4 ms·

It's time to legally compel platforms above a certain (modest) size to treat their customers and users "fairly", transparently, and without discrimination. Beca

It's time to legally compel platforms above a certain (modest) size to treat their customers and users "fairly", transparently, and without discrimination. Because giving a competitive advantage (from economies of scale) to actors willing to sell their independence to some giant corporation is rapidly leading us to where we are at the mercy of those corporations for even the smallest commercial activities, such as buying or selling a book. Such a state is incompatible with a free society, unless you redefine restrictions on freedom as only what is done by the government. A definition that is little comfort to businesses bankrupted by unaccountable corporations.

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
> It's time to legally compel platforms above a certain (modest) size I personally don't agree with "modest" but having two (or more) classes of corporations to divide laws and regulations between seems like an obvious step in the right direction. Right now there seems to be "monopolies" and everything else. Obviously Amazon or Shopify are not the same as a family owned business; treating them as such should be the exception not the norm.
crmd 4y ago
It makes perfect sense that as a firm’s market power grows, it’s regulatory burden scales appropriately.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Until it turns into regulatory capture, whereby the regulatory burden prevents others from growing their business beyond a certain point.
  - treeman79 4y ago
    Bingo
kache_ 4y ago
Doesn't scale :P
majormajor 4y ago
"Transparently" has major issues for dealing with bad actors, which needs to be taken into account when crafting any regulation. I would probably try to start with just making fairer appeals processes and such (some sort of third party arbitration system, in this case, is probably better than just companies getting to set their own individual and opaque and hard-to-comply-with policies).
- AinderS 4y ago
  > "Transparently" has major issues for dealing with bad actors So I've been told. What I haven't been told is how telling a spammer that they were banned for spamming (instead of the opaque "breaking terms of service") helps them evade detection in the future. They already know they were spamming, and can be 99% sure that's what they were banned for. It's only the innocent that don't know what they did wrong.
  - hiptobecubic 4y ago
    Because people want to know why they were considered to be spamming. Then next time they will make sure not to do it that way.
    - AinderS 4y ago
      > Because people want to know why they were considered to be spamming. You're arguing against a suggestion no-one has made. I'm proposing to tell them what they did wrong, not how they were caught.
      - viraptor 4y ago
        I've dealt with moderation before. The immediate response is something like "I wasn't spamming." or "Prove it." Basically, just saying "you're banned for spamming" is the same as saying "you're banned" - both spammers and unfairly banned people will follow the same path from there.
      - tshaddox 4y ago
bawolff 4y ago
This isn't facebook. Shopify is B2B. I assume there are contracts involved. If shopify is not holding up its end, there are already legal avenues to compel them.
- indymike 4y ago
  > If shopify is not holding up its end, there are already legal avenues to compel them. The issue is that you can't use the standard, low cost venue for small b2b disputes (this one was over $7,000): the local small claims court. Most contracts will stipulate a convenient venue to the author of the contract (which may cost more than $7k to litigate if you are out of town). Federal court requires a bigger injury and won't hear your case. In many jurisdictions, business cannot self-represent in small claims, so even if it is available, it's expensive. You end up hiring outside counsel, even if you have lawyers as employees which raises costs a lot, and opens up the possibility of a suit where the awarded legal fees dwarf the amount in dispute.
  - abigail95 4y ago
    don't most of these sites, like Shopify, require arbitration for disputes? or do you worry about actually enforcing an arbitration decision?
    - indymike 4y ago
      Enforcing arbitration is usually pretty easy - most of the time the company will honor the decision. It's when they don't that is the problem, or where the situation is not a contractual dispute that can be arbitrated.
- tomrod 4y ago
  > I assume there are contracts involved. If shopify is not holding up its end, there are already legal avenues to compel them. The answer to consistent bad behavior can't be "well, just sue!" because the US court systems are already underfunded and jam packed as is. It just doesn't work to (only) have breach of contract lawsuits in David v. Goliath (202X) suits.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bel_marinaio 4y ago
I wish everyone could wrap their mind around one thing. *THE SYSTEM WORKS AS INTENDED* Anytime someone suggests a good idea like this or says "we should" you need to go back to the root of the problem. The system is designed to give all the breaks and funnel all $ to the top. That is the way corporations want it and they own the politicians. This isn't government incompetence or some idea that you came up with. This idea will not be implemented because it would benefit the 99.5% to the detriment of the 0.5%

