9 ms·

Businesses shouldn't be forced to serve customers

SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
Monopolies/oligopolies should. Imagine if your power company decided they don't want to serve you.
oifjsidjf 4y ago
At some point when 50% of the world uses your service the rules must change. Facebook and Twitter can sway elections with a press of a button. Once your company can directly affects direct democray and lives of billions these kind of statements make no sense anymore. Unless you like to be ruled by corporations.
- jcadam 4y ago
  Yes, anti-trust laws came about for a reason.
  - jayparth 4y ago
    Yes, and we don't apply them to some companies for a reason. We call these businesses natural monopolies and regulate them. Like forcing them to serve everyone or cap their profits.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Facebook and Twitter users sway elections. Every company can affect democracy in some way. Foxnews had a massive effect on elections, Gas prices being high affects elections. Should these be regulated?
  - benatkin 4y ago
    > Facebook and Twitter users sway elections. That's not what gp is saying. Facebook and Twitter control what users, in bulk, say in a way that can sway elections. Facebook and Twitter moderate and suspend and users adjust what they say in order to not get suspended again, if they care to not get banned. (Those who don't care if they get banned are a red herring.) There is also the algorithmic feed which gives a lot of control over what users say to other users.
    - evandale 4y ago
      I just quit Reddit and deleted all my accounts despite gilding > 10 comments over the past year because I got blacklisted from every community subreddit I wanted to participate in. I brought up the bias to the admins and was told mods can run their subreddit however they want despite Rule 1 of the mod guidelines saying to assume people are arguing in good faith. I got banned because I say controversial things like Black people are not disproportionately targeted by police due to their race, but rather due to them disproportionately having guns and knives when the police show up. The general public have a serious problem understanding nuance and statistics and I think it's disgusting that the media cry racism at every corner because it enrages people and gets clicks. It's even more disgusting that people fall for it without realizing what the media is doing to them because they can't read past headlines. I'll link to the actual TPS report that shows this but I'm on a slow connection right now and can't do it. edit: nvm I'm dumb; it's not that but the report is named 9082-2018-TPS-Annual-Report.pdf if you can find it on its own. You can google "tps force report 2018 -2020 pdf". I'd find it myself but I'm downloading a 12mb pdf that's taking forever and I'm pretty sure this is the one.
      - lovich 4y ago
        evandale 4y ago
        I believe this is the report and if remember right it's on page 52 or maybe 54. Decide for yourself. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-interim-report-toronto-police-service-inquiry-shows-disturbing-results https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-interim-report-to... edit: nvm I'm dumb; it's not that but the report is named 9082-2018-TPS-Annual-Report.pdf if you can find it on its own. You can google "tps force report 2018 -2020 pdf". I'd find it myself but I'm downloading a 12mb pdf that's taking forever and I'm pretty sure this is the one.
        themitigating 4y ago
        This isn't what this Hackernews post is about. You complained about people not understanding nuance but you want to dive right into argument about the police and minorities?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- li2uR3ce 4y ago
  > At some point when 50% of the world uses your service the rules must change. It's worse than that. They've effectively levied a tax on everything (without representation). Even if you pay cash, you pay (e.g.) Visa if the vendor accepts Visa. Businesses are contractually obligated hide the transaction cost from the consumer. This means all products and services have their prices jacked up to cover the cost of accepting Visa, MasterCard, etc. Even if you're paying cash, you're paying into it. "Cash back rewards" are essentially a discount on the tax they've imposed. So they tax you, they decide what you can buy, and you don't get a say. Kinda fucked up.
- MrFantastic 4y ago
  We don't have a direct democracy nor should we want one. The stock market is a type of direct democracy and look how unstable it can be.
  - metadat 4y ago
    Hardly democratic when it's controlled like a puppet by wall street super funds and the fed.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    I wouldn't call the stock market a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, every citizen/participant has the same vote as another and all it takes is simple majority can invalidate the rights of every individual. Obviously that's not the case in the US, and for the better.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Switzerland has direct democracy as an escape hatch.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
munchenphile 4y ago
Civil Rights Act and the ADA disagree. As does Sherman Anti Trust and dozens of others.
dfadsadsf 4y ago
Businesses are forced to serve customers everyday - from anti-discrimination laws to universal service for phone companies. There is also argument that oligopoly should not de-facto control payments and work as moral police.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  This is how people want it. It's been two years of "Twitter is a private platform" over and over again. If you aren't going to stand for free speech when someone wants to talk about the Wuhan lab, why the hell would you expect anyone to defend your right to furry porn?
  - chipotle_coyote 4y ago
    Because it’s not automatically the same thing just because both are private (e.g., non-governmental) organizations. A newspaper can exercise editorial control over what it publishes, but AT&T can’t exercise editorial control over your phone calls. Hacker News can moderate user content, but an ISP can’t moderate what you send over its network. The question of whether Twitter and Facebook should be treated like a phone company than they are like Hacker News isn’t a stupid one, and I don’t think it’s as clearcut as people on both sides of this debate would like it to be. But the question of whether a payment processor should be able to exercise this kind of editorial control over transactions using them as an intermediary is not really the same question. Also, keep your paws off my furry porn.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      Payment processors similarly prevented right wing sites from accepting donations and payments. Gab as one example had to create their own server farm and payment system in order to operate since they were shut out of every other provider. Did you have a problem then?
      - chipotle_coyote 4y ago
        If we want to subject payment processors—or social media—to the common carrier standard, then obviously, they can’t deny services to anyone who isn’t violating the law. Having politics Visa, Mastercard, or Stripe doesn’t like isn’t illegal. The point I’m making is that I don’t think it’s hypocritical to suggest that such a standard applies to some companies, not all companies, which is what your original post seemed to suggest. I’d personally want to set the bar pretty high when it comes to taking away any business’s right to choose their own customers.
thebradbain 4y ago
Personally I think they should, with objective, explicit exceptions common to all merchants, something like: 1) rudeness or disrupting 2) age and health 3) intoxication and indecency 4) whatever else society can agree on (good luck!) Both service providers and customers keep ending up in court because the "right to refuse service to anyone" too often becomes "discriminating against a protected class", and the lines get blurrier every day. Much easier to just say "serve everyone or don't go into the business of serving people" and be done with it. In fact, the obligation to serve customers by law would serve as both a consumer and merchant protection for cases exactly like this -- the fact that, until sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional in the US just a couple decades ago, many banks refused to lend to otherwise-credit worthy gay couples or unwed heterosexual couples for mortgages (afraid of being accused of supporting illegal activities), which would be more of a moot point in this sense because the onus is no longer on the bank to scrutinize how someone lives their personal life so long as they meet objective measures of credit worthiness.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
Break up the oligopolies and I agree completely. If Mastercard and Visa refuse to do business with you, you will soon find yourself out of business.
standardUser 4y ago
That sounds like a libertarian perspective that may apply to a radically different system of economy and government (one that does not exist in practice), but the system we actually have is not even remotely close to libertarian. In the mixed economic system adopted by nearly every nation on the planet, business face all manner of regulation and the more fundamental they are to everyday life, the more they tend to be regulated.
makeitdouble 4y ago
Businesses should be free to pick and choose only when there is also a public funded alternative or the product is targeted at a minority. Otherwise society starts falling apart. Imagine there’s only 3 car dealers in your region and they all blacklist customers who have at least once followed Elon Musk on twitter.

