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

What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

lessannoyingcrm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#91

Post by eridius »

kkowalczyk wrote: post #69
eridius wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a really scary precedent to say that you can only use software if the software vendor's morals are compatible with your own morals. Thought experiment: If the guys running Less Annoying CRM are strong atheists (note: I have no idea what their religious beliefs are), and this post was about whether or not they'd provide support for a devoutly christian customer, what would the reaction be? Would you still think i…

As you've seen from the article, this is not "scary" in any way because most businesses will go for the money over compatibility with their moral views. Also, advocating or even practicing exclusivity is not a precedent as it has been going on for centuries, in thousands of different forms. Some of those most people disagree (e.g. there was a time a black man would not be served in many restaurants) and some of those…

It's scary precisely because software is different than physical establishments. If I frequent a restaurant, but one day they decide to impose their moral values and kick me out, I can always go somewhere else. But if I build my business on top of some vendor's platform, and then one day they decide to impose their moral values and kick me off, now my business is screwed.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#92

Post by briandear »

Eliezer wrote: post #52

Scientology certainly operates in violation of the letter of the law - framing people for murder is illegal, I'm pretty sure - they just avoid conviction by bribing local judges and so on. I don't see why you can't just tell the patent troll to go away. Are they being punished for telling you what they do? Yes, but if patent trolls have to operate furtively, not telling anyone what they do, on pain of being denied se…

Regarding the ethics of allowing a coke dealer to use the service: it doesn't matter because anyone knowingly facilitating illegal activity can be prosecuted under federal RICO statutes and they'd have the entire business seized under the seizure laws. Operating with the law as a benchmark isn't about ethics, it's about good business. While we can debate the ethics of the law, the law itself must still be followed. That's just responsible business. Discriminating based on one's beliefs is definitely an ethical issue but that can lead down a potentially dangerous slippery slope. Should Amazon (or libraries) refuse access to books to certain people because of their associations? It seems like bad business to have litmus tests beyond illegality. Can a store refuse to sell twinkies to fat people? That would be viewed by some as ethical, although potentially illegal.

The best course would be to ban hate activity on the site, but it would be impossible to know hate activity without violating privacy. And what is hate activity anyway? Who decides? The KKK seems like an obvious group, but what about the Black Panthers, certain religious groups and even so-called Civil Rights groups like La Raza. It's very difficult to determine hate activity in an objective and business-defensible way.

The law is the clearest standard rather than nebulous ethics. Besides free speech should apply to everyone, even if we disagree with the content.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#93

Post by phene »

> we’re not fans of the KKK’s messaging. But KKK rallies aren’t illegal, or at least not inherently so. On the contrary, they're protected free speech. Shut down the KKK account? Our answer: No

This is just absurd. They are not bound by the first amendment and are entirely free to make judgements about the hosted content.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#95

Post by andrewcooke »

mojowo11 wrote: post #17
andrewcooke wrote: post #8

but why can't you be arbitrary (within the confines of the law)? particularly a small company. you don't have to justify your actions - just don't work with people you don't want to. why does it have to be consistent or logical? just say "fuck em" and move on... what, in short, is so bad about being faithful to what you feel ?

You might be right. As much as telling this guy to fuck off would have felt great, though, it also felt wrong to us to inject our opinions into it. But, well, I could probably be convinced by your perspective, too -- which is why I wrote this post. I suppose one consideration would be a legal one. We're not legal experts, and for some entities, turning them away for being distasteful or what they believe -- based on…

you misread my "fuck em" - i don't for a moment think you should be rude to them: simply don't co-operate.

i'm not a legal expert either, but i am pretty sure that legislation related to discrimination is based on specific attributes (race, color, religion, sex or national origin for the us civil rights act). and being a spammer is very unlikely to be a reason for protection under such laws.

consistency is important if you're doing this enough for it to be noticed. if it's one person in the history of your firm, you could have quietly stalled and no-one would have been any the wiser. instead, you decide to support a spammer and profit from hits on your blog. from that viewpoint you don't come across as a great company, to me...

