Live data from Hacker News

Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

engadget.com

151–160 of 314 posts

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#151
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No company has (nor should have) any mandate to "customer service" beyond what the market demands. So I take it you're against Lemon Laws or other avenues of consumer protection?

Yes! We just need better, more effective, more efficient courts, more capable of coping with the demand generated by an increasingly interconnected economy. Lemon laws are just a hack to paper over the side effects without addressing the root cause. Edit: I see a world where small claims can be adjudicated online, not terribly differently from how lots of customer service works, with the added advantage of an imparti…

Interesting. I think I would prefer a world where companies would do right by their customers and there be no need to take them to court, but if it was indeed accessible online then hey maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

Either idea seems like starry eyed optimism, I'm afraid.

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#152
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! We just need better, more effective, more efficient courts, more capable of coping with the demand generated by an increasingly interconnected economy. Lemon laws are just a hack to paper over the side effects without addressing the root cause. Edit: I see a world where small claims can be adjudicated online, not terribly differently from how lots of customer service works, with the added advantage of an imparti…

Interesting. I think I would prefer a world where companies would do right by their customers and there be no need to take them to court, but if it was indeed accessible online then hey maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Either idea seems like starry eyed optimism, I'm afraid.

[deleted]

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People won't work if they are not able to sustain themselves (calorically) on the pay. A better alternative is simply to require companies to pay a living wage. The outcome is better, because you don’t lose the safety net for those who still need it.

[flagged]

You say that like it’s a bad thing. Ultra-capitalism is no better than ultra-communism. They are both systems designed to reduce democracy and to funnel all the money into the hands of a small number of elites.

I prefer to live in a society where people can feed themselves, or get sick, or lose their jobs, without losing their house or going bankrupt - regardless of the ideology de jure.

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#154
I tolaly understand the problem. I got locked out of my account years ago and despite being all the steps I was never able to regain access.

The only thing that saved me was my chance I ended up doing some work for Facebook and as part of the induction process they fixed it for me.

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> overwhelming the publicly funded small claims court I'm guessing there's no court fees that the losing party has to pay? It would seem fair to tell the troublemaker to pay for the judge's and other court employees hours...

At least my state requires the losing party to pay court costs. Let me guess that big companies simply don't pay.

Even though it's much more expensive to lose a lawsuit over an issue than it is to resolve it through customer service, most people choose not to sue. Facebook can fulfill all of their current legal requirements by simply not showing up to any court hearings, losing by default, and paying whatever someone won. If that is cheaper than providing real customer service, they will do it. And real lawyers cost $100s/hour so if the amount FB has to pay is less than that they're losing money by showing up!

This applies to all companies, but the average Facebook user doesn't even pay for an account and are of even less value than a typical customer support line user (notably, the article says a benefit of "Facebook verified" which costs $15/month is actual support).

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I don't use Google services anymore, they've all but removed their customer support. You can't get them on the phone for anything. If your problem is that you're locked out of your paid YouTube prime account, their advice is to contact customer service by logging into your account (I can't, that's the problem). If you want to cancel the subscription, the best advice the internet has is to close your bank/…

What you described is exactly what happened to my old Google DNS account. I had a credit card issue so they locked me out of my account, but when the issue was resolved on my end, kept charging my card. They told me the exact same thing, log into your account and contact customer service. Luckily, I did not use the domain anymore, or I would have had absolutely no way to maintain it. I ended up cancelling the card an…

Right, it has to be malicious. Both Microsoft and Apple have great support IME; I can get a person on the phone or go to a store if I have a problem with any of my MS or Apple products.

I don't have experience, but others here have said Amazon has great support.

So what's up with Google?

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#157
related: AT&T / fairshake arbitration https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/business/arbitration-over...

fairshake realized that AT&T TOS had some protections against suits + mass claims, but did allow individual arbitration; and AT&T pays an arbitration fee for every case that is filed

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#158
I helped several friends and acquaintances get their accounts back when I worked for Meta. Befriending an employee is still the best way to get traction.

[I no longer work there and do not speak for the company.]

Not a single one of those friends or acquaintances used two-factor authentication or other safety features, nor did they follow basic best-practices for keeping any online account secure.

A user != a customer. I can tell without exaggeration that almost every adult on this planet with access to the Internet has a Meta account. That's well over 4 billion people. Each of those users brings in a minuscule amount of revenue by viewing ads. In exchange for the pittance, Meta gives them tools to socialize, communicate, be entertained, market their businesses, etc. that are clearly worth many thousands of dollars to some users.

Of course they want to keep users happy and recover stolen or lost accounts (who wouldn't?), but with so many, it's impossible to help more than a tiny fraction of them. Verifying identity and matching it to account is especially difficult and time-consuming. To do it for free for everyone would be suicidal. They'd have to hire 10,000+ more people just for that with close to zero ROI. The simple fact is that Meta's users value Meta more than the value those users give Meta in return, so it's not worth it.

Apart from two-factor, premium supported accounts seem like the right solution here for regular users to balance the value trade.

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#159

I helped several friends and acquaintances get their accounts back when I worked for Meta. Befriending an employee is still the best way to get traction. [I no longer work there and do not speak for the company.] Not a single one of those friends or acquaintances used two-factor authentication or other safety features, nor did they follow basic best-practices for keeping any online account secure. A user != a custome…

tools to be entertained lol

Re: Small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this appears as a way to outsource customer service to an external entity funded by a cash flow to which Meta does not need to contribute. The courts are always going to exist, Meta is always paying its lawyers, so why bother hiring extra people to staff a support line? And by making support have to go through the legal system you've already cut out 90% of the support calls you would normally take. Financially,…

No company has (nor should have) any mandate to "customer service" beyond what the market demands. Dispute resolution is what courts are for . Meta already pays taxes that fund courts. If courts are unable to keep up with demand generated by the modern digital economy, let's fix that . Making losers pay court fees would go a very long way towards solving the problem. Re: Walmart, the other option is to just cut the a…

I half-agree with the above, which is that loser-pays is a good system and it's necessary to stop enabling companies.

The problem with your theory is that market forces incentivize firms to take action that reduce everyone's profits/benefits so long as the action is individually profitable for the company. Which is why there are "lemon laws" on selling used cars or food regulations.

The used car industry as a whole benefits when consumers are willing to pay more. Customers are willing to pay more for a used car if they think it will be high-quality. However, an ethically questionable used car salesman will try to undercut each other by offering low-quality cars that immediately break, giving all used car salesmen a bad name. Consumers now no longer want to buy used cars at all and now the only people making money are those selling a bad product.

The point of legal regulation here is to enforce a quality minimum on used cars. This drives the price of used cars upwards. Salespeople get paid more, the customers get better quality, and the world is better off having reused cars that would've been scrapped. Everyone is better off.

This could also be true for social media. Forcing social media to invest in better systems to ban users means that social media advertising can be worth more money. Right now, advertising marketplaces are controlled by the companies themselves. Nobody trusts companies to show ads to real users instead of bots. This drives the value of social media advertising down.

While individually, it doesn't make sense to pay for customer service infrastructure to verify people's ownership of accounts, if there is a mandatory standard, all social media companies would benefit because it increases the value of their products.

This is one of the roles of government regulation that can create a net economic gain.

Post reply on HN