6 ms·

I think the point here is that it’s a bad business model. I don’t mean “bad as in won’t make you money or keep the business running,” I mean “bad for society.”

I think the point here is that it’s a bad business model. I don’t mean “bad as in won’t make you money or keep the business running,” I mean “bad for society.” Hence the desire to regulate.

pdonis 5y ago
The way to get rid of bad business models is not for the government to regulate them. It's for customers to refuse to do business with them.
- rpdillon 5y ago
  Agreed! I like the idea of disclosure-based regulation: the onus is on the business to disclose relevant information (like no human support provided), and customers can choose accordingly.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  The problem is, not every business you need to contact is something you are doing business with. For example, a business that has unwittingly published your contact information. Or, alternatively, Equifax, a data broker that makes plenty of money and controls your destiny to some extent yet which you do not pay directly. Besides, there is no way to know in advance that you will have a problem that requires a phone call.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > not every business you need to contact is something you are doing business with While this is true, it's not an argument for a blanket regulation that requires all businesses to provide human phone support. The cases you describe (a business unwittingly publishes contact information that you have kept private, or a credit reporting agency that has incorrect information about you) are specific types of situations with legal implications, not just a general "I want something from this business that it's not giving me". > there is no way to know in advance that you will have a problem that requires a phone call There is no way to know in advance lots of things. That's why we all need to be prepared to accept tradeoffs. For example, that if you want a product or service that a particular business provides, and they don't offer human phone support, you have to decide whether you're willing to use the product or service with that limitation.
    - ironmagma 5y ago
      Yes, and it's quite obvious that businesses are rife with negative consequences, especially in the way they create externalities. > we all need to be prepared to accept tradeoffs Do we "need" to be? This is why we have laws. We don't "need" to accept that murder will happen, for example. We can legislate that no, you can't just kill someone because you feel like it. Similarly no, you can't just not answer the phone because you just don't feel like it.
      - pdonis 5y ago
        > Do we "need" to be? In many cases, yes. Not everything in the society you live in is going to be arranged the way you want. That's just a fact of life. > you can't just kill someone because you feel like it. Similarly no, you can't just not answer the phone because you just don't feel like it. These cases are not at all equivalent. You don't have a right to have everyone answer your phone calls the way you have a right to your life.
        ironmagma 5y ago
        It was an existence proof. I'm not saying they're equivalent, I'm saying sometimes we don't need to accept tradeoffs. The fact we don't have this right is a problem, and that is the point here: we should. There are many other rights Americans enjoy, and the wealth that companies enjoy here is more than enough to balance out one requirement, especially in the light that the requirement would benefit most businesses anyway. To draw another analogy, think of anti-monopoly laws. To the standard businessman, they "suck." But on the macro level, for most citizens, and even for most businesses, they are good.
        pdonis 5y ago
        > I'm saying sometimes we don't need to accept tradeoffs. Sometimes, sure. But we're not discussing "sometimes" in the abstract. We're discussing a particular kind of situation. > The fact we don't have this right is a problem The fact that we don't have what right? The right to demand support from businesses that say up front that they don't provide it? No, I don't agree that we should have that right. As others have said, all that will do is make it much harder to start a business. > There are many other rights Americans enjoy Not everything that is claimed to be a "right" in today's American society actually is. The actual rights embodied in our Constitution and laws are not rights to demand that other people do things for you. They are rights to have other people, and the government, not do things to you that deprive you of your liberty, like jail you for speaking your mind or search your house without a warrant and probable cause or force you to testify against yourself. To compare those things to a business not providing you with the support you think you're entitled to, when you haven't paid for it and the business explicitly says it doesn't provide it, and say the same kind of "right" is involved in that case, is ridiculous. If you really think it's a problem that businesses offer products and services but don't provide the support you want, here's my suggestion to you: start your own business that does the things you complain that other businesses don't do. I think you will find it a very enlightening experience. > To draw another analogy, think of anti-monopoly laws...on the macro level, for most citizens, and even for most businesses, they are good. No, they're not, they're terrible. The main effect of their application has been to make products and services more expensive for consumers, not less. The "monopolies" that were driven out of business or forced to break up under such laws (e.g., Standard Oil or Alcoa Aluminum) got their huge market share by providing their products more cheaply and in greater quantities than any of their competitors. The anti-trust suits against them were not instigated by consumers who weren't being well served (there weren't any); they were instigated by the competitors, who found it much easier to get the government to invoke laws to their benefit (and to the detriment of their customers) than to actually compete.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
While true, this is how the system is set up for at the moment, because if one company doesn't cut costs, someone else (with a lot of investor money) will come in and undercut the market. Because when it comes down to it, people don't care about speaking to a human when they can get a product or service for less than the competition. Both corporations and consumers min/max their expenses, at the cost of service or humans. It's one reason why I'm in favor of nationalizing things or keeping things nationalized; take away the drive for min/maxing profits and change things into a public service, and (in theory anyway) things will improve for the better.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  Haven’t you tried calling the DMV before? It’s a nightmare. Governments are not significantly better at this than private industry. Private industry can be great at it, they just have no incentive to be currently.
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    Here in Maine, the DMV is super easy to deal with, and very reliable. In fact, my girlfriend's state job involves working with people over the phone to fix problems and help them get what they need, and she's great at it. A reminder about state governments; You get exactly what you vote for, and no more.
    - ironmagma 5y ago
      My current one is fine too. That doesn't mean the DMV in general, for most Americans, doesn't suck. There's some amount of randomness to it, especially the population/density of the area, so I would argue it's not exactly what you vote for, it's also random.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > It's one reason why I'm in favor of nationalizing things or keeping things nationalized I have a business in NJ where the state unemployment department has made an error. After hundreds of phone calls and multiple physical letters, we have received no response in over 16 months. The issue is still outstanding. Governments are no better than businesses in this matter. You can call them the minute the offices open for a month straight, and get the same “high call volume, call back next business day” message. The solution is to get a state politician’s ear who back channels their way into getting a government employee to take up the problem. But that is the same as getting a post to top of twitter/Reddit/hacker news and hoping a google employee decides to act.
_3u10 5y ago
Regulation doesn’t make unprofitable businesses exist. If the business model is unviable with support those businesses will simply not exist or cost an amount of money that is unappealing.
- oldsecondhand 5y ago
  It's your baseless assumption that people are unwilling to pay money for these services.
  - drivebycomment 5y ago
    It's not whether there are people who are willing to pay, but whether there are enough such people so that mandating this would not lead to substantially less number of services provided by companies such that society collectively will be worse off. I.e. a regulation like this proposal will raise the cost of business which ultimately consumers have to bear, and the question is how much cost it will increase overall and if the consequence of that increase is actually acceptable for the society. I don't know anybody knows the answer for sure - it's possible the cost increase is marginal and can be easily absorbed, but maybe not.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    It’s your baseless assumption that it’s a baseless assumption. QED. You might want to lookup what the word if means. As a prime example look up peoples common complaints about airlines and then ask them why they don’t just fly first or business class, in most cases a cheaper price is favorable to most of the people complaining about airlines. I have a feeling that whatever services this guy is complaining about that a company offers a product that is much higher priced that includes knowledgeable and helpful support that they have simply chosen not to buy.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  Nowhere has it been shown that adding support people would make these companies unprofitable.
  - 5y ago
asah 5y ago
Seems hard to regulate the model... but y I agree we can regulate the requirement to have a no-dark-pattern way to reach a human. Obviously, we need to avoid abuse especially automated abuse, and this in turn becomes difficult. So... perhaps it makes the most sense to roll this issue into regulation against dark patterns. Or... fund an organization exposing dark patterns and helping consumers choose companies that avoid them.

