3 ms·

This is a problem so chronic across so many fields that I wish there was single term to describe it. User POV :"Wow, provider is a really shitty entity and had

This is a problem so chronic across so many fields that I wish there was single term to describe it. User POV :"Wow, provider is a really shitty entity and had no respect for my legitimate problem." Provider POV: "We get a huge number of illegitimate claims identical to legitimate ones regularly, the system would collapse if we didn't do heavy triage, the problem is the level of abuse, not a moral bankruptcy on our part." I suppose "this is why we can't have nice things" captures some of it.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
The actual problem is that Provider real POV is actually: "We already do the bare minimum required by the law and you are too insignificant to damage our reputation. It would actually cost our shareholders money to do more so please go die in silence somewhere else and stop bothering us. Replying to you costs us money too." This kind of article is actually useful because it raises the risk of actual reputational damage thus encouraging companies to do more.
rwmj 2y ago
This is just an indication that their process is wrong. (Or in this case, their entire reason to exist is wrong.)
cwillu 2y ago
“Moral bankruptcy” seems like a quite apt description of the state of affairs of being unable to afford to operate morally at a given level of scale. Scaling is not a right.
- danaris 2y ago
  > Scaling is not a right. God I wish this could be plastered in letters 1000 feet high above Silicon Valley.
account42 2y ago
In cases like this the provider is someone I don't want to have any business with in the first place. I don't care how hard reliable CAPTCHAs are to implement and as a user I shouldn't have to.
dataflow 2y ago
The problem is that this very problem also happens simultaneously in the reverse direction. i.e. people have to deal with so many awful entities screwing them over due to sheer self-interest, negligence, or even malice, that they have a hard time knowing which ones legitimately are trying their best and genuinely don't have a better solution. That's what happens when trust erodes, and why we can't have nice things. If anyone should be be more understanding and absorb the costs to appease the other, it's probably the big corp, not the little guy.
miki123211 2y ago
What users don't see is that a single good actor will make, at most, a dozen such claims in their life, while a malicious one might literally make hundreds of them a day. The scales are different, by orders of magnitude. It's not unimaginable that just 0.001% of your users (in terms of actual humans / entities physically using your service) are fraudsters, but 99% of your signup or login attempts / interactions with your service / "I'm not a fraudster, pinky swear" support claims are fraudulent.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago

The actual problem is that Provider real POV is actually: "We already do the bare minimum required by the law and you are too insignificant to damage our reputation. It would actually cost our shareholders money to do more so please go die in silence somewhere else and stop bothering us. Replying to you costs us money too." This kind of article is actually useful because it raises the risk of actual reputational damage thus encouraging companies to do more.

rwmj 2y ago

This is just an indication that their process is wrong. (Or in this case, their entire reason to exist is wrong.)

cwillu 2y ago

“Moral bankruptcy” seems like a quite apt description of the state of affairs of being unable to afford to operate morally at a given level of scale. Scaling is not a right.

danaris 2y ago
> Scaling is not a right. God I wish this could be plastered in letters 1000 feet high above Silicon Valley.

account42 2y ago

In cases like this the provider is someone I don't want to have any business with in the first place. I don't care how hard reliable CAPTCHAs are to implement and as a user I shouldn't have to.

dataflow 2y ago

The problem is that this very problem also happens simultaneously in the reverse direction. i.e. people have to deal with so many awful entities screwing them over due to sheer self-interest, negligence, or even malice, that they have a hard time knowing which ones legitimately are trying their best and genuinely don't have a better solution. That's what happens when trust erodes, and why we can't have nice things. If anyone should be be more understanding and absorb the costs to appease the other, it's probably the big corp, not the little guy.

miki123211 2y ago

What users don't see is that a single good actor will make, at most, a dozen such claims in their life, while a malicious one might literally make hundreds of them a day. The scales are different, by orders of magnitude. It's not unimaginable that just 0.001% of your users (in terms of actual humans / entities physically using your service) are fraudsters, but 99% of your signup or login attempts / interactions with your service / "I'm not a fraudster, pinky swear" support claims are fraudulent.