3 ms·

i've been seeing this pattern on so many posts on hn that criticize basically anything. i'm not trying to have a stab at you specifically btw, this is more meta

i've been seeing this pattern on so many posts on hn that criticize basically anything. i'm not trying to have a stab at you specifically btw, this is more meta > x is bad because of this obvious reason that it is bad > "but y and z are also bad!" what is that supposed to be a rebuttal to? is the implication that we should.. do nothing because everything else is also shit? i don't see why turbotax in this instance shouldn't be punished. that would set a nice precedent at least

JohnMakin 3y ago
You see this in any internet discussion, such as about gun violence - “well knives can kill people too and we’re not outlawing those.”
- tialaramex 3y ago
  And indeed in England most knives require that you have a specific lawful purpose to carry them. "Self defence" isn't a lawful purpose. The small folding knives on some utility tools are exempt but that's all. All weapons are illegal. Purpose made, improvised, even just I picked up a glass and threatened people with it, that's a weapon and it's illegal to have weapons.
dfxm12 3y ago
I don't think it's a rebuttal. I don't think it's a "but"; it appears to be an "and". The implication is a warning for people who may look to an alternative to inuit based on this - stay away from H&R Block as well. No one said anything about inuit not being punished.
RajT88 3y ago
> i don't see why turbotax in this instance shouldn't be punished. I don't see why they should only be punished 141 million dollars - they undoubtedly made a lot more money than that out of these shady practices. Therefore, this is just a "cost of doing business" and won't curtail such behavior in the future. Not until the penalty is severe enough to put the fear into them.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  I feel like these penalties for corporate misbehavior are exactly as you describe: heads I-win; tails I-win-now-then-pay-it-back-later. If we don't make the fines something like 3x the gains by default, but leave it at 1x disgorgement, we should expect rational players to keep playing the game the same way.

JohnMakin 3y ago

You see this in any internet discussion, such as about gun violence - “well knives can kill people too and we’re not outlawing those.”

tialaramex 3y ago
And indeed in England most knives require that you have a specific lawful purpose to carry them. "Self defence" isn't a lawful purpose. The small folding knives on some utility tools are exempt but that's all. All weapons are illegal. Purpose made, improvised, even just I picked up a glass and threatened people with it, that's a weapon and it's illegal to have weapons.

dfxm12 3y ago

I don't think it's a rebuttal. I don't think it's a "but"; it appears to be an "and". The implication is a warning for people who may look to an alternative to inuit based on this - stay away from H&R Block as well. No one said anything about inuit not being punished.

RajT88 3y ago

> i don't see why turbotax in this instance shouldn't be punished. I don't see why they should only be punished 141 million dollars - they undoubtedly made a lot more money than that out of these shady practices. Therefore, this is just a "cost of doing business" and won't curtail such behavior in the future. Not until the penalty is severe enough to put the fear into them.

sokoloff 3y ago
I feel like these penalties for corporate misbehavior are exactly as you describe: heads I-win; tails I-win-now-then-pay-it-back-later. If we don't make the fines something like 3x the gains by default, but leave it at 1x disgorgement, we should expect rational players to keep playing the game the same way.