4 ms·

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 con

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.

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.