301–310 of 423 posts
> for the benefit of that other person What if I route the payment through a third party like my lawyer Mr. Cohen
When you accept money from someone, it doesn't matter who physically hands you the money, it matters who caused the money to be given to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Value != price. There is a long legal tradition of the difference, and judges tend to not look favorably on such tactics. Even if the price is less than 250, I don’t think it’s hard to argue that a long-extant social account with many followers is worth far more
"money or thing of value" here seems to refer to the bribe (in cases where the bribe is non-monetary), not the benefit that the briber got from the bribe. > gives an employee money or any thing of value
Professor Robert Kiltgaard said corruption = monopoly + discretion - transparency. He wrote this about political systems and bribery, but it also applies here. https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/05/27/klitgaards-m... Many tech companies have a monopoly on their market, infinite discretion, and zero transparency. It's a wonder nobody has thought of a "facilitating payments" startup sooner. https://en.wikipedia.…
The only way to win is not to play. Screw social media, it’s a plague on humanity.
Professor Robert Kiltgaard said corruption = monopoly + discretion - transparency. He wrote this about political systems and bribery, but it also applies here. https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/05/27/klitgaards-m... Many tech companies have a monopoly on their market, infinite discretion, and zero transparency. It's a wonder nobody has thought of a "facilitating payments" startup sooner. https://en.wikipedia.…
Seems insane. Surely every single company would fire you for doing that. If you put this in its proper term it is "corruption" and you should definitely worry about the legal implications of doing this.
I only remember because I am still trying to get into my Gmail account for which I have the username, password and recovery email.
I posted about it here multiple times. Some posters offered suggestions -- if I was in the EU, they said, I could invoke the "right to be forgotten", and Instagram would legally have to remove my account. Unfortunately, I do not live in the EU.
When Meta Verified was launched late last year with a human support feature, I paid the subscription fee and created a support ticket. They asked for screenshots and videos of the problem, but ultimately said there was nothing they could do. Stubbornly, I kept at it, and over 100 emails later they finally fixed the issue by resetting the email that was linked to my account.
My question is: why didn't mine take 5 minutes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone who genuinely deserves the suspension (e.g. posts illegal content) will use the service. They'll get their suspension lifted I don't know why you think people who deserve to be suspended would be reinstated. You act as if these people have no agency or discretion as to what accounts to reinstate.
Because there's a monetary incentive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone who genuinely deserves the suspension (e.g. posts illegal content) will use the service. They'll get their suspension lifted I don't know why you think people who deserve to be suspended would be reinstated. You act as if these people have no agency or discretion as to what accounts to reinstate.
They would be at first. "Personally knows an employee of the company" is a strong signal that a person is not a bot, and may be more likely to be a decent person, because they are capable of maintaining enough of a relationship with an employee that the employee is willing to do something for them. The employee has already been vetted as trustworthy. So that signal will apply to the first few people applying through…