4 ms·
Agreed. That + the offense itself is rather stupid minor. The user didn't defraud people out of a lot of money, the user literally just had a few classmates cli
by filoleg 4y ago
Agreed. That + the offense itself is rather stupid minor. The user didn't defraud people out of a lot of money, the user literally just had a few classmates click on an ad, made $80 (that I bet weren't paid out anyway, because the account got banned), and now they are banned for life.
At the very worst, I would say a more fair punishment would be a ban for a year or until they reach the age of 18 (whichever comes later out of those), especially given it was the first offence.
- sokoloff 4y agoThough I agree with your judgment of what would be more fair, for me it doesn’t extend to compelling a private entity to enter into a contract with another private entity.
- filoleg 4y agoGood point, and I honestly struggle with reconciling it and what I said earlier. Because on a fundamental level, I agree with both.
- account42 4y agoWe already require private entities providing services/products to the public to not discrimiate who they enter into contracts with based on certain protected attributes. However in this case you don't even need to do that - just make it illegal for such services to keep information on minors for longer than $period. If they can't identify you they can't deny you service while still indiscriminately providing service to everyone else.