Live data from Hacker News

Calling Their Bluff

anguscheng.com

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In principle yeah, it’s an abuse of charge back. In practice, Visa, MC, and Amex will just refund you without even asking any question.

I wonder if that's an American thing, every time I tried to do a chargeback here in the UK on a credit card my bank said they have to investigate first, give the seller an opportunity to respond, and only if that fails they will refund me after 60 days. While everything I see online suggests that Americans can pretty much do an at-will chargeback for any reason with instantaneous effect?

Yeah, pretty much.

I used to work for an online retailer that sold high-ticket machinery parts. It wasn’t uncommon for us to face chargebacks on orders worth around $20,000. Eventually, we had to get chargeback insurance, because the only way to contest a chargeback was through a mercantile court.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#72
post #36

You think this is bad? Try getting visa for Europe within the UK as a citizen of a 3rd world country. The official process is through a service such as VFS, which is the most painful experience I've had with any sort of service. There are very few appointments, all of which are blocked out by 3rd party bots, which means you need to pay a 3rd party twice as much to get any appointment. The VFS website is riddled with…

Going through VFS seems like going through one of those expensive third parties instead of direct. And each EU country has a different visa service AFAIK, so the procedure will in fact vary depending on where you are going. (not saying the experience is not horrible).

Companies like VFS are basically what the embassies have outsourced work to

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure how Google can't be held responsible for this. They're literally advertising scams. They're taking money for putting up an ad for a scam site. The thing I don't understand is why people keep expecting them to. Who even wants Google to be the police? To actually act as a deterrent you need the ability to impose penalties, and for that you need the actual police. All Google can do is close their account,…

I don't understand your position at all (and I don't mean this aggressively, I just can't get myself into a position of understanding). From my current perspective you seem to be absolving Google of any responsibility for, literally, their product. My reasoning is: Google have created an advertising platform. It is their raison d'etre; their entire millions per hour profit engine. But they only built the easy, profit…

> Google have created an advertising platform. It is their raison d'etre; their entire millions per hour profit engine. But they only built the easy, profitable half because there were / are no regulations to enforce the responsible, difficult half.

Baked into this is the assumption that the "responsible, difficult half" is something that they, rather than law enforcement, should be doing to begin with. Which they can't do effectively because they don't have the ability to impose significant penalties and we certainly don't want to give them that.

Consider how this is even supposed to work. There is often no conclusive way to tell ex ante whether some website is a scam; the premise of them is to look like a real site. Google doesn't know if it's a scammer or some third party contractor who has be commissioned by the actual entity to set up a new site, and real sites are often full of bad UI choices and weird bugs, or open up to nothing more than a login page which the ad network has no credentials to get past.

The way this works with actual law enforcement is that someone suspects a site of being a scam, or a victim files a police report, and then officers investigate. They spend significant resources to figure out if it's actually a scam or just e.g. a competitor trying to have their competition removed from visibility. They have special powers to conduct searches with probable cause. And then if it is a scam, they arrest the scammers, and if it's a false report, they charge that person for filing a false police report, which are necessary in order to provide a deterrent and prevent both of those misbehaviors from proliferating.

Otherwise you get untold numbers of false reports from people trying to grief their rivals, it takes just as much work to do a thorough investigation for each one, and then even if you catch the actual scammers, they just immediately reappear under a different name.

So then they get zillions of reports, many of them fraudulent, and you're proposing to put them in jail if they ever fail to do something they there is no apparent way for them to consistently do.

> I would be supportive of legislation that outright banned advertising with Google until they were able to provably clean up their act; if their product was market-ready.

Consider how this would apply to anything other than advertising. Some bank robbers buy Halloween masks to hide their faces. Drug dealers sell drugs over the internet and a normal mail/package carrier delivers the packages. A