4 ms·

No company has (nor should have) any mandate to "customer service" beyond what the market demands. Dispute resolution is what courts are for. Meta already pays

No company has (nor should have) any mandate to "customer service" beyond what the market demands. Dispute resolution is what courts are for. Meta already pays taxes that fund courts. If courts are unable to keep up with demand generated by the modern digital economy, let's fix that. Making losers pay court fees would go a very long way towards solving the problem. Re: Walmart, the other option is to just cut the aid. People won't work if they are not able to sustain themselves (calorically) on the pay. The best way to avoid these antipatterns is to stop enabling them. --- Edit in reply to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40744676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40744676 (rate limited): There is another solution to this problem: reputation. There inevitably will emerge a spectrum of reputability among eg. used car salesman. It is your responsibility to manage your risk in regards to the reputation of the person you are transacting with, attend to the specifics of your deal, and to do your due diligence. So much is obvious in the world of business. Also, in a world of prompt dispute resolution by efficient courts, with losers paying fees, shady businessmen who repeatedly violate contracts will quickly find themselves out of business. The problem we have is that our courts work on an 1800s timescale. We can fix this. Re: social media, standards are already emerging. For instance the much contested device attestation standard attempts to fix exactly this problem. It'll work itself out in a decade or two, no intervention required. > one of the roles of government regulation that can create a net economic gain I disagree in principle. The role of the government of a free society is to create a nonviolent liberal ecosystem. Not to interfere in the outcomes that ecosystem produces.

