8 ms·
It's not just Amazon. All big tech companies have this "trigger happy" approach to closing down accounts. Especially payment companies. I believe we need to pa
by arthur_sav 3y ago
It's not just Amazon. All big tech companies have this "trigger happy" approach to closing down accounts. Especially payment companies.
I believe we need to pass down new consumer laws to protect the people. We pretty much rely on their services and they have no accountability.
- thrw_aus 3y ago[flagged]
- optimalsolver 3y agoI unironically have no issue with racists being locked out of their homes. Perhaps with the doorbell robot giving them sarcastic responses to their pleas.
- thrw_aus 3y agoYou're the best person in this thread. Of course you have to clarify that you mean white racists, because you'd be the most racist person in this thread if you meant the 33% of blacks who want miscegenation to be banned again: https://i.redd.it/fwgz4oyty85b1.png https://i.redd.it/fwgz4oyty85b1.png I guess we should burn your house down just in case.
- sebzim4500 3y agoInteresting. Is there equivalent data on the question "should two people of different races be allowed to marry?". Seems more relevant than the question asked, which is arguably about states rights.
- optimalsolver 3y agoI think we've had our fill of "states rights".
- thrw_aus 3y agoYes California must be crushed under the Unions boots for flaunting federal laws on drugs for decades.
- lom888 3y agoIn your opinion, do they have to say a racism or merely think it to be worthy of being locked out of their home?
- optimalsolver 3y agoHmmm. Tough one. I think making certain expressions in the presence of black people should be enough to qualify.
- jaywalk 3y agoSay the rest, which is that it has to be a white person doing it. Because obviously a black person "making certain expressions in the presence of black people" is no problem at all. So you want white people to lose their house if they hurt a black person's feelings. Totally legitimate position, not insane at all.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- pierat 3y agoI heard from someone you said a racist word. I advocate for you to be locked out of all your stuff, with no trial or anything.
- Semaphor 3y ago> All big tech companies have this "trigger happy" approach to closing down accounts. After years, I made my first Instagram post last week. I got instantly banned (it was a picture of a new bag I bought). Apparently the way to get it back is to jump through some hoops and post a selfie with an OTP. I decided that’s a bit much work and I might as well let them delete my account that only follows a bunch of people I know without ever looking at their pictures.
- withinboredom 3y agoAnd the funny part is their metrics will count you as a “spammer” so it will positive-feedback-loop into even less stringent signals.
- quitit 3y agoIn some circumstances, Facebook's app will randomly block you from certain sub-features and request an ear-to-ear scan of your face to unblock them. It's bonkers, and clear how they go about obtaining their data.
- TrackerFF 3y agoI think the dormant accounts problem is legit though - I've lost count how many "dead" accounts I've seen on both my FB and IG feed, that have suddenly become hi-jacked, and start spamming stuff.
- Semaphor 3y agoYeah, but in that case it would not be a single picture. And apparently their detection system on the FB side is incapable of blocking new accounts that instantly start friending hundreds of completely unrelated people and posting porn, something that should be pretty easy to detect.
- unreal37 3y agoIf you attempt to use a credit card that you haven't used in years, the bank will similarly ask you to verify your identity. I don't think it's weird that unused valuable accounts need re-identification when you start to use them again. I don't mind anti-spam measures in cases which are common spam techniques. Hijacking unused accounts is common enough to warrant an approach like this.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y agoOr maybe don't rely on their services, use a kind of money that doesn't close accounts. Like cash, or something that must not be named on HN.
- midasuni 3y agoBecause that’s not how society works
- Etrnl_President 3y agoWorked for thousands of years, but perhaps now it is time to rely on the people bribed by big corporations?
- swiftcoder 3y agoIt's not even all that legal in a lot of places. For example, it's not legal to make a cash transaction over 1,000 euros in Spain - they locked it down to try and catch folks who tax evade by running all-cash businesses.
- staunton 3y agoI fully expect buying most things with cash will be impossible or at least very cumbersome pretty soon
- ben_w 3y agoFor most of those thousands of years, money was a precious metal (although not always the same one). We moved away from it because of all the things that go wrong with that, and then the internet happened and we want digital money. "Digital money" in the broadest sense is how it all works today, even with the coins and notes that are common here in Berlin. "Trust-less" money — without anyone who can undo transactions — is an illusion, as it necessitates the users trust their counterparty as court-ordered refunds can't be guaranteed. But too many entities who can undo transactions has a similar effect, and there's a benefit to scale, so you naturally end up with a small number of Visa/MasterCard/PayPal types who have motive, means, and opportunity to bribe/regulatory-capture governments. One of the reasons I was originally curious about BTC, before it gave me "scam!" vibes, was the possible it might be a new path that might avoid some of this; but I no longer have that impression.
- impulser_ 3y agoOutside of Healthcare, the Financial industry is the most regulated industry in the US. Regulatory compliance is often why payment companies and other financial companies are often trigger happy. It's risk management.
- arethuza 3y ago"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can." Thucydides , ~5th century BC
- DubiousPusher 3y agoIn the absence of law, there is only power.