Monopolies/oligopolies should. Imagine if your power company decided they don't want to serve you.

At some point when 50% of the world uses your service the rules must change. Facebook and Twitter can sway elections with a press of a button. Once your company can directly affects direct democray and lives of billions these kind of statements make no sense anymore. Unless you like to be ruled by corporations.

jcadam 4y ago
Yes, anti-trust laws came about for a reason.
- jayparth 4y ago
  Yes, and we don't apply them to some companies for a reason. We call these businesses natural monopolies and regulate them. Like forcing them to serve everyone or cap their profits.
themitigating 4y ago
Facebook and Twitter users sway elections. Every company can affect democracy in some way. Foxnews had a massive effect on elections, Gas prices being high affects elections. Should these be regulated?
- benatkin 4y ago
  > Facebook and Twitter users sway elections. That's not what gp is saying. Facebook and Twitter control what users, in bulk, say in a way that can sway elections. Facebook and Twitter moderate and suspend and users adjust what they say in order to not get suspended again, if they care to not get banned. (Those who don't care if they get banned are a red herring.) There is also the algorithmic feed which gives a lot of control over what users say to other users.
  - evandale 4y ago
    I just quit Reddit and deleted all my accounts despite gilding > 10 comments over the past year because I got blacklisted from every community subreddit I wanted to participate in. I brought up the bias to the admins and was told mods can run their subreddit however they want despite Rule 1 of the mod guidelines saying to assume people are arguing in good faith. I got banned because I say controversial things like Black people are not disproportionately targeted by police due to their race, but rather due to them disproportionately having guns and knives when the police show up. The general public have a serious problem understanding nuance and statistics and I think it's disgusting that the media cry racism at every corner because it enrages people and gets clicks. It's even more disgusting that people fall for it without realizing what the media is doing to them because they can't read past headlines. I'll link to the actual TPS report that shows this but I'm on a slow connection right now and can't do it. edit: nvm I'm dumb; it's not that but the report is named 9082-2018-TPS-Annual-Report.pdf if you can find it on its own. You can google "tps force report 2018 -2020 pdf". I'd find it myself but I'm downloading a 12mb pdf that's taking forever and I'm pretty sure this is the one.
    - lovich 4y ago
      - evandale 4y ago
        I believe this is the report and if remember right it's on page 52 or maybe 54. Decide for yourself. https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-interim-report-toronto-police-service-inquiry-shows-disturbing-results https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-interim-report-to... edit: nvm I'm dumb; it's not that but the report is named 9082-2018-TPS-Annual-Report.pdf if you can find it on its own. You can google "tps force report 2018 -2020 pdf". I'd find it myself but I'm downloading a 12mb pdf that's taking forever and I'm pretty sure this is the one.
        themitigating 4y ago
        This isn't what this Hackernews post is about. You complained about people not understanding nuance but you want to dive right into argument about the police and minorities?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
li2uR3ce 4y ago
> At some point when 50% of the world uses your service the rules must change. It's worse than that. They've effectively levied a tax on everything (without representation). Even if you pay cash, you pay (e.g.) Visa if the vendor accepts Visa. Businesses are contractually obligated hide the transaction cost from the consumer. This means all products and services have their prices jacked up to cover the cost of accepting Visa, MasterCard, etc. Even if you're paying cash, you're paying into it. "Cash back rewards" are essentially a discount on the tax they've imposed. So they tax you, they decide what you can buy, and you don't get a say. Kinda fucked up.
MrFantastic 4y ago
We don't have a direct democracy nor should we want one. The stock market is a type of direct democracy and look how unstable it can be.
- metadat 4y ago
  Hardly democratic when it's controlled like a puppet by wall street super funds and the fed.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  I wouldn't call the stock market a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, every citizen/participant has the same vote as another and all it takes is simple majority can invalidate the rights of every individual. Obviously that's not the case in the US, and for the better.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Switzerland has direct democracy as an escape hatch.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

