3 ms·

I don't like racists either, but I don't understand how you don't draw the conclusion from this story that there was both centralisation of power and abuse of p

I don't like racists either, but I don't understand how you don't draw the conclusion from this story that there was both centralisation of power and abuse of power. First - he wasn't racist. It was misheard. And second just because a company thinks you're racist they shouldn't be able to take reprisals because they don't have the appropriate checks and balances appropriate for that sort of power - we've all read the stories of Google shutting down people's accounts with no appeal. What you've got here is vigilante justice, misapplied to someone who's innocent. This should involve an appropriate system with appropriate checks and balances - like the justice system.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I'm not sure this is unequivocally "vigilante justice". Because to me, it seems more like "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." The intent of Amazon was not to disable the guy's smart home, or lock him out of his house. Amazon intended to deny him service across the board by suspending his account. Being logged out of Alexa is a side-effect of that, but we don't know if Amazon took an inventory of services he uses before they made the decision to suspend. So, if it were a real incident of racist abuse and Amazon suspended the account, would that matter? People can be denied government benefits if they act abusively toward a case worker. They can also be denied medical treatment and ejected from a hospital if they are abusive to HCPs there. (Exception for mental hospitals, where they just get locked down and sedated instead.) So does a company like this Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone? Or are they too deep and wide to exercise that right? If a company controls your digital life and holds most of your personal data, do they have the right to cut off your access with an AI-based decision? I'm not sure it's "vigilante justice" but it may be more like "racketeering".
- rkangel 3y ago
  If I'm rude to the butcher, they should absolutely be able to deny service. The difference with the big platforms is that denying service has rather more comprehensive effects. This is a core problem that doesn't show up in this situation - these companies have accumulated so much power over individual's lives that their use of that power needs to be regulated due to the possibility of abuse. The EU DMA recognises this in terms of consumer protection, but the problem is much broader. For example - if Amazon just denied delivery service here, that would be fine. It's the fact that they provide delivery service but also automate the customers home, and also provide their TV service, and also provide servers for them at work that causes the problem. > People can be denied government benefits if they act abusively toward a case worker. They can also be denied medical treatment and ejected from a hospital if they are abusive to HCPs there. I don't agree that this should be possible. I know in the UK (because I just asked a doctor friend) that it is unheard of to refuse treatment. It's a theoretical possibility but in practice they get the police and use some combination of medical and physical restraint. For benefits, they should continue to get them and be otherwise punished by the legal system if appropriate.
  - balderdash 3y ago
    I think what you’re touching on is that the burden to shut someone out of essential services that in most developed countries are referred to as utilities (water, electricity, natural gas, Telecommunications) should be much higher than say the local bowling alley denying you service. And then, on top of that there are probably some large services that should be re-defined as utilities given their increasing reliance in a modern era. In particular large tech (google, Apple, Amazon, meta) and airlines.
    - rkangel 3y ago
      Yes, I think that's exactly right: the definition of utility needs to be expanded.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

I'm not sure this is unequivocally "vigilante justice". Because to me, it seems more like "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." The intent of Amazon was not to disable the guy's smart home, or lock him out of his house. Amazon intended to deny him service across the board by suspending his account. Being logged out of Alexa is a side-effect of that, but we don't know if Amazon took an inventory of services he uses before they made the decision to suspend. So, if it were a real incident of racist abuse and Amazon suspended the account, would that matter? People can be denied government benefits if they act abusively toward a case worker. They can also be denied medical treatment and ejected from a hospital if they are abusive to HCPs there. (Exception for mental hospitals, where they just get locked down and sedated instead.) So does a company like this Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone? Or are they too deep and wide to exercise that right? If a company controls your digital life and holds most of your personal data, do they have the right to cut off your access with an AI-based decision? I'm not sure it's "vigilante justice" but it may be more like "racketeering".

rkangel 3y ago
If I'm rude to the butcher, they should absolutely be able to deny service. The difference with the big platforms is that denying service has rather more comprehensive effects. This is a core problem that doesn't show up in this situation - these companies have accumulated so much power over individual's lives that their use of that power needs to be regulated due to the possibility of abuse. The EU DMA recognises this in terms of consumer protection, but the problem is much broader. For example - if Amazon just denied delivery service here, that would be fine. It's the fact that they provide delivery service but also automate the customers home, and also provide their TV service, and also provide servers for them at work that causes the problem. > People can be denied government benefits if they act abusively toward a case worker. They can also be denied medical treatment and ejected from a hospital if they are abusive to HCPs there. I don't agree that this should be possible. I know in the UK (because I just asked a doctor friend) that it is unheard of to refuse treatment. It's a theoretical possibility but in practice they get the police and use some combination of medical and physical restraint. For benefits, they should continue to get them and be otherwise punished by the legal system if appropriate.
- balderdash 3y ago
  I think what you’re touching on is that the burden to shut someone out of essential services that in most developed countries are referred to as utilities (water, electricity, natural gas, Telecommunications) should be much higher than say the local bowling alley denying you service. And then, on top of that there are probably some large services that should be re-defined as utilities given their increasing reliance in a modern era. In particular large tech (google, Apple, Amazon, meta) and airlines.
  - rkangel 3y ago
    Yes, I think that's exactly right: the definition of utility needs to be expanded.