoric? > if push comes to shove, go to a branch and withdraw your money in person. When I was starting out in my IT career, the nearest branch of my credit union was more than an hour away by car, and for much of that time I didn't even have a car. If my credit union had restricted my account to "thou must visiteth a branch and speaketh with a representative", I would've been screwed - on a level of "freezing and starving". > transfer your money out through the mobile app or website; Assuming this wouldn't be one of the first things shut off alongside the card.
      - gambiting 6y ago
        >>When I was starting out in my IT career, the nearest branch of my credit union was more than an hour away by car But then.....why did you open an account with a bank without a branch nearby? Not being funny, but that's your own failing, not of the bank.
        yellowapple 6y ago
        When I first signed up for that credit union (right after I graduated high school) it was a 5 minute walk from where I lived. Then I moved, because I couldn't find work in my hometown. I could've switched banks, but the only option in my new town was Bank of America, and after they screwed my folks over I'd sooner store my money in a mattress like my great grandma did in the Depression than trust my money with them.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > you cannot lose access to your basic bank account and money in that account unless a judge says otherwise. "Losing access to the money in that account" is blatantly stealing from you. It's should be obvious that no company should be able to do this under any circumstances, but that is a separate issue from the question of adequate competition. You still need competition because a monopoly can find an unlimited number of ways to abuse their customers and regulators can only address the ones they foresee ahead of time. > The solution to the problem of "every citizen needs a bank account to function" wasn't "let the free market sort it out". Which allows banks to remain an uncompetitive yet inherently necessary market. But how is that better than having enough competition between banks that anyone can find one willing to provide service?
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > Which allows banks to remain an uncompetitive yet inherently necessary market. But how is that better than having enough competition between banks that anyone can find one willing to provide service? Just because the market is regulated doesn't mean there is no competition. It's better because the banks can't gang up on you like tech companies do. At least in the EU.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      But regulation is being proposed as an alternative to competition. It can't do that. You need competition whether or not you have regulation. Look at what a dumpster fire every regulated private monopoly is. "Success" is a stagnant inefficient bureaucracy that ossifies everything it touches. Failure is the F-35 wasting a number of public dollars with twelve zeroes after it.
      - ttt0 6y ago
        As a solution to this particular problem, not banking overall. And we're not talking about central banks, but normal banks. The competition is still there. Tell me, why shops are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? Why not just have competition deal with that?