doctor_eval 2y ago
> People won't work if they are not able to sustain themselves (calorically) on the pay. A better alternative is simply to require companies to pay a living wage. The outcome is better, because you don’t lose the safety net for those who still need it.
- thegrimmest 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - doctor_eval 2y ago
    You say that like it’s a bad thing. Ultra-capitalism is no better than ultra-communism. They are both systems designed to reduce democracy and to funnel all the money into the hands of a small number of elites. I prefer to live in a society where people can feed themselves, or get sick, or lose their jobs, without losing their house or going bankrupt - regardless of the ideology de jure.
  - doctor_eval 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - thegrimmest 2y ago
      > most of modern Europe This is relatively recent, and has proven itself quite fragile. Democracies elect dictators. Dictators of powerful governments commit atrocities. There is no "don't elect dictators" solution. The only solution is to disempower the government. Also European nations are relatively small and relatively culturally homogenous. There is no functioning liberal democracy of a large multicultural state. > All societies impose involuntary obligations There is a vast difference between outlawing violent behaviour and mandating cooperation. The latter is indistinguishable from slavery. Free societies don't compel the cooperation of their citizens beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself. Even being conscripted into the army, which is slavery, can be justified if it is to defend against a foe who would destroy liberal society. It is however categorically not justified to mandate contribution to various insurance schemes and welfare programs. There is no picking and choosing here. I want my interactions with the state to maximize for consent[1]. I want the ability to out out. I am not owed medical treatment if I'm sick. I would like the ability to choose whether to incur an obligation or not. > freedom to do whatever the hell you want Yes! > no obligation to the liberty of others No. My rights to wave my fists around end where your nose begins. > freedom from hunger, freedom from fear, freedom from homelessness, freedom from pain These aren't freedoms, they're obligations. Obligations on others to provide you with food and housing and emotional support (freedom from fear? really?). Obligation is exactly the thing that free people aim to be free of. Being free isn't the same thing as being taken care of. It's about being able to do whatever the hell you want, and interact with others on a consensual basis. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
Arrath 2y ago
> No company has (nor should have) any mandate to "customer service" beyond what the market demands. So I take it you're against Lemon Laws or other avenues of consumer protection?
- thegrimmest 2y ago
  Yes! We just need better, more effective, more efficient courts, more capable of coping with the demand generated by an increasingly interconnected economy. Lemon laws are just a hack to paper over the side effects without addressing the root cause. Edit: I see a world where small claims can be adjudicated online, not terribly differently from how lots of customer service works, with the added advantage of an impartial mediator and a clear process of appeal.
  - Arrath 2y ago
    Interesting. I think I would prefer a world where companies would do right by their customers and there be no need to take them to court, but if it was indeed accessible online then hey maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Either idea seems like starry eyed optimism, I'm afraid.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
jjmarr 2y ago
I half-agree with the above, which is that loser-pays is a good system and it's necessary to stop enabling companies. The problem with your theory is that market forces incentivize firms to take action that reduce everyone's profits/benefits so long as the action is individually profitable for the company. Which is why there are "lemon laws" on selling used cars or food regulations. The used car industry as a whole benefits when consumers are willing to pay more. Customers are willing to pay more for a used car if they think it will be high-quality. However, an ethically questionable used car salesman will try to undercut each other by offering low-quality cars that immediately break, giving all used car salesmen a bad name. Consumers now no longer want to buy used cars at all and now the only people making money are those selling a bad product. The point of legal regulation here is to enforce a quality minimum on used cars. This drives the price of used cars upwards. Salespeople get paid more, the customers get better quality, and the world is better off having reused cars that would've been scrapped. Everyone is better off. This could also be true for social media. Forcing social media to invest in better systems to ban users means that social media advertising can be worth more money. Right now, advertising marketplaces are controlled by the companies themselves. Nobody trusts companies to show ads to real users instead of bots. This drives the value of social media advertising down. While individually, it doesn't make sense to pay for customer service infrastructure to verify people's ownership of accounts, if there is a mandatory standard, all social media companies would benefit because it increases the value of their products. This is one of the roles of government regulation that can create a net economic gain.
- OptionOfT 2y ago
  Sidenote: car sales in general are not ethical. When you go to the dealer & talk to a salesperson, and subsequently talk to the $ guy, you will be required to sign a piece of paper stating that you cannot derive ANY claims on what the salesperson told you, except those written down on that form. And that form is empty. Also, I wish there was a nationwide requirement for warranty. Not that I have a problem with selling as-is per se, but it incentivizes used car dealers to take in every vehicle they can on trade, erase the codes, and try to sell it. Again, they can lie to your face about how well this car was maintained, how it was taken care off, etc, and you cannot derive ANY value off those quotes. I find it insane that in 2024 I cannot get a print-out of a car on how well it was maintained, and how many times it was floored on a cold engine.
noelwelsh 2y ago
I'm really annoyed everytime I go to buy groceries and I can't find any bread cut with alum and plaster of Paris, or sweets coloured with lead. Actually, I'm not. To think that everything should be mediated by markets is just typical libertarian capitalism nonsense. Reputation doesn't scale. Fixing problems with the court with much more expensive that preventing them from happening in the first place. Information and power asymmetries are real.
kerkeslager 2y ago
> Re: Walmart, the other option is to just cut the aid. People won't work if they are not able to sustain themselves (calorically) on the pay. The best way to avoid these antipatterns is to stop enabling them. This is a truly horrifying, compassionless comment. You're literally suggesting starving people. Sure, cutting these programs means eventually Walmart changes their business model. But the people who suffer during that transition aren't Walmart shareholders, who experience what, a temporary 30% loss in their share price? The people who suffer are the workers; Walmart has replaced thousands of smaller local stores which used to provide jobs, so the workers cannot necessarily find other work. Walmart has plenty of runway to play a game of chicken here: oh, you want to cut aid? Let's see if that idea lasts one or two election cycles. In the mean time workers, as you say, are "unable to sustain themselves (calorically)", i.e. starving, because their options are either continue working for Walmart for not enough pay to eat, or quit, and get no pay to eat. I mean, I agree this would cause a mass quitting at Walmart and the hundreds of other companies that employ the same strategies, but where do those workers start working? Companies as a whole can just afford to refuse to raise pay for a while in most cases and try other business models in the meantime. Even if other companies are started which outcompete Walmart by paying their workers a living wage, it will take decades for those companies to grow to the same size and provide as many jobs.
- thegrimmest 2y ago
  We don't have to make these changes all at once. I agree doing so would be somewhat disruptive. We can roll back the aid over a period of say 5 or 10 years, giving workers (and companies) time to figure out what to do. I agree it may not be tenable in a representative democracy, but my point is that means the democracy is too powerful and encroaches on fundamental liberty. Government should not have the power to redistribute assets in pursuit of the "general welfare", and indeed it did not until US v. Butler (1936) gave the government sweeping power to do basically anything.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > We don't have to make these changes all at once. I agree doing so would be somewhat disruptive. We can roll back the aid over a period of say 5 or 10 years, giving workers (and companies) time to figure out what to do. We don't need to give companies time to figure out what to do. We already know their solution, because it's the same playbook they've always used: change no business practices, and spend a fraction of that cost on lobbying (bribes) and propagandizing for the change to be reversed. A tiered rollout just gives them more runway to do this. And more time when workers suffer. Instead of trying to predict what will happen based on your ivory tower economic theory, try predicting what will happen based on what has happened, i.e., reality. Your opinion continues to be a horrifying, compassionless take: you openly admit it would "be somewhat disruptive", but the suffering of workers is a sacrifice you are willing to make for your pet ideology. More to the point: why would we even want to give companies time to figure out what to do? They have had plenty of time to do the right thing and they chose to do the wrong thing. I'm not for punitive justice, but I'm also not particularly concerned if the solution to the problem harms those who knowingly and intentionally caused the problem. > I agree it may not be tenable in a representative democracy, but my point is that means the democracy is too powerful and encroaches on fundamental liberty. Government should not have the power to redistribute assets in pursuit of the "general welfare", and indeed it did not until US v. Butler (1936) gave the government sweeping power to do basically anything. Fundamental liberty applies to humans, not corporations. Corporations do not have fundamental rights, period. And just as fundamentally, when government does not limit the power of corporations, corporations step into the power void, gain too much power, and take away people's rights and liberties. Being for corporate liberty is being against human liberty, it's as simple as that. Yes, I understand that the SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people: the SCOTUS is wrong. Yes, I understand that corporations are made up of people. But the actions of corporations are chosen by a small, small fraction of those people, and benefit that same small fraction of people. That small fraction of people disproportionately get to exercise any rights that are granted to a corporation, often at the expense of many more people lower in the corporate pyramid. Granting freedoms to corporations is effectively the pigs in Animal Farm saying "you're all free, but some of you are freer than others" because you're granting those rights to the decision makers in the corporation and not to the workers.