pdonis 5y ago

The way to get rid of bad business models is not for the government to regulate them. It's for customers to refuse to do business with them.

rpdillon 5y ago
Agreed! I like the idea of disclosure-based regulation: the onus is on the business to disclose relevant information (like no human support provided), and customers can choose accordingly.
ironmagma 5y ago
The problem is, not every business you need to contact is something you are doing business with. For example, a business that has unwittingly published your contact information. Or, alternatively, Equifax, a data broker that makes plenty of money and controls your destiny to some extent yet which you do not pay directly. Besides, there is no way to know in advance that you will have a problem that requires a phone call.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > not every business you need to contact is something you are doing business with While this is true, it's not an argument for a blanket regulation that requires all businesses to provide human phone support. The cases you describe (a business unwittingly publishes contact information that you have kept private, or a credit reporting agency that has incorrect information about you) are specific types of situations with legal implications, not just a general "I want something from this business that it's not giving me". > there is no way to know in advance that you will have a problem that requires a phone call There is no way to know in advance lots of things. That's why we all need to be prepared to accept tradeoffs. For example, that if you want a product or service that a particular business provides, and they don't offer human phone support, you have to decide whether you're willing to use the product or service with that limitation.
  - ironmagma 5y ago
    Yes, and it's quite obvious that businesses are rife with negative consequences, especially in the way they create externalities. > we all need to be prepared to accept tradeoffs Do we "need" to be? This is why we have laws. We don't "need" to accept that murder will happen, for example. We can legislate that no, you can't just kill someone because you feel like it. Similarly no, you can't just not answer the phone because you just don't feel like it.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > Do we "need" to be? In many cases, yes. Not everything in the society you live in is going to be arranged the way you want. That's just a fact of life. > you can't just kill someone because you feel like it. Similarly no, you can't just not answer the phone because you just don't feel like it. These cases are not at all equivalent. You don't have a right to have everyone answer your phone calls the way you have a right to your life.
      - ironmagma 5y ago
        It was an existence proof. I'm not saying they're equivalent, I'm saying sometimes we don't need to accept tradeoffs. The fact we don't have this right is a problem, and that is the point here: we should. There are many other rights Americans enjoy, and the wealth that companies enjoy here is more than enough to balance out one requirement, especially in the light that the requirement would benefit most businesses anyway. To draw another analogy, think of anti-monopoly laws. To the standard businessman, they "suck." But on the macro level, for most citizens, and even for most businesses, they are good.
        pdonis 5y ago
        > I'm saying sometimes we don't need to accept tradeoffs. Sometimes, sure. But we're not discussing "sometimes" in the abstract. We're discussing a particular kind of situation. > The fact we don't have this right is a problem The fact that we don't have what right? The right to demand support from businesses that say up front that they don't provide it? No, I don't agree that we should have that right. As others have said, all that will do is make it much harder to start a business. > There are many other rights Americans enjoy Not everything that is claimed to be a "right" in today's American society actually is. The actual rights embodied in our Constitution and laws are not rights to demand that other people do things for you. They are rights to have other people, and the government, not do things to you that deprive you of your liberty, like jail you for speaking your mind or search your house without a warrant and probable cause or force you to testify against yourself. To compare those things to a business not providing you with the support you think you're entitled to, when you haven't paid for it and the business explicitly says it doesn't provide it, and say the same kind of "right" is involved in that case, is ridiculous. If you really think it's a problem that businesses offer products and services but don't provide the support you want, here's my suggestion to you: start your own business that does the things you complain that other businesses don't do. I think you will find it a very enlightening experience. > To draw another analogy, think of anti-monopoly laws...on the macro level, for most citizens, and even for most businesses, they are good. No, they're not, they're terrible. The main effect of their application has been to make products and services more expensive for consumers, not less. The "monopolies" that were driven out of business or forced to break up under such laws (e.g., Standard Oil or Alcoa Aluminum) got their huge market share by providing their products more cheaply and in greater quantities than any of their competitors. The anti-trust suits against them were not instigated by consumers who weren't being well served (there weren't any); they were instigated by the competitors, who found it much easier to get the government to invoke laws to their benefit (and to the detriment of their customers) than to actually compete.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

