Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

news.ycombinator.com

161–170 of 348 posts

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#161
post #73
post #56

I agree that companies have a responsibility to listen to and address customer complaints. The problem is that a small percentage of customers create the bulk of the customer support burden. With phone support this gets even more skewed. You can't have engineers do phone support or they won't be able to get any real work done with all the interruptions. You can have engineers investigate and address all complaints th…

Let alone customers who abuse support staff: cursing them out, treating them like idiots, being racist, etc

Finding someone skilled enough to fix complex technical issues and is willing to pickup the phone each time is incredibly difficult. By the time you're skilled-up, you're done dealing with the abuses of the general public.

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#162
There needs to be a technology bill of rights, not just for people dealing with Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook, but also the myriad other technology operators which can disrupt our lives in an instant with some poorly programmed process or unanticipated edge case.

Ultimately, the OP or my non-tech savvy employee or my mother should be able to get real answers and/or help from a human being when wronged by Google, a telco, or the local bank.

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sheer cardinality of ways they mess it up is impressive. 1. Long intro message with hours, location, website intro, email address and to hang up and call 911 if it’s an emergency 2. “Our menu items have recently changed” years after changing them 3. “We are currently experiencing higher than normal call volume” 100% of the time 4. No “other” option 5. Listing options 2, 3, 4, 5 and then the most common option “1,…

I think of this sometimes like a roller coaster park where you pay a flat rate to get in and then ride as much as you want all day. The ideal scenario for the visitor is to go in and ride continuously, not waiting for anything. However, the ideal scenario for the park is for you to spend your whole day in queues, not taking up space on the rides, and not running around making the park feel "crowded". The equilibrium…

There is an important distinction between “this thing is done for a reason” and “this thing is done for a good reason.”

Even in the long term, this might look like a good thing to a CEO. However, my point is that it isn’t.

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#164
Forcing all businesses to maintain a human for the potential of interaction would be extremely expensive for them and the costs for almost every service would increase. A lot of companies would probably just hire one person and make a labyrinthine phone tree to get to that one person. Other companies would outsource it to ruby, take your info, and simply not respond.

If you want to talk to a human, file a claim in small claims court. If your problem is not big enough to file, stop using the service and look for a company that will support your needs. Don't make me pay for your poor choice.

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#165
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point here is that it’s a bad business model. I don’t mean “bad as in won’t make you money or keep the business running,” I mean “bad for society.” Hence the desire to regulate.

Regulation doesn’t make unprofitable businesses exist. If the business model is unviable with support those businesses will simply not exist or cost an amount of money that is unappealing.

Nowhere has it been shown that adding support people would make these companies unprofitable.

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet 99.99% of people who complain about not having a human to talk don't want to pay a single dollar for that human.

Supporting evidence: you could hire a virtual (human) assistant to drive the ticket email process forward for you. "Nobody" does.

I can't speak for everybody, but the main reason I don't do this is that I've done it and it created additional work rather than saving any.

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on that? How would it be different in a non-free speech country? Is there a country I can go to make someone legally disappear due to an online review they posted, I have a list. Let me know

We aren’t talking about law, we are talking about spirit. It’s perfectly legal for you to ask Google to take it down and for them to take it down. The point is, that goes against the spirit of this culture, which is that you really can’t and shouldn’t silence someone in general. Again, I ask, are they lying or do they have accurate points? This is best taken as a learning experience because treating it as a battle is…

> We aren’t talking about law, we are talking about spirit.

ah damn, one of the the philosophical free speech people that made up a standard the spot, I wrote in a related comment:

> its hard to tell which people just completely misunderstand the first amendment, and which people are talking about a "philosophical" free speech that they made up on the spot to bolster their point

so, what does that have to do with any particular country? what countries is it different? what is particular about the country you speak of?

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#168
I support a more broad approach: a public body whose inside will be jailed for life if discovered taking payments from third parties, with enough tech to appear generic Citizens to the corporate surveillance, with funds to buy things regularly, and get donated to poor thereafter.

If they found anti-user practice they have sanctioning power in the order of % of revenues, little the first time, hard the second, claiming personal executives responsibility a third breach. They not only check products but also services, software and hybrid stuff.

Selling crap is subject to little sanctions, like if you sell thing that are clearly designed to break in very little time, you sell things to elicit more money forcing mandatory services etc you'll pay so much that's simply illogical trying to.

Imposing just a phone number and a reachable human on the company side I fear is far from sufficient: these days is common arrive to a humans, but a powerless one, who can just open or "bump" a ticket. Again simple laws who take into account only one side fail for easy corruption, that's why a public and transparent, forced to be independent and only able to operate to a certain extent actor is needed. Most people is honest in a society because that's the best evolution behavior but most if far from all, so rules must be crafted on humans defects making bad behaviors disadvantageous from all side possible. It's hard, of course, but not impossible, and a real Democracy can control and block dangerous derives quick enough.

Re: Tell HN: There needs to be a “right to speak with a human”

#169

You don't have the right to tell others how to run their business. You do have the right to take your business elsewhere. In a free market people vote with their wallet and there's plenty out there that accept the zero support model with a lower price, whether they understand what they are getting or not. That's assuming they even bother to ask about support options up front.

Not to mention, this also makes me think of (paraphrasing)

you have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean others are obligated to provide you an audience

Post reply on HN