doctor_eval 2y ago

> People won't work if they are not able to sustain themselves (calorically) on the pay. A better alternative is simply to require companies to pay a living wage. The outcome is better, because you don’t lose the safety net for those who still need it.

thegrimmest 2y ago
[flagged]
- doctor_eval 2y ago
  You say that like it’s a bad thing. Ultra-capitalism is no better than ultra-communism. They are both systems designed to reduce democracy and to funnel all the money into the hands of a small number of elites. I prefer to live in a society where people can feed themselves, or get sick, or lose their jobs, without losing their house or going bankrupt - regardless of the ideology de jure.
- doctor_eval 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - thegrimmest 2y ago
    > most of modern Europe This is relatively recent, and has proven itself quite fragile. Democracies elect dictators. Dictators of powerful governments commit atrocities. There is no "don't elect dictators" solution. The only solution is to disempower the government. Also European nations are relatively small and relatively culturally homogenous. There is no functioning liberal democracy of a large multicultural state. > All societies impose involuntary obligations There is a vast difference between outlawing violent behaviour and mandating cooperation. The latter is indistinguishable from slavery. Free societies don't compel the cooperation of their citizens beyond the strict minimum necessary to maintain liberty itself. Even being conscripted into the army, which is slavery, can be justified if it is to defend against a foe who would destroy liberal society. It is however categorically not justified to mandate contribution to various insurance schemes and welfare programs. There is no picking and choosing here. I want my interactions with the state to maximize for consent[1]. I want the ability to out out. I am not owed medical treatment if I'm sick. I would like the ability to choose whether to incur an obligation or not. > freedom to do whatever the hell you want Yes! > no obligation to the liberty of others No. My rights to wave my fists around end where your nose begins. > freedom from hunger, freedom from fear, freedom from homelessness, freedom from pain These aren't freedoms, they're obligations. Obligations on others to provide you with food and housing and emotional support (freedom from fear? really?). Obligation is exactly the thing that free people aim to be free of. Being free isn't the same thing as being taken care of. It's about being able to do whatever the hell you want, and interact with others on a consensual basis. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

