4 ms·
Well, the basic idea of it is not so bad. A business generally wants to keep their customers happy and care for their reputation, so telling a business when we’
by F3nd0 10d ago
Well, the basic idea of it is not so bad. A business generally wants to keep their customers happy and care for their reputation, so telling a business when we’re unhappy and influencing their reputation is the feedback mechanism we have at our disposal.
The important thing is how we go about it, and whether their reputation remains reflective of their actions, or we try and make it worse than it ought to be. We can’t say for certain the author of the message was going to do the latter, but it does not inspire good faith.
- sippingabonedry 10d ago> Well, the basic idea of it is not so bad. It's textbook extortion. > so telling a business when we’re unhappy and influencing their reputation is the feedback mechanism we have at our disposal. Telling a business we're going to fuck you up unless you send our friends work, even by implication, is literally extortion.
- F3nd0 10d agoI wrote my comment with the assumption that the ‘basic idea’ was intentionally making reputation worse on account of poor behaviour, and communicating that to the business owner. Of course, if you imagine the basic idea to be the extortive aspect, then it is literally extortion.
- rpdillon 10d agoThreatening to damage the reputation of the business unless the business paid their friends to redo the art. It's only not extortion if you ignore the extortative parts.
- F3nd0 10d agoI did make a distinction between ‘the basic idea’ and the rest. That implies temporarily focusing on some parts more than the others, yes.
- ratelimitsteve 10d agobut the only way they can "fuck up" this business is by influencing their reputation. no one is getting a brick through their window. this is an attempt to try to mutate basic feedback mechanisms until they're equivalent to physical violence and turn "I won't shop here and neither will my friends" into "literally extortion".
- peri-cl 10d ago> "A business generally wants to keep their customers happy and care for their reputation, so telling a business when we’re unhappy and influencing their reputation is the feedback mechanism we have at our disposal." Yes, except this case isn't about a customer—it's a disgruntled vendor (commercial artist) acting on behalf of an association of other vendors. Not (AFAICT) on behalf of real customers. A customer complaining about their needs and preferences is useful feedback. A vendor whom you have no business relationship with (and want none) is not helpful. If they criticize your business practices in public, that's certainly their right. But, if they're threatening to do that, with an attached demand of commercial services to them (or to their associates), that's something else. It's the linked demand for payment that loses them all legitimacy. (Possibly even into criminal racketeering; I'm not an expert).