3 ms·
The negative reinforcement needs to be strong enough to make the behavior unprofitable or it is completely ineffective. The fines exhibited here don't do that s
by shkkmo 3y ago
The negative reinforcement needs to be strong enough to make the behavior unprofitable or it is completely ineffective. The fines exhibited here don't do that so your justification falls flat.
I also really don't see the economic harm in killing robocall companies. It seems like a net win to me.
- rolph 3y agonot trying to justify low fines, there should be a sweet spot amount that clearly indicates, a repeat means you FAAFO
- shkkmo 3y agoI don't think that such a "sweet spot" necessarily exists for every company. Many of the companies depend on these illegal business practices to be profitable. If you levy fines that make those illegal practices unprofitable, there are companies that will no longer exist (and shouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place.) The bigger problem, is that many of these companies are structured in a way that profits get extracted to the owners while liabilities don't. So even if you fine these companies out of existence, you don't necessarily make the practice unprofitable. This is why we need these fines to also pierce liability limiting corporate structures and why we need laws to allow us to put the people profiting from these illegal acts in jail.
- devonbleak 3y agoThe telcos making money from these calls disagree with your assessment of the economic harm of killing them. It'd be shut down in a heartbeat if they were costing them money.