4 ms·

The last time I checked my ethics and fundamental laws, the burden of the proof was on the accuser, and the doubt was with the defendant. That said, US busines

The last time I checked my ethics and fundamental laws, the burden of the proof was on the accuser, and the doubt was with the defendant. That said, US business customs are hard to grasp for me. The only thing that is certain nowadays is that for everything promised in the advertisement material there is a mangled TOS clause for the company to avoid delivering it.

Guvante 13y ago
That is because while it is easy to get your money back for most transactions if there is a disagreement, wide range legal battles are a much bigger threat. Heck if you don't have the right TOS you could get sued by someone who never purchased from you in a court on the other side of the country.
rogerbinns 13y ago
> The last time I checked my ethics and fundamental laws, the burden of the proof was on the accuser, and the doubt was with the defendant That is the case when there is punishment available, and both parties are acting in good faith. When the defendant is a "spammer" then there isn't really any punishment available: eg suing them would be extremely expensive and unlikely to succeed for logistical reasons. And a spammer isn't acting in good faith - they are poisoning the well. If you tell them exactly how your "poison" detector found what they were doing, then you've just told them how to work around it so the arms race escalates with the spammer getting a head start.
- nraynaud 13y ago
  This is close to the "terrorist argument", the idea that some kind of actions warrant the suspension of due process. Holding strongly to your values is holding due process in the face of exceptional circumstances. Otherwise you're just getting down to your enemy's level, hence not doing better that spammers. Spammers clog the pipes, drown relevant information under irrelevant one and hinder the free-flowing business of innocents, so we are creating procedures that clog the pipes, suck people's focus away and hinder the free-flowing business of innocents. And that get people used to arbitrary decisions and based on no due process.
  - rogerbinns 13y ago
    While there are similarities to the "terrorist argument", note that punishment/justice is available in that case. Terrorists are also extremely rare.
illuminate 13y ago
"The last time I checked my ethics and fundamental laws, the burden of the proof was on the accuser, and the doubt was with the defendant." You're confusing business policy for law.
- nraynaud 13y ago
  these are general principles, it's not mandatory to apply them. But not applying them prevents you from claiming to belong to some categories, like "ethical" (or "democratic" if you are a country). But it's perfectly legal to be a business douche, just don't claim otherwise. In that case, I'm not sure being a business douche when trying to appeal to hipsters is a consistent position.

Guvante 13y ago

That is because while it is easy to get your money back for most transactions if there is a disagreement, wide range legal battles are a much bigger threat. Heck if you don't have the right TOS you could get sued by someone who never purchased from you in a court on the other side of the country.

rogerbinns 13y ago

> The last time I checked my ethics and fundamental laws, the burden of the proof was on the accuser, and the doubt was with the defendant That is the case when there is punishment available, and both parties are acting in good faith. When the defendant is a "spammer" then there isn't really any punishment available: eg suing them would be extremely expensive and unlikely to succeed for logistical reasons. And a spammer isn't acting in good faith - they are poisoning the well. If you tell them exactly how your "poison" detector found what they were doing, then you've just told them how to work around it so the arms race escalates with the spammer getting a head start.

nraynaud 13y ago
This is close to the "terrorist argument", the idea that some kind of actions warrant the suspension of due process. Holding strongly to your values is holding due process in the face of exceptional circumstances. Otherwise you're just getting down to your enemy's level, hence not doing better that spammers. Spammers clog the pipes, drown relevant information under irrelevant one and hinder the free-flowing business of innocents, so we are creating procedures that clog the pipes, suck people's focus away and hinder the free-flowing business of innocents. And that get people used to arbitrary decisions and based on no due process.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  While there are similarities to the "terrorist argument", note that punishment/justice is available in that case. Terrorists are also extremely rare.

illuminate 13y ago

"The last time I checked my ethics and fundamental laws, the burden of the proof was on the accuser, and the doubt was with the defendant." You're confusing business policy for law.

nraynaud 13y ago
these are general principles, it's not mandatory to apply them. But not applying them prevents you from claiming to belong to some categories, like "ethical" (or "democratic" if you are a country). But it's perfectly legal to be a business douche, just don't claim otherwise. In that case, I'm not sure being a business douche when trying to appeal to hipsters is a consistent position.