Live data from Hacker News

MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

ftc.gov

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Possibly, but this government action could automatically trigger unemployment benefits... I like this in a perfect world, but I think in reality it causes too much disruption, and not a type that's beneficial for consumers in the short run. Normally that doesn't matter, but sometimes it does. If AT&T is wiped out tomorrow, that's a lot of people losing their phone and/or internet service all of a sudden, and for ma…

I feel like if this possibility existed, though, the market would adjust to the risk. Stocks for "innovative" companies wouldn't spike as high because the risk we find out how the sausage is made is higher. Individual and outside stock owners would understand that risk going in. The Walmart problem I definitely understand, I've seen small towns essentially replaced by Walmarts. It's possible in that case we could emp…

> It's possible in that case we could employ another form of corporate execution: Nationalization. Perhaps in a short-term form where the government oversaw the process of spinning down the business gradually.

Actually, that might be a good middle ground, as long as there were still provisions to try to claw back any severance to execs. I'm not sure I trust all civil servants to be quite tenacious enough when it doesn't affect their own prospects.

There would also have to be provisions that required it be defunct within a certain time frame. Otherwise I'd be afraid it would be repurposed as a tool to nationalize companies without closure that avoided the discussion and vote as to whether that's a good idea by using possibly fabricated charges. That's a powerful tool to have with bad incentives in place if the government can gain from taking over the companies.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#162

That's amazing. Matt Levine covered it in his column today as well--haven't had time to read it yet, but it's probably good as usual https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-08/moviep...

I suspect you're downvoted for recommending something you didn't read, but yes, it is very good: > If you sell $20 worth of movie tickets for $10, people will sign up, you will have rapid user growth and you can probably get someone to think that that’s valuable, even though in fact every user that you add costs you $10. > But — unlike most of the “MoviePass economy” — MoviePass was not actually a venture-funded star…

I suspect a lot a corps sub to a similar model:

Make it not-obvious when something is billed, and make sure never to tip the customer off (e.g. by sending a monthly invoice). More than one company made it very easy to activate non-obvious reoccurring payments, and then communicate nothing wrt to the fact.

On that note: Fuck you NowTV.

also non too happy with Paperspace.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If corps are people, maybe they should receive jail sentences as such - and then their executives & beneficial owners can carry them out based on liability. A CEO that takes full control and makes a one-man-shop would therefore be fully liable for any sentence received, and can only avoid this be sharing control.

So if I were to own 1 share of $AMZN, I’d be criminally liable for anything the corporation does? Would I do 10 minutes in jail or something?

I thought a beneficial owner needs to have a certain % share or voting rights? Maybe I'm wrong about that.

What I mean is, anyone with enough skin in the game to have ultimate control. Also, I wouldn't assign sentences based on % ownership/compensation, but rather on control-based blame.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simplistic. A poor person is not usually trusted, so their thefts are often more egregious.

I disagree with the characterization that MoviePass’ theft is less egregious than a poor person’s theft, such as of a physical item. MoviePass’ theft contributes to a weakening of trust amongst everyone in society, which is a much more difficult problem to address than theft of physical goods. Not that society should be lenient on either.

If I steal an item I deprive a person of that item. But the manner in which it is stolen can also cause damage, e.g. breaking and entering. People in positions of trust are able to steal with minimal damage caused by the method of theft itself.

> a weakening of trust amongst everyone in society

That's a very vague accusation, and can apply to nearly anything immoral. MP should return any money due, have it's credit score damaged, and punished for wilful fraud - but I wouldn't compare it to violent theft, or B&E.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#165
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are referring to enforcing laws on just a certain subset of society. Or enforcing a certain subset of laws on all society. And it's not just the "bigbiz-friendly" reds, it's also the blues with their "lets not punish non-violent crime". The fact is laws in the US (and elsewhere) are written, but unevenly enforced, as such what remains is quibbling over priority. I want to see more punishments for white collar…

Less leniency? "Blue-collar crime" in the US carries some of the most draconian penalties of any developed nation.

Some of, as in, cherry-picked tails. It has some unreasonably selectively-lenient places too, Just ask Seattle.

