491–499 of 499 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's so ridiculous to me. But the Japanese are also big on robot and virtual girlfriends. To each their own.
meanwhile you americans are into fleshlights,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a lawyer but I think in the US, you have the right to remain silent. I don't think a law can compel anyone to publish anything. Might be the first amendment.
I was thinking more along the lines of what counts as advertising vs. user feedback. Not a lawyer, so maybe it doesn't even matter. Still, I'd argue that if you are selectively removing negative reviews in order to give a better impression of a product, while giving the customer the impression that the reviews are representative of people who bought the product, you're no longer just publishing reviews. You are now e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here, also SEE. Upon renewal of the lease, I noticed they put in the contract a clause that says you are not allowed to leave negative reviews online (I guess a lot of people left negative reviews due to poor service). How can that even be legal to put something like that in the contract?
> Upon renewal of the lease, I noticed they put in the contract a clause that says you are not allowed to leave negative reviews online (I guess a lot of people left negative reviews due to poor service). How can that even be legal to put something like that in the contract? Are you really asking how non-disparagement clauses can be legal? Why wouldn't they be legal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking more along the lines of what counts as advertising vs. user feedback. Not a lawyer, so maybe it doesn't even matter. Still, I'd argue that if you are selectively removing negative reviews in order to give a better impression of a product, while giving the customer the impression that the reviews are representative of people who bought the product, you're no longer just publishing reviews. You are now e…
Tons of advertising includes only glowing reviews/testimonials and it has been going on with newspapers, television, etc. forever. I can't imagine similar selectivity being illegal on websites merely because it's presented in a way that implies (but does not explicitly say) that they're faithfully reproducing everything that has been submitted in good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think Wirecutter was useful, until I saw their recommendation for "the best bike rack" (for carrying bikes on the back of a car). They insisted that the best kind of bike rack is the type that is attached to the trunk lid using nylon straps and hooks. That's the cheapest kind, but also the worst by far, from my own experience and also just common sense. If $100 bike racks that scratch your car and have the…
FWIW, I have a nylon strap-mounted rack (name withheld to avoid accusations of ninja advertising!) which hooks onto the trunk seam. 6 hooks and it's brilliant. Much cheaper than a hitch mounted version, much more compact so I've been able to hang it in a little storage closet in the last few apartments I've lived in and goes on a wide variety of cars without any damage. Rock solid with 3 chunky mtbs on it too. I've e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Upon renewal of the lease, I noticed they put in the contract a clause that says you are not allowed to leave negative reviews online (I guess a lot of people left negative reviews due to poor service). How can that even be legal to put something like that in the contract? Are you really asking how non-disparagement clauses can be legal? Why wouldn't they be legal?
Because the law is always above an agreement. You can't put into a contract "if we kill you, we don't go to prison". I don't know how what the law is in the consumer rights area, but surely there is a degree of regulation there, hence me asking what it is if there is anything.
Sure, if there was a law against them, they'd be illegal. But why would there be a law against them?
> You can't put into a contract "if we kill you, we don't go to prison".
You could, but it would have no legal effect unless you represented the government that would be responsible for prosecuting that crime and had the authority to grant immunity for future crimes, but that's not so much a “law is above contract” thing as “contracts don't bind people, including the State, who aren't parties to the. contract” thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third-party anonymous reviews. It would have to be anonymous because Airbnb bans users for reviewing outside their platform. https://thenextweb.com/syndication/2019/02/18/how-i-got-bann...
> because Airbnb bans users for reviewing outside their platform. Wow, it get more and more evil the further I read down this thread. What a shitty, shitty companies are involved in all these shenanigans!
I met a person that rented the same horrific Airbnb I rented in Snoqualmie, WA. They were horrified too and wanted their money back. Airbnb said it was possible but they had to check with the owner. This was two years after my stay and after the host had been warned multiple times and had their superhost status stripped!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's so ridiculous to me. But the Japanese are also big on robot and virtual girlfriends. To each their own.
meanwhile you americans are into fleshlights,
But a virtual/robotic girlfriend is pathetic to me. In almost any country if you told a female you had one, they'd think that too. In fact, it would likely remove any chance you had at dating them if you wanted to. That's reality.
What I referenced earlier is a real thing in Japan. And a concern to many, including the government.
"a study by the Japanese government showed there to be 500,000 hikikomori (shut-ins) aged 16 to 39. “The initial findings before 2000 were that it was mostly young people. However, we have seen a marked increase in hikikomori amongst middle-aged and old people,” he says." [1]
For such a populated island, the Japanese are very lonely. A lot has to do with the aging population of course. Loneliness is a sad thing.
"A whole industry also has sprung up to provide company to younger customers, primarily men, who aren’t having human relationships. (A 2013 study found that 30 percent of Japanese men in their 20s and 30s had never dated.) Gatebox has developed the anime-inspired VR-companion, tailored toward younger men who, due to long work hours or other reasons, prefer the company of a virtual partner." [1]
Separately, I'll add that I find it ridiculous that a sizable percentage of Australians don't wear shoes. Almost every animal over there wants to kill you. Why do they go shoeless in public? It's not a poor country. Has to be something else. Can you provide any insight?
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/japan-loneliness-aging-robots...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but to be entirely fair, they do execute pretty well on some things where others either didn't, or still don't. I'm happy to give credit where due, but as a zero-hassle way of ordering things, between their fakes, their absurd experimentation with insufficient packaging, their sub-par regional delivery networks, their broken review system, their clamping down on independent sellers across many categories, and a…
Yes, they do execute pretty well on a lot of things, granted. However, I've had no trouble ordering things from many on-line stores/distributors which aren't Amazon and don't use Amazon. So that isn't an Amazon thing per se.
But when Prime first came around, it was utterly amazing, as were the moves to next-day and same-day in some areas. There still isn't a one-stop place where I can buy baby wipes and coil packs on the same account, under the same membership plan, for free rapid delivery. That will take a while for someone to match.