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

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 348 posts

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

#201

Post by withinboredom »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #185
rmbyrro wrote: post #102

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.

> 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. Guaranteed. Would the people championing this idea be willing to pay $10/month for their Hacker News account because the company was obligated to provide real human support to everyone? Or $10/month to GitHub just to be able to have a GitHub account? Or if you plan to start a website or internet co…

I feel like this was solved decades ago with toll-numbers (vs. the 800-* toll-free numbers). Want to call? it costs $2.00 per minute.

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

#202

Post by bb123 »

jddil wrote: post #46
dforrestwilson wrote: post #18

This week we had a disgruntled employee leave a 1-star Google review of our shop. They have never been a customer... I reported it as a Conflict of Interest PER GOOGLE'S OWN STATED POLICY and it was rejected almost immediately. Google could find nothing wrong with the review. We have no recourse to escalate. No way to even interact with a human about it. It's absolutely ridiculous. I have plenty of documentation and…

Got to say the fact that you thought someone leaving a 1 star review on a service you don't own, google, was worth you escalating it to a real person tells me these companies are doing the right thing. And shaming the CEOs when you made the choice to use their product is a bit silly and you come off as entitled, not righteous. How do we or google know if he was disgruntled vs fired, how do we know if he didn't come i…

I don't think you understand the impact that negative Google reviews can have on a small business. You are totally beholden to them.

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

#203

Post by pempem »

dmd wrote: post #194
coldtea wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think its important to recognise that quite a lot of modern web based companies are running their business on the 0 cents model. That is they take the marginal cost of a customer and push it down to zero and rely on scale to make a profit from it. Well, that's their problem. There should absolutely be a "right to speak with a human", like a restaurant must pass health inspections, and other such things. If they c…

How do you define "web based company"? If I slap together a 50 line program in a few minutes and offer it on my personal domain for anyone to use, do I have to publish my phone number for anyone to call if they have a problem with it someday?

If you slap together 50 lines of code, can you attempt a valuation and get funding for it?

:shrug:

Are you 'side hustling' to make money and thus having customers?

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

#204

Post by pempem »

rmbyrro wrote: post #102
PaulKeeble wrote: post #16

I think its important to recognise that quite a lot of modern web based companies are running their business on the 0 cents model. That is they take the marginal cost of a customer and push it down to zero and rely on scale to make a profit from it. They can't add anything to their business that would scale with the number of their customers that has any real cost, computing resources even are heavily optimised for l…

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.

I would be thrilled to have it taken out of the c-suite bonuses for organizations that large. Without hesitation

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

#205

Post by rdtwo »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #185
rmbyrro wrote: post #102

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.

> 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. Guaranteed. Would the people championing this idea be willing to pay $10/month for their Hacker News account because the company was obligated to provide real human support to everyone? Or $10/month to GitHub just to be able to have a GitHub account? Or if you plan to start a website or internet co…

Probably not but if we do pay the 10$ a month i want that support

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

#206

Post by dmd »

rkangel wrote: post #198
dmd wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define "web based company"? If I slap together a 50 line program in a few minutes and offer it on my personal domain for anyone to use, do I have to publish my phone number for anyone to call if they have a problem with it someday?

I would probably use the word "service" and I specifically don't mean "web based service". If someone is providing a service (for money?) then you should have the right to speak to a human about issues with your service. That seems reasonable to me.

But people are specifically saying it doesn't have to be for money. If I've made some open source tool that people use for free, do I really need to provide phone support - also for free?

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

#208

Post by dmd »

pempem wrote: post #203
dmd wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define "web based company"? If I slap together a 50 line program in a few minutes and offer it on my personal domain for anyone to use, do I have to publish my phone number for anyone to call if they have a problem with it someday?

If you slap together 50 lines of code, can you attempt a valuation and get funding for it? :shrug: Are you 'side hustling' to make money and thus having customers?

What's a customer? I don't charge money, but neither does Google. Where is the line drawn?

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

#209

Post by pempem »

Maxburn wrote: post #158

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.

I'm not sure I understand this comment.

We do have the right to tell others how to run their businesses.

Get food poisoning at a restaurant (btw, also a low margin business) there's protocol.

Get in a taxi and it goes somewhere it shouldn't? protocol.

Hotel spying on you? or maybe not having fire safety rules? or not having running water?

We regulate where businesses go, how they operate, how big they can get and plenty more. Nearly every single limitation was paid for in misery, lost funds, or in blood.

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

#210

Post by vmception »

ironmagma wrote: post #175
vmception wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Where did I say this country is unique? Every country could be identical for all I care, that isn’t the point. The point is, here, we have the idea that you can’t shut anyone up. Maybe everywhere else they have that idea too, but again, that isn’t the point.

the adjectives and adverbs in front of 'country' suggest something 'particular' about one country or a category of countries, which is the word I used, purposefully avoiding the word 'unique'

the difference now seems to be that I avoid words that I don't mean and can't rely on

it seems like you mean to say that a country has a cultural misunderstanding of a shorthand version of the first amendment that is so pervasive that many people think they can rely on it out of context, except for people that choose to operate within reality when convenient

is that closer to the point you are trying to make?

Post reply on HN