You also have to either take liberties with either "developed", or with "draconian", given some of the Asian and middle-eastern developed nations.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are referring to enforcing laws on just a certain subset of society. Or enforcing a certain subset of laws on all society. And it's not just the "bigbiz-friendly" reds, it's also the blues with their "lets not punish non-violent crime". The fact is laws in the US (and elsewhere) are written, but unevenly enforced, as such what remains is quibbling over priority. I want to see more punishments for white collar…

The difference being "the blues" have never pretended to be the party of law and order. Because, as you noted, the "bigbiz-friendly reds" do not actually support law and order either, the term "law and order" is in reality a dogwhistle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

> the term "law and order" is in reality a dogwhistle

funny that you brought it up then. You also provided a WP article to define "dog whistle", but nothing supporting "reds do not actually support law and order" which seems the crux of you argument.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually seems like a great idea. Not 10 minutes of jail time, but some form of liability. If orgs are incentivized to increase shareholder value, and those shareholders face no liability for wrongdoing done to increase their assets worth, then the incentives are out of whack. I don't know what kinds of liability makes sense, but some form seems like a great idea. If you own one share of amazon, and it gets some…

Make it actual jail time, and for the company itself. No monetary flow, no work being done, no contracts honored, restricted and slow (if any) access to assets, etc. Would it be traumatic? For sure. Potentially "life-ruining" for the company and the people close to it? Sure. Just like jail and prison are for regular people.

You would almost certainly destroy the jobs of innocent workers who did not even know the crime was taking place. That is punishing innocent people along side with the guilty.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I were to own 1 share of $AMZN, I’d be criminally liable for anything the corporation does? Would I do 10 minutes in jail or something?

Clearly this is meant to be silly but if we take it seriously - Why shouldn't those who stand to benefit from ill-gotten gains be those who suffer the pain when the company breaks the law? At least in a proportional way? If, for example, a felony conviction of a company for fraud incurred a penalty of 10% of the value of the company stock for all stakeholders it would align market price with shadiness of company exec…

Because while benefit and control are closely correlated, it's sometimes (purposefully) the case that you can have benefit, without control (or oversight).

> a felony conviction of a company for fraud incurred a penalty of 10% of the value of the company stock

Doesn't this sort of happen anyway? How would you prevent it increasing again; are you literally collecting a fee from stockholders (like a kind of anti-dividend)?

> it would align market price with shadiness of company executives

Then corps would just invest more in opaqueness and deniability (which they already do now). Corporations are known for being all PR public face. Plus, it would be easier to tank competition with slander and gossip - making investors even more scandal adverse (but not necessarily more ethically aligned)

> make some very powerful people very interested in ensuring that ethical leadership was in place

Or that there's an easy scapegoat lined up.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but any business can survive indefinitely if they're given unlimited funding with no expectation of returns. In your opinion, what's the point of being the main funnel to theaters if you're losing money hand over fist to do so? What was the plan for profitability? Was the goal to somehow strong arm movie theaters into discounted pricing? Why would theaters agree to that when there's no benefit for them to do so…

> The only way their business model can work is if the majority of customers sign up and never use it, which is a very weird thing for a business to depend on, IMO. This is basically how gyms are profitable.

Most traditional gyms also have very high up front costs and extremely low unit costs, so the benefit from scale. You could go every day and they're still not really losing money on you (I don't think you can do $50 of wesr and tear every month).

Of course there's a limit to how many daily active users one gym can service and it's better for them if they have lots of paying, inactive users. But at no point does a user's activity cost the gym money.

Re: MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data

#170
post #15

It appears the MoviePass master plan for world domination was inspired by the underpants gnomes of South Park[a]: Step 1. Charge customers $10/month for unlimited passes to movie theaters Step 2. Change passwords to prevent customers from getting their passes Step 3. ??? -- [a] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

Matt Levine's summary in his current newsletter is this: "So at some point the company looked for ways to make this insane business model work, and it found one. It’s pretty simple: What if MoviePass collected your $10 each month and then, when you asked it for movie tickets, it ignored you? Then it could keep collecting your $10 a month without spending money on tickets. Eventually you’d get annoyed by not getting w…

Surely some enterprising state AG or class action attorneys could take this up, no?
Post reply on HN