Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Pls Fix – Hire big tech employees to appeal account suspensions

plsfix.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 423 posts

Re: Show HN: Pls Fix – Hire big tech employees to appeal account suspensions

#411

Post by Repulsion9513 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #176
Repulsion9513 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess the more ignorant ones do? I figured it was common knowledge that when something is broken policy-wise at companies, and they're clearly avoiding fixing it, it's rarely the non-management employees that are the problem. Almost always, it's a strategic decision by management to not address the issue (or sometimes they do address it, but poorly). Yikes. I'd call that ignorant myself. By supporting the "strate…

If they were torturing puppies then sure, but the context of this discussion is bad customer service. Having subpar customer service seems to be typical for corporations (and governments) in general, so no, it doesn't trigger my instinct to leave. Especially when the issue is providing customer support at scale to millions, if not billions of users (many of whom don't actually directly pay anything). I wouldn't leave…

> Especially when the issue is providing customer support at scale to millions, if not billions of users (many of whom don't actually directly pay anything).

What about those who do pay? Cause I can promise you, you don't get any better support, even if you're paying them tens or hundreds of thousands a year. Maybe if you're paying them millions.

And the context here is NOT customer support, the context is cutting people off from their friends and family because the AI was wrong.

Re: Show HN: Pls Fix – Hire big tech employees to appeal account suspensions

#412

Post by Repulsion9513 »

20240521 wrote: post #357
notjoemama wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true. Bribery is for super pacs with much higher caps. Or was it, pacs have caps but super pacs don't? I forget how those work. Point is, when you go to a meeting with especially wealthy donors that fund your campaign through super pacs, then ensure the dialog from those meetings is never made public, I think its reasonable to assume some form of bribery has occurred, if not strictly within the legal definition.

Superpacs have no caps due to 1A.

due to SCOTUS*

"1A" describes rights of people, not businesses or organizations, and doesn't mention anything about money

Re: Show HN: Pls Fix – Hire big tech employees to appeal account suspensions

#413

Post by margalabargala »

naasking wrote: post #310
margalabargala wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds like pure speculation based, once again, on the assumption that this will be misused.

Could you give an example of a large system that has ample opportunity for easy abuse, but does not have widespread abuse?

If not, why do you think this will be the first one?

Re: Show HN: Pls Fix – Hire big tech employees to appeal account suspensions

#416

Post by jasonfarnon »

leokennis wrote: post #405
jasonfarnon wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't work there but I imagine when this happens it's because the employee needs access to the resource for some legit reasons, but accessing it for illegitimate reason is what amounts to the violation. So access controls here would amount to reviewing the reasons for the access.

Solution would then be to ask for and log the reason for the access. Possibly with an approval needed by a second person. You can still lie about why you need access, but at least it is logged then.

I'm sure they do this--but the rogue employee still gets access and OP was saying access should be prevented in the first instance.

Re: Show HN: Pls Fix – Hire big tech employees to appeal account suspensions

#419

Post by AnthonyMouse »

genewitch wrote: post #404
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The former company might be unable to keep up with the 3+1 other companies on the same playing field, so may sell to one of the other four, but only the latter company in the above example may have the money available to buy. Your assumption is that companies can be destroyed but not created, which isn't true. The way prevent monopolies, then, is to make it as easy as possible to create new companies. There is no m…

i mentioned that: > A company being lucky for a few quarters even gets to spend money lobbying for preferential regulations that prevent further competitors from entering the market! and i disagree that a company can get as big as google if everyone involved was wealthcapped at $10mm. There'd be no real reason to seek ever-higher profits, especially if every company was forced to abide these rules. as an aside, isn't…

> and i disagree that a company can get as big as google if everyone involved was wealthcapped at $10mm. There'd be no real reason to seek ever-higher profits, especially if every company was forced to abide these rules.

As it is many of these companies are predominantly owned by index funds and pension funds, i.e. the retirement savings of ordinary people, with a net worth of e.g. $200,000 rather than $10,000,000. But they'd rather it be $250,000, wouldn't they? So the incentive remains.

> as an aside, isn't it weird that during the high fuel prices in the last 4 years the fuel producing companies have made record profits?

That's not weird, it's how supply and demand works. When demand is higher than supply, anyone who can provide supply makes a lot of money. That's the incentive for anyone who can to increase the amount of supply they can provide, until the price comes back down and increasing supply is no longer profitable.

But OPEC is a cartel, and cartels artificially constrain supply. This is why monopolies are bad.

Re: Show HN: Pls Fix – Hire big tech employees to appeal account suspensions

#420

Post by AnthonyMouse »

pompino wrote: post #401
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you had progressive taxation that would essentially prevent any entity from acquiring power to rival the state. We have progressive taxation. That doesn't matter because fixed costs are fixed. If it costs $30,000/year to live, someone who makes $30,000/year will accumulate no wealth even if you tax them at 0%, because all of their income is going to food and rent and utilities. Whereas someone who makes a billio…

>We have progressive taxation. In the US it stops at ~35. Lets go all the way to 100%. > Then that hundred million dollars collects interest every year going forward. The progressive capital gains taxes also need to go up to 100%. >Corporations have more money than any individual, but the largest ones are publicly traded, so that would still be the case even if no individual shareholder had a lot of wealth. Because t…

> In the US it stops at ~35. Lets go all the way to 100%.

What do you think the result of that would be? Anyone who can provide value to someone else in that tax bracket couldn't be paid for it, so they'd arrange to be compensated in some other way.

The most likely way is favors. That is not likely to reduce corruption.

> The progressive capital gains taxes also need to go up to 100%.

So now you're doing one of two things. If unrealized capital gains aren't taxed until the shares are sold (as is the case now), nobody would ever sell, because all of the money would be taken as tax. If they are, you have all the problems with trying to value a capital asset which is not being traded, and on top of that then people would establish their companies as a non-profit (since they can't keep the profits anyway) and we're back to compensation as favors.

> That is why we have monopoly laws.

But how do you enforce them once there is an incumbent monopolist using its power to corrupt the system? That is the problem already, you need some solution to it.

> The point isn't that corporations should not accumulate wealth, the point is that the state should not have a rival in terms of power.

That seems like a bad thing. Then what is the check on the state if it becomes authoritarian? All concentrated power is bad, not just corporations.

> Sure, they want regulations that build a moat, they don't want regulations that reduce their wealth. I'm talking about the latter.

They're more than willing to pay their lawyers to draft something which claims to be the latter and is actually the former. That is how the majority of such regulations are enacted. They don't call it the "reduce competition in telecommunications act" now do they?

> Yes, and campaign finance reform would reduce some of this donor/lobby culture. Fixed amount of ad-spend per candidate, no PACs, etc.

This was never really the problem. The reason politicians are beholden to Google or Apple isn't just that the company buys ads, it's that the company buys ad networks, and YouTube, and chooses which apps to evict which controls what constituents see and hear. A corporation can spend money lobbying but it can just as well spend money buying a major media outlet or social media site.

What you need to do is constrain the government from having the power to pass laws that constrain competition. Because otherwise they will. Politicians will never be angels, the best they can be is the subjects of the people instead of their rulers.

Post reply on HN