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#96

Post by Eliezer »

lmm wrote: post #86
jmathes wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think one of the questions you have to ask yourself is whether your primary responsibility to protect the interests of your real users (the non-patent trolls) or to take a stand against people you don't like. Using the phrase "primary responsibility" doesn't change the fact that helping unethical people do unethical things puts evil into the world. It sounds like you (and Less Annoying) are subconsciously reasoni…

Utilitarianism 102: having firm written rules, even subobtimal ones, can often have better consequences than evaluating each action on its merits. I've seen it recommended on this very site to avoid any hosting provider with a "morality clause" in their T&Cs. A service that will host "any legal content", while it will aid a certain proportion of unethical actions, ultimately contributes more benefit to society than o…

You know, you're right (about the dangers of morality clauses). Consider my original content 70% retracted or at least flagged for requiring modification.

Maybe you could have a list up-front of who you don't deal with (Scientology, patent trolls, KKK, etc.) and remark that anyone not on this list who signs up will be grandfathered in forever, even if their category is added later - this gives existing customers peace of mind, and tells your browsers exactly what you consider morality?

But if lots of people did this, I'm not sure the world would be a better place, now that I think about it. Pick a previous decade, and gays would've been the ones most often targeted - of course, then I could meta-boycott, but...

This is a deeper issue than my original comment acknowledged, so on further consideration, please consider it entirely retracted until I can give this more thought.

What sort of business policy should one go around advocating on a planet where most people think "morality" is about disapproving of sex acts, and so anything that strengthens the force of what other people believe to be "morality" within economic business, tends to make things that much worse? I don't know.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#97

Post by [deleted] »

lmm wrote: post #86
jmathes wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think one of the questions you have to ask yourself is whether your primary responsibility to protect the interests of your real users (the non-patent trolls) or to take a stand against people you don't like. Using the phrase "primary responsibility" doesn't change the fact that helping unethical people do unethical things puts evil into the world. It sounds like you (and Less Annoying) are subconsciously reasoni…

Utilitarianism 102: having firm written rules, even subobtimal ones, can often have better consequences than evaluating each action on its merits. I've seen it recommended on this very site to avoid any hosting provider with a "morality clause" in their T&Cs. A service that will host "any legal content", while it will aid a certain proportion of unethical actions, ultimately contributes more benefit to society than o…

[deleted]

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#98

Post by jmathes »

lmm wrote: post #86
jmathes wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think one of the questions you have to ask yourself is whether your primary responsibility to protect the interests of your real users (the non-patent trolls) or to take a stand against people you don't like. Using the phrase "primary responsibility" doesn't change the fact that helping unethical people do unethical things puts evil into the world. It sounds like you (and Less Annoying) are subconsciously reasoni…

Utilitarianism 102: having firm written rules, even subobtimal ones, can often have better consequences than evaluating each action on its merits. I've seen it recommended on this very site to avoid any hosting provider with a "morality clause" in their T&Cs. A service that will host "any legal content", while it will aid a certain proportion of unethical actions, ultimately contributes more benefit to society than o…

Fully agree. Since maybe it wasn't clear, I wasn't objecting to the approach of "let's decide what our firmly written rule is" but to the seemingly-implied rationale given in support. "Let's decide our primary responsibility" sounds like it's more concerned with responsibility than utility. Having those priorities is the thing with which I disagree.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#100

Post by mcherm »

monochromatic wrote: post #63
jeremyarussell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, hence the reason they do technically have that right, but don't expressly have that right.

Not really... it's not a right that they have. They have the ability to do it, but it's not a right that was ever granted to them, and they're breaking their oath when they do it. I have the ability to sneak into my neighbor's house and steal his things. It's implicitly built into the system where I live next door to him, and he's not always home. But I sure don't have the right to do that.

It's become a matter of semantics. All of us in the conversation understand what is meant: the jurors must disregard the Judge's instructions, but they are fully capable of doing so. Whether we call that "technically" or "expressly" is just a matter of word choice... personally, I'm happy with either term.
Post reply on HN