munchenphile 4y ago

Civil Rights Act and the ADA disagree. As does Sherman Anti Trust and dozens of others.

dfadsadsf 4y ago

Businesses are forced to serve customers everyday - from anti-discrimination laws to universal service for phone companies. There is also argument that oligopoly should not de-facto control payments and work as moral police.

willcipriano 4y ago
This is how people want it. It's been two years of "Twitter is a private platform" over and over again. If you aren't going to stand for free speech when someone wants to talk about the Wuhan lab, why the hell would you expect anyone to defend your right to furry porn?
- chipotle_coyote 4y ago
  Because it’s not automatically the same thing just because both are private (e.g., non-governmental) organizations. A newspaper can exercise editorial control over what it publishes, but AT&T can’t exercise editorial control over your phone calls. Hacker News can moderate user content, but an ISP can’t moderate what you send over its network. The question of whether Twitter and Facebook should be treated like a phone company than they are like Hacker News isn’t a stupid one, and I don’t think it’s as clearcut as people on both sides of this debate would like it to be. But the question of whether a payment processor should be able to exercise this kind of editorial control over transactions using them as an intermediary is not really the same question. Also, keep your paws off my furry porn.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Payment processors similarly prevented right wing sites from accepting donations and payments. Gab as one example had to create their own server farm and payment system in order to operate since they were shut out of every other provider. Did you have a problem then?
    - chipotle_coyote 4y ago
      If we want to subject payment processors—or social media—to the common carrier standard, then obviously, they can’t deny services to anyone who isn’t violating the law. Having politics Visa, Mastercard, or Stripe doesn’t like isn’t illegal. The point I’m making is that I don’t think it’s hypocritical to suggest that such a standard applies to some companies, not all companies, which is what your original post seemed to suggest. I’d personally want to set the bar pretty high when it comes to taking away any business’s right to choose their own customers.

thebradbain 4y ago

Personally I think they should, with objective, explicit exceptions common to all merchants, something like: 1) rudeness or disrupting 2) age and health 3) intoxication and indecency 4) whatever else society can agree on (good luck!) Both service providers and customers keep ending up in court because the "right to refuse service to anyone" too often becomes "discriminating against a protected class", and the lines get blurrier every day. Much easier to just say "serve everyone or don't go into the business of serving people" and be done with it. In fact, the obligation to serve customers by law would serve as both a consumer and merchant protection for cases exactly like this -- the fact that, until sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional in the US just a couple decades ago, many banks refused to lend to otherwise-credit worthy gay couples or unwed heterosexual couples for mortgages (afraid of being accused of supporting illegal activities), which would be more of a moot point in this sense because the onus is no longer on the bank to scrutinize how someone lives their personal life so long as they meet objective measures of credit worthiness.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

Break up the oligopolies and I agree completely. If Mastercard and Visa refuse to do business with you, you will soon find yourself out of business.

standardUser 4y ago

That sounds like a libertarian perspective that may apply to a radically different system of economy and government (one that does not exist in practice), but the system we actually have is not even remotely close to libertarian. In the mixed economic system adopted by nearly every nation on the planet, business face all manner of regulation and the more fundamental they are to everyday life, the more they tend to be regulated.

makeitdouble 4y ago

Businesses should be free to pick and choose only when there is also a public funded alternative or the product is targeted at a minority. Otherwise society starts falling apart. Imagine there’s only 3 car dealers in your region and they all blacklist customers who have at least once followed Elon Musk on twitter.