3 ms·

Even the relatively lax enforcement of anti-competitive laws we do have is likely to prevent that particular scenario. I'm not sure it is possible to write a g

Even the relatively lax enforcement of anti-competitive laws we do have is likely to prevent that particular scenario. I'm not sure it is possible to write a good law that says you can't act against people for some set of reasons, without impacting the ability of venues to deny service in more reasonable cases. (Current trespassing law pretty much relies on notification, if you are told you aren't welcome in a private place and then refuse to leave or later re-enter it, you are trespassing). Like say an attendant observes that someone is visibly intoxicated, sees them vomit in a spot that isn't part of the venue, and then tries to deny them service. In that case, an escape hatch that lets them add people to a list if they are ejected wouldn't work, but it's perfectly reasonable to deny that person entry. The better mechanism to deal with things like this would be social pressure. Arbitrary denial of service is outrageous and people should punish them by not doing any business with them (don't book events there, don't attend events there). But no way is anyone going to inconvenience themselves over a few lawyers getting a bad deal. Maybe we'll get a more charismatic scenario sometime in the future.

Scoundreller 4y ago
> Even the relatively lax enforcement of anti-competitive laws we do have is likely to prevent that particular scenario. Maybe in the US, but in Canada and elsewhere, anti-competitive behaviour is basically seen as a national policy objective. “Strong & powerful industry is good for you” (as they no longer even need to collude to raise prices and reduce competition for labour).
kstenerud 4y ago
You don't need a full-on monopoly. All you need is for a megacorp to have enough of a stake in a group of companies that it can dictate certain policies due to the damage it could cause by tanking the share price if they don't play ball. Something like "All of you must adhere to this ban list that we will keep updated". The megacorp doesn't outright own them so there's no monopoly, but that hardly matters to the poor sod who can no longer buy food because every single food-selling outlet in his area is affected, and toeing the line. And it wouldn't even need to be this nefarious. Like all paths to hell, it could start with a "bad people" list that becomes homogenized across the companies because one of them has special skill in this area and it's cheaper that way. Then the list starts to expand, and since all of this group of companies are linked, they all follow the same ban, use the same facial recognition etc.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  In the US, you can basically counter the argument with Walmart (especially if you stick to the 200 miles). (Walmart won't be allowed to control companies they compete with, and no one will control them)
  - kstenerud 4y ago
    And if Walmart subscribes to the same service? (which would basically operate like credit ratings do).

Scoundreller 4y ago

> Even the relatively lax enforcement of anti-competitive laws we do have is likely to prevent that particular scenario. Maybe in the US, but in Canada and elsewhere, anti-competitive behaviour is basically seen as a national policy objective. “Strong & powerful industry is good for you” (as they no longer even need to collude to raise prices and reduce competition for labour).

kstenerud 4y ago

You don't need a full-on monopoly. All you need is for a megacorp to have enough of a stake in a group of companies that it can dictate certain policies due to the damage it could cause by tanking the share price if they don't play ball. Something like "All of you must adhere to this ban list that we will keep updated". The megacorp doesn't outright own them so there's no monopoly, but that hardly matters to the poor sod who can no longer buy food because every single food-selling outlet in his area is affected, and toeing the line. And it wouldn't even need to be this nefarious. Like all paths to hell, it could start with a "bad people" list that becomes homogenized across the companies because one of them has special skill in this area and it's cheaper that way. Then the list starts to expand, and since all of this group of companies are linked, they all follow the same ban, use the same facial recognition etc.

maxerickson 4y ago
In the US, you can basically counter the argument with Walmart (especially if you stick to the 200 miles). (Walmart won't be allowed to control companies they compete with, and no one will control them)
- kstenerud 4y ago
  And if Walmart subscribes to the same service? (which would basically operate like credit ratings do).