- marssaxman 3y agoSame is true in the presence of law; there's just more bureaucracy.
- mindslight 3y agoMore to the point: what constitutes power is different.
- DubiousPusher 3y agoThis is a good point. I should have said, in the absence of law, there is only power through individual domination and vassalage. Law does not guarantee a more equitable distribution of power but it can allow for it.
- DubiousPusher 3y agoI disagree. Law (not in a vacuum but as practiced) can distribute power and thus unseat the power of strength alone. In many places throughout history, a strong person could hit whomever they wanted excepting the rich and aristocratic. A man could in this way dominate his family and neighbors. The only recourse was honor killing and revenge. Today, in many places, even minor assault will result in consequences. In this way, the law redistributes power from the physically strong to those who may be weak but who have legal standing. Of course, in an absolute sense, everything redounds to power. All law is in the end, enforced at the point of a gun. But this is an observation with very little practical utility IMO. It's like the saying which people employ when things are not going well, "it could be worse". To be clear, I'm am here making a case for law as an insurance against indivual domination and warlordism which I think it can be. I am not making a case for the state in general though.
- rvba 3y agoThe worst are banks and payment processors who sttaight out censor legal businesses. If porn/weed/crypto or other stuff is legal, then the bank should not be moral police and close their account. Banks are not police, or judicary system and one cannot run a company without a bank account. If they explain this with risk, then there should be some special state run bank that handles higher risk customers - and for example freezes money for some time to check everything. But at least does not close the account
- bell-cot 3y ago> If they explain this with risk, then there should be some special state run bank... Reasonable...but could you describe the elected politicians who will vote to establish that special state-run bank, and keep it going?
- pasc1878 3y agoThe risk here is that someone against porn etc will 9and have) sued them for helping bad activities. TYhe cost is too high for the credit card companies. In this case the pressure on a government payment system would be even higher as no politician could afford to support something helping porn.
- commandlinefan 3y ago> banks and payment processors OTOH, I doubt the banks themselves are doing it for personal moral reasons, rather because of outside pressure. They're doing it out of fear of the power that picketers have over their actual livelihood.
- brandonmenc 3y ago> Banks are not police, or judicary system This is a “feature”, not a bug. Passing real laws is hard. Easier to get the huge near monopolies the citizenry de facto require to exist to enforce your shadow legal system. Remember, the first amendment only applies to the government, and you technically won’t die without a bank account or internet access!
- world-set-free 3y agoYou'll have to outbid the payments the tech companies have on the senators they own. You need more money than Vangaurd and Blackrock's A.L.A.D.D.I.N
- plagiarist 3y agoThose bribes are depressingly low amounts. Just fly a SCOTUS out for a fun quarter-million vacation and their next completely original interpretation of the Constitution will be in your favor.
- world-set-free 3y agoThe Navajo lost their water rights this week to a 5:4 supreme court decision over turning a lower court. I wonder who paid for that. How much does it cost to over turn a century old treaty?
- plagiarist 3y agoIt's actually weird that the US government would honor a treaty for that long, that must be a record.
- mihaaly 3y agoI sense that some of this trigger happy approach is coming from other consumer protection laws triggered by the society (through popularity hungry polititians) demanding action from someone and anyone when one or some adverse parties use technology and services with harmful intent. Not all of course, companies with too much power act hostile just for the sake of it (means random management bullshit from power obsessed or just ambitious member of it). So I am not too sure if even more and more consumer protection laws for for particular situations will solve this instead of making it worse.
- JKCalhoun 3y agoApart from just hoping the companies come around, what do you suggest then? Or are we perhaps just screwed and have to walk on eggshells when we are on the internet?
- mihaaly 3y agoWe should not expect that some mistical fater figure or "they" will solve everything for us. Yes, we need to use the internet as there were hostile elements out there and without blind trust and blind fury that someone is not acting on our behalf all the time. Some regulation is necessary for most serious or common matters but regulations are not a magic wand that will solve all of our problems without effort from the individual!
- JKCalhoun 3y agoI always think of "they" as "us" — the society we make create to serve our collective interests. And that is exactly what it exists for, why we create it‚ because it is required to change the things we as individuals are incapable of addressing.
- Eisenstein 3y agoAh yes, the old 'companies are screwing us but it is regulation that is the real problem' argument that seems to disregard everything that reality and history presents. Hint: if you have no evidence of something but believe it because of an underlying philosophy, you should figure out how true it is before arguing its case.
- salawat 3y ago...except that's the system working as designed? It's a strategic goal of the United States to be able to drop individuals out of the economy. https://ofac.treasury.gov/ https://ofac.treasury.gov/ Don't let the foreign part cloud the picture. You cheese off someone bad enough, we have the mechanism to put an entry in place that echoes out to every lawfully operating money transferer, and suddenly, you don't have money anymore. Every money transmitter's legal department has a full time department that just day in and day out handles law enforcement or government requests. Other governments I assume enforce their own versions. Using "The Royal No One", here; but no one wants a world of unrestrictable interaction at a distance. In any form.