Arrath 2y ago

> No company has (nor should have) any mandate to "customer service" beyond what the market demands. So I take it you're against Lemon Laws or other avenues of consumer protection?

thegrimmest 2y ago
Yes! We just need better, more effective, more efficient courts, more capable of coping with the demand generated by an increasingly interconnected economy. Lemon laws are just a hack to paper over the side effects without addressing the root cause. Edit: I see a world where small claims can be adjudicated online, not terribly differently from how lots of customer service works, with the added advantage of an impartial mediator and a clear process of appeal.
- Arrath 2y ago
  Interesting. I think I would prefer a world where companies would do right by their customers and there be no need to take them to court, but if it was indeed accessible online then hey maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Either idea seems like starry eyed optimism, I'm afraid.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

jjmarr 2y ago

I half-agree with the above, which is that loser-pays is a good system and it's necessary to stop enabling companies. The problem with your theory is that market forces incentivize firms to take action that reduce everyone's profits/benefits so long as the action is individually profitable for the company. Which is why there are "lemon laws" on selling used cars or food regulations. The used car industry as a whole benefits when consumers are willing to pay more. Customers are willing to pay more for a used car if they think it will be high-quality. However, an ethically questionable used car salesman will try to undercut each other by offering low-quality cars that immediately break, giving all used car salesmen a bad name. Consumers now no longer want to buy used cars at all and now the only people making money are those selling a bad product. The point of legal regulation here is to enforce a quality minimum on used cars. This drives the price of used cars upwards. Salespeople get paid more, the customers get better quality, and the world is better off having reused cars that would've been scrapped. Everyone is better off. This could also be true for social media. Forcing social media to invest in better systems to ban users means that social media advertising can be worth more money. Right now, advertising marketplaces are controlled by the companies themselves. Nobody trusts companies to show ads to real users instead of bots. This drives the value of social media advertising down. While individually, it doesn't make sense to pay for customer service infrastructure to verify people's ownership of accounts, if there is a mandatory standard, all social media companies would benefit because it increases the value of their products. This is one of the roles of government regulation that can create a net economic gain.

OptionOfT 2y ago
Sidenote: car sales in general are not ethical. When you go to the dealer & talk to a salesperson, and subsequently talk to the $ guy, you will be required to sign a piece of paper stating that you cannot derive ANY claims on what the salesperson told you, except those written down on that form. And that form is empty. Also, I wish there was a nationwide requirement for warranty. Not that I have a problem with selling as-is per se, but it incentivizes used car dealers to take in every vehicle they can on trade, erase the codes, and try to sell it. Again, they can lie to your face about how well this car was maintained, how it was taken care off, etc, and you cannot derive ANY value off those quotes. I find it insane that in 2024 I cannot get a print-out of a car on how well it was maintained, and how many times it was floored on a cold engine.

noelwelsh 2y ago

I'm really annoyed everytime I go to buy groceries and I can't find any bread cut with alum and plaster of Paris, or sweets coloured with lead. Actually, I'm not. To think that everything should be mediated by markets is just typical libertarian capitalism nonsense. Reputation doesn't scale. Fixing problems with the court with much more expensive that preventing them from happening in the first place. Information and power asymmetries are real.

