8 ms·

The discourse on this is interesting to me. I first heard it in reference to truly small fines, like less than a million dollars for a big company. Then over ti

The discourse on this is interesting to me. I first heard it in reference to truly small fines, like less than a million dollars for a big company. Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. Now we are talking about a month’s worth of profits (Zoom’s profit last quarter was $227M), which is really quite a lot. It’s a similar magnitude event to a global company losing all its UK customers. Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down.

justapassenger 5y ago
It’s one off write off during earnings call. It’s really not a big deal at all, it can even cause stock price to pop, as it shows that company is big enough, that lying is cheap and gives you amazing ROI. E2EE was a big feature that helped to fuel the growth. One month of profits, once you’ve experienced extreme growth and tons of money infusion, is a great deal.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quadrifoliate 5y ago
> Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. I mean, I think it's worthwhile to compare and see how you'd think about this, right? $3k fine seems high in the abstract to me. Then again, if it's viewed as a kind of tax for going from $25k/year in annual income to $100k/year – eh, doesn't sound like much. What do you think? > Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down. I am actually curious to see if that's the case – are there any reports of such shutdowns/layoffs?
eurasiantiger 5y ago
It does not matter for a company that is funded by the CCP.
lukeschlather 5y ago
Zoom's quarterly revenue is nearly a billion dollars. And given that this is a one-time payment, it seems hyperbolic to compare it to losing customers. Really, this fine was a cost of acquiring customers that they were able to defer for years.
oblio 5y ago
Yeah, but I don't think you're seeing the big picture. Entire companies are created and grown based on these dark patterns, which, because the law moves slowly, are not yet fully illegal in a open and shut kind of way. The punishment doesn't deter enough, because Zoom has been making a ton more money off this and will continue to do so. It's a bit like Ford's: "Don't ask me how I made my first million", that first million being the hardest part (once you have 999 million, getting to 1 billion is trivial).
- jeffparsons 5y ago
  And it sets a damaging precedent that deters honest participants. Companies like Uber that "growth hack" by ignoring the law wherever they expand (and react to the consequences with an army of lawyers and lobbyists) mean that anyone not willing to do the same can't compete. If breaking the law is a net benefit for companies, then the only companies you'll be left with in a competitive space are the ones that break the law. So the fines have to be _huge_ to make any meaningful difference. OTOH the laws that Uber ignores (and then later forces to change) are often a cause of stagnation, and no company would work to get them changed _before_ setting up shop, because even if they succeed then they've just paid the price of admission for all their competitors, too. So I guess I don't have a real solution to offer.

justapassenger 5y ago

It’s one off write off during earnings call. It’s really not a big deal at all, it can even cause stock price to pop, as it shows that company is big enough, that lying is cheap and gives you amazing ROI. E2EE was a big feature that helped to fuel the growth. One month of profits, once you’ve experienced extreme growth and tons of money infusion, is a great deal.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

quadrifoliate 5y ago

> Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. I mean, I think it's worthwhile to compare and see how you'd think about this, right? $3k fine seems high in the abstract to me. Then again, if it's viewed as a kind of tax for going from $25k/year in annual income to $100k/year – eh, doesn't sound like much. What do you think? > Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down. I am actually curious to see if that's the case – are there any reports of such shutdowns/layoffs?

eurasiantiger 5y ago

It does not matter for a company that is funded by the CCP.

lukeschlather 5y ago

Zoom's quarterly revenue is nearly a billion dollars. And given that this is a one-time payment, it seems hyperbolic to compare it to losing customers. Really, this fine was a cost of acquiring customers that they were able to defer for years.

oblio 5y ago

Yeah, but I don't think you're seeing the big picture. Entire companies are created and grown based on these dark patterns, which, because the law moves slowly, are not yet fully illegal in a open and shut kind of way. The punishment doesn't deter enough, because Zoom has been making a ton more money off this and will continue to do so. It's a bit like Ford's: "Don't ask me how I made my first million", that first million being the hardest part (once you have 999 million, getting to 1 billion is trivial).

jeffparsons 5y ago
And it sets a damaging precedent that deters honest participants. Companies like Uber that "growth hack" by ignoring the law wherever they expand (and react to the consequences with an army of lawyers and lobbyists) mean that anyone not willing to do the same can't compete. If breaking the law is a net benefit for companies, then the only companies you'll be left with in a competitive space are the ones that break the law. So the fines have to be _huge_ to make any meaningful difference. OTOH the laws that Uber ignores (and then later forces to change) are often a cause of stagnation, and no company would work to get them changed _before_ setting up shop, because even if they succeed then they've just paid the price of admission for all their competitors, too. So I guess I don't have a real solution to offer.