4 ms·

Sending CBD messages are explicitly forbidden, not necessarily due to actual illegality, but due to SHAFT compliance. CBD derived from hemp is federally legal.

Sending CBD messages are explicitly forbidden, not necessarily due to actual illegality, but due to SHAFT compliance. CBD derived from hemp is federally legal. Messaging about it can be illegal depending on claims made. I'm not really complaining about that, although the short timeline for new, exorbitant fines is ridiculous. We do not have a relationship with any entity other than the government itself that "fines" us. This is not normal behavior for a business relationship. We do not need to discuss cbd/canibus anymore, although you are welcome to continue arguing for your position that a business can fine their customers anytime they want with effectively no notice to the change in their agreement. The important change is that the new language prohibits anything that could be illegal in any state, regardless of whether the message originates or terminates in that state. I already gave you the example of abortion - you continue to ignore this example. Several states now ban emergency care for pregnant women that could result in the termination of a pregnancy. But now a California doctor can't message "Your appointment for termination is ready." or "This is a reminder to take pill #2." to a California patient because Texas has passed the Christian equivalent of Sharia law. How many other laws are there that could violate laws in individual states that we don't know about? Sodomy is still on the books as illegal in many states, as are many other laws that exist but are effectively unconstitutional. This app to person messaging can be for individual use as well - a user can send personal messages via a web or app based sms service. The carriers are doing too much. They are prohibiting legal traffic. And at some point, like me, you have to fight for your customers, or you'll get disrupted. I'm extremely motivated to disrupt this industry at this point, or at the very least push the average American towards services like Whatsapp. Third party messaging apps like whatsapp are extremely popular outside of the US (used far more than SMS) and the ability to send encrypted messages without carrier interference is a big benefit.

avianlyric 3y ago
> We do not have a relationship with any entity other than the government itself that "fines" us. This is not normal behavior for a business relationship. That’s where I’m gonna have to disagree with you. They might not be common when a business is offering a fairly commodity product like SMS messaging. But they certainly appear in business contracts all the time. You must be familiar with the concept of a chargeback, and fees/fines business are slap with when chargebacks occurred. I can also tell you that in contracts between payment networks (Mastercard, Visa etc) and issuers/acquirers (banks, stripe etc) there’s a hundreds of rules, and associated fines/fees for non-compliance. I’ve personally never seen a meaningful contract between two businesses that didn’t include clear expectations of performance, and monetary consequences for failure to perform. It’s a perfectly normal way for businesses to incentivise their partners to uphold their end of the deal, without having to endlessly resort to the courts for redress. > The important change is that the new language prohibits anything that could be illegal in any state, regardless of whether the message originates or terminates in that state. It’s not new language, the November 2020 copy of T-Mobile code-of-conduct contains the language, include the explicit requirement that content must be legal in all states. > I already gave you the example of abortion - you continue to ignore this example. Several states now ban emergency care for pregnant women that could result in the termination of a pregnancy. Utterly irrelevant. It’s not T-Mobile job to decide which states laws are morally acceptable to ignore, nor is it reasonable for you to expect them to take on that legal liability on your behalf. Also none of this impacts you anyway. Your relationship is with Twilio, these changes impact Twilio only. Twilio can make their own decisions about how they want to handle the costs and risks, which may include passing on the fees/fines onto their customers, or it may not. > The carriers are doing too much. They are prohibiting legal traffic. Welcome to real world. Carriers are allowed to prohibit anything they want, in the U.S., that’s protected by the first amendment. Everything you’re complaining about has been true for years, you just haven’t done your research before. Realistically these changes are a complete nothing burger, carriers aren’t interested in actual scanning messages etc, they’re just looking for a fig leaf to demonstrate they’re doing something about the scrounge of SMS spam and phishing.

avianlyric 3y ago

> We do not have a relationship with any entity other than the government itself that "fines" us. This is not normal behavior for a business relationship. That’s where I’m gonna have to disagree with you. They might not be common when a business is offering a fairly commodity product like SMS messaging. But they certainly appear in business contracts all the time. You must be familiar with the concept of a chargeback, and fees/fines business are slap with when chargebacks occurred. I can also tell you that in contracts between payment networks (Mastercard, Visa etc) and issuers/acquirers (banks, stripe etc) there’s a hundreds of rules, and associated fines/fees for non-compliance. I’ve personally never seen a meaningful contract between two businesses that didn’t include clear expectations of performance, and monetary consequences for failure to perform. It’s a perfectly normal way for businesses to incentivise their partners to uphold their end of the deal, without having to endlessly resort to the courts for redress. > The important change is that the new language prohibits anything that could be illegal in any state, regardless of whether the message originates or terminates in that state. It’s not new language, the November 2020 copy of T-Mobile code-of-conduct contains the language, include the explicit requirement that content must be legal in all states. > I already gave you the example of abortion - you continue to ignore this example. Several states now ban emergency care for pregnant women that could result in the termination of a pregnancy. Utterly irrelevant. It’s not T-Mobile job to decide which states laws are morally acceptable to ignore, nor is it reasonable for you to expect them to take on that legal liability on your behalf. Also none of this impacts you anyway. Your relationship is with Twilio, these changes impact Twilio only. Twilio can make their own decisions about how they want to handle the costs and risks, which may include passing on the fees/fines onto their customers, or it may not. > The carriers are doing too much. They are prohibiting legal traffic. Welcome to real world. Carriers are allowed to prohibit anything they want, in the U.S., that’s protected by the first amendment. Everything you’re complaining about has been true for years, you just haven’t done your research before. Realistically these changes are a complete nothing burger, carriers aren’t interested in actual scanning messages etc, they’re just looking for a fig leaf to demonstrate they’re doing something about the scrounge of SMS spam and phishing.