kerkeslager 2y ago

> Re: Walmart, the other option is to just cut the aid. People won't work if they are not able to sustain themselves (calorically) on the pay. The best way to avoid these antipatterns is to stop enabling them. This is a truly horrifying, compassionless comment. You're literally suggesting starving people. Sure, cutting these programs means eventually Walmart changes their business model. But the people who suffer during that transition aren't Walmart shareholders, who experience what, a temporary 30% loss in their share price? The people who suffer are the workers; Walmart has replaced thousands of smaller local stores which used to provide jobs, so the workers cannot necessarily find other work. Walmart has plenty of runway to play a game of chicken here: oh, you want to cut aid? Let's see if that idea lasts one or two election cycles. In the mean time workers, as you say, are "unable to sustain themselves (calorically)", i.e. starving, because their options are either continue working for Walmart for not enough pay to eat, or quit, and get no pay to eat. I mean, I agree this would cause a mass quitting at Walmart and the hundreds of other companies that employ the same strategies, but where do those workers start working? Companies as a whole can just afford to refuse to raise pay for a while in most cases and try other business models in the meantime. Even if other companies are started which outcompete Walmart by paying their workers a living wage, it will take decades for those companies to grow to the same size and provide as many jobs.

thegrimmest 2y ago
We don't have to make these changes all at once. I agree doing so would be somewhat disruptive. We can roll back the aid over a period of say 5 or 10 years, giving workers (and companies) time to figure out what to do. I agree it may not be tenable in a representative democracy, but my point is that means the democracy is too powerful and encroaches on fundamental liberty. Government should not have the power to redistribute assets in pursuit of the "general welfare", and indeed it did not until US v. Butler (1936) gave the government sweeping power to do basically anything.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > We don't have to make these changes all at once. I agree doing so would be somewhat disruptive. We can roll back the aid over a period of say 5 or 10 years, giving workers (and companies) time to figure out what to do. We don't need to give companies time to figure out what to do. We already know their solution, because it's the same playbook they've always used: change no business practices, and spend a fraction of that cost on lobbying (bribes) and propagandizing for the change to be reversed. A tiered rollout just gives them more runway to do this. And more time when workers suffer. Instead of trying to predict what will happen based on your ivory tower economic theory, try predicting what will happen based on what has happened, i.e., reality. Your opinion continues to be a horrifying, compassionless take: you openly admit it would "be somewhat disruptive", but the suffering of workers is a sacrifice you are willing to make for your pet ideology. More to the point: why would we even want to give companies time to figure out what to do? They have had plenty of time to do the right thing and they chose to do the wrong thing. I'm not for punitive justice, but I'm also not particularly concerned if the solution to the problem harms those who knowingly and intentionally caused the problem. > I agree it may not be tenable in a representative democracy, but my point is that means the democracy is too powerful and encroaches on fundamental liberty. Government should not have the power to redistribute assets in pursuit of the "general welfare", and indeed it did not until US v. Butler (1936) gave the government sweeping power to do basically anything. Fundamental liberty applies to humans, not corporations. Corporations do not have fundamental rights, period. And just as fundamentally, when government does not limit the power of corporations, corporations step into the power void, gain too much power, and take away people's rights and liberties. Being for corporate liberty is being against human liberty, it's as simple as that. Yes, I understand that the SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people: the SCOTUS is wrong. Yes, I understand that corporations are made up of people. But the actions of corporations are chosen by a small, small fraction of those people, and benefit that same small fraction of people. That small fraction of people disproportionately get to exercise any rights that are granted to a corporation, often at the expense of many more people lower in the corporate pyramid. Granting freedoms to corporations is effectively the pigs in Animal Farm saying "you're all free, but some of you are freer than others" because you're granting those rights to the decision makers in the corporation and not to the workers.