3 ms·

Why are any of these things good for the consumer? All of these sound like DBs that should be limited if possible.

by seany 6y ago

ceejayoz 6y ago
Successful insurance fraud presumably increases costs to consumers via higher premiums, right?
- GenerocUsername 6y ago
  similarly, there are serial returners who purchase with the intent of returning later. All these business costs are passed onto other consumers... and while maybe not illegal, businesses essentially have Terms Of Service just like any other private entity.
bawolff 6y ago
Rideshare banning bad customers means more people will work for them due to less fear of being murdered by crazies. End result, i can get an uber when i want one. Seems like a win for me.
- bmicraft 6y ago
  It also means if you were banned in error you are banned everywhere and there is exactly nothing you can do about it. This is bad.
- goldenManatee 6y ago
  I do agree on services sharing banned users data, for safety or compliance reasons. But this should be limited to a set period of time, because the person you were 10 years ago grew up from who you are now and will be in 10, 20, 30 years from now. We all grow and hopefully learn from mistakes. An implication of this “banned users” data sharing is that this data exchange must be overseen by regulators, to enforce equal access to competitors to this data and also that companies drop people from the “banned users” database after some time, not penalized for life except in rare cases. I would argue that most users’ petty behaviors that lead to banning do not deserve to make them pay for it the rest of their lives - and that there are rare exceptions who do deserve to be banned for life because certain users’ behavior is so egregious. Also, consider cases for jurisdictional banning and global banning. Some behaviors are not allowed in certain countries. Take a gay couple kissing in a car in Saudi Arabia - should this couple be banned? If so, just if attempting to use services in Saudi Arabia, or globally? These are serious and important considerations.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    I'm not arguing that its a perfect utopia or even good per se, just that there exists a benefit to the average consumer, in response to the GP's question.
  - chii 6y ago
    > We all grow and hopefully learn from mistakes. ...An implication of this “banned users” data sharing is that this data exchange must be overseen by regulators the gov't can require that each company has an appeals process, which can be brought to a court if the banned user decides that it's worth escalating. In fact, i think a general, low cost court process for digital service providers would make for a great consumer protection, but still allow digital services to be flexible in how they want to provide. For example, google can still ban people, but the user can appeal, and if the user is unsatisfied with the appeal, they can go to court (without costing exorbitant amounts of money).

Why are any of these things good for the consumer? All of these sound like DBs that should be limited if possible.

by seany 6y ago

Why are any of these things good for the consumer? All of these sound like DBs that should be limited if possible.

ceejayoz 6y ago

Successful insurance fraud presumably increases costs to consumers via higher premiums, right?

GenerocUsername 6y ago
similarly, there are serial returners who purchase with the intent of returning later. All these business costs are passed onto other consumers... and while maybe not illegal, businesses essentially have Terms Of Service just like any other private entity.

bawolff 6y ago

Rideshare banning bad customers means more people will work for them due to less fear of being murdered by crazies. End result, i can get an uber when i want one. Seems like a win for me.

bmicraft 6y ago
It also means if you were banned in error you are banned everywhere and there is exactly nothing you can do about it. This is bad.
goldenManatee 6y ago
I do agree on services sharing banned users data, for safety or compliance reasons. But this should be limited to a set period of time, because the person you were 10 years ago grew up from who you are now and will be in 10, 20, 30 years from now. We all grow and hopefully learn from mistakes. An implication of this “banned users” data sharing is that this data exchange must be overseen by regulators, to enforce equal access to competitors to this data and also that companies drop people from the “banned users” database after some time, not penalized for life except in rare cases. I would argue that most users’ petty behaviors that lead to banning do not deserve to make them pay for it the rest of their lives - and that there are rare exceptions who do deserve to be banned for life because certain users’ behavior is so egregious. Also, consider cases for jurisdictional banning and global banning. Some behaviors are not allowed in certain countries. Take a gay couple kissing in a car in Saudi Arabia - should this couple be banned? If so, just if attempting to use services in Saudi Arabia, or globally? These are serious and important considerations.
- bawolff 6y ago
  I'm not arguing that its a perfect utopia or even good per se, just that there exists a benefit to the average consumer, in response to the GP's question.
- chii 6y ago
  > We all grow and hopefully learn from mistakes. ...An implication of this “banned users” data sharing is that this data exchange must be overseen by regulators the gov't can require that each company has an appeals process, which can be brought to a court if the banned user decides that it's worth escalating. In fact, i think a general, low cost court process for digital service providers would make for a great consumer protection, but still allow digital services to be flexible in how they want to provide. For example, google can still ban people, but the user can appeal, and if the user is unsatisfied with the appeal, they can go to court (without costing exorbitant amounts of money).