throw_nbvc1234 4y ago

> It's time to legally compel platforms above a certain (modest) size I personally don't agree with "modest" but having two (or more) classes of corporations to divide laws and regulations between seems like an obvious step in the right direction. Right now there seems to be "monopolies" and everything else. Obviously Amazon or Shopify are not the same as a family owned business; treating them as such should be the exception not the norm.

crmd 4y ago

It makes perfect sense that as a firm’s market power grows, it’s regulatory burden scales appropriately.

zdragnar 4y ago
Until it turns into regulatory capture, whereby the regulatory burden prevents others from growing their business beyond a certain point.
- treeman79 4y ago
  Bingo

kache_ 4y ago

Doesn't scale :P

majormajor 4y ago

"Transparently" has major issues for dealing with bad actors, which needs to be taken into account when crafting any regulation. I would probably try to start with just making fairer appeals processes and such (some sort of third party arbitration system, in this case, is probably better than just companies getting to set their own individual and opaque and hard-to-comply-with policies).

AinderS 4y ago
> "Transparently" has major issues for dealing with bad actors So I've been told. What I haven't been told is how telling a spammer that they were banned for spamming (instead of the opaque "breaking terms of service") helps them evade detection in the future. They already know they were spamming, and can be 99% sure that's what they were banned for. It's only the innocent that don't know what they did wrong.
- hiptobecubic 4y ago
  Because people want to know why they were considered to be spamming. Then next time they will make sure not to do it that way.
  - AinderS 4y ago
    > Because people want to know why they were considered to be spamming. You're arguing against a suggestion no-one has made. I'm proposing to tell them what they did wrong, not how they were caught.
    - viraptor 4y ago
      I've dealt with moderation before. The immediate response is something like "I wasn't spamming." or "Prove it." Basically, just saying "you're banned for spamming" is the same as saying "you're banned" - both spammers and unfairly banned people will follow the same path from there.
    - tshaddox 4y ago

bawolff 4y ago

This isn't facebook. Shopify is B2B. I assume there are contracts involved. If shopify is not holding up its end, there are already legal avenues to compel them.

indymike 4y ago
> If shopify is not holding up its end, there are already legal avenues to compel them. The issue is that you can't use the standard, low cost venue for small b2b disputes (this one was over $7,000): the local small claims court. Most contracts will stipulate a convenient venue to the author of the contract (which may cost more than $7k to litigate if you are out of town). Federal court requires a bigger injury and won't hear your case. In many jurisdictions, business cannot self-represent in small claims, so even if it is available, it's expensive. You end up hiring outside counsel, even if you have lawyers as employees which raises costs a lot, and opens up the possibility of a suit where the awarded legal fees dwarf the amount in dispute.
- abigail95 4y ago
  don't most of these sites, like Shopify, require arbitration for disputes? or do you worry about actually enforcing an arbitration decision?
  - indymike 4y ago
    Enforcing arbitration is usually pretty easy - most of the time the company will honor the decision. It's when they don't that is the problem, or where the situation is not a contractual dispute that can be arbitrated.
tomrod 4y ago
> I assume there are contracts involved. If shopify is not holding up its end, there are already legal avenues to compel them. The answer to consistent bad behavior can't be "well, just sue!" because the US court systems are already underfunded and jam packed as is. It just doesn't work to (only) have breach of contract lawsuits in David v. Goliath (202X) suits.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bel_marinaio 4y ago

I wish everyone could wrap their mind around one thing. *THE SYSTEM WORKS AS INTENDED* Anytime someone suggests a good idea like this or says "we should" you need to go back to the root of the problem. The system is designed to give all the breaks and funnel all $ to the top. That is the way corporations want it and they own the politicians. This isn't government incompetence or some idea that you came up with. This idea will not be implemented because it would benefit the 99.5% to the detriment of the 0.5%