While true, this is how the system is set up for at the moment, because if one company doesn't cut costs, someone else (with a lot of investor money) will come in and undercut the market. Because when it comes down to it, people don't care about speaking to a human when they can get a product or service for less than the competition. Both corporations and consumers min/max their expenses, at the cost of service or humans. It's one reason why I'm in favor of nationalizing things or keeping things nationalized; take away the drive for min/maxing profits and change things into a public service, and (in theory anyway) things will improve for the better.

ironmagma 5y ago
Haven’t you tried calling the DMV before? It’s a nightmare. Governments are not significantly better at this than private industry. Private industry can be great at it, they just have no incentive to be currently.
- mrguyorama 5y ago
  Here in Maine, the DMV is super easy to deal with, and very reliable. In fact, my girlfriend's state job involves working with people over the phone to fix problems and help them get what they need, and she's great at it. A reminder about state governments; You get exactly what you vote for, and no more.
  - ironmagma 5y ago
    My current one is fine too. That doesn't mean the DMV in general, for most Americans, doesn't suck. There's some amount of randomness to it, especially the population/density of the area, so I would argue it's not exactly what you vote for, it's also random.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> It's one reason why I'm in favor of nationalizing things or keeping things nationalized I have a business in NJ where the state unemployment department has made an error. After hundreds of phone calls and multiple physical letters, we have received no response in over 16 months. The issue is still outstanding. Governments are no better than businesses in this matter. You can call them the minute the offices open for a month straight, and get the same “high call volume, call back next business day” message. The solution is to get a state politician’s ear who back channels their way into getting a government employee to take up the problem. But that is the same as getting a post to top of twitter/Reddit/hacker news and hoping a google employee decides to act.

_3u10 5y ago

Regulation doesn’t make unprofitable businesses exist. If the business model is unviable with support those businesses will simply not exist or cost an amount of money that is unappealing.

oldsecondhand 5y ago
It's your baseless assumption that people are unwilling to pay money for these services.
- drivebycomment 5y ago
  It's not whether there are people who are willing to pay, but whether there are enough such people so that mandating this would not lead to substantially less number of services provided by companies such that society collectively will be worse off. I.e. a regulation like this proposal will raise the cost of business which ultimately consumers have to bear, and the question is how much cost it will increase overall and if the consequence of that increase is actually acceptable for the society. I don't know anybody knows the answer for sure - it's possible the cost increase is marginal and can be easily absorbed, but maybe not.
- _3u10 5y ago
  It’s your baseless assumption that it’s a baseless assumption. QED. You might want to lookup what the word if means. As a prime example look up peoples common complaints about airlines and then ask them why they don’t just fly first or business class, in most cases a cheaper price is favorable to most of the people complaining about airlines. I have a feeling that whatever services this guy is complaining about that a company offers a product that is much higher priced that includes knowledgeable and helpful support that they have simply chosen not to buy.
ironmagma 5y ago
Nowhere has it been shown that adding support people would make these companies unprofitable.
- 5y ago

asah 5y ago

Seems hard to regulate the model... but y I agree we can regulate the requirement to have a no-dark-pattern way to reach a human. Obviously, we need to avoid abuse especially automated abuse, and this in turn becomes difficult. So... perhaps it makes the most sense to roll this issue into regulation against dark patterns. Or... fund an organization exposing dark patterns and helping consumers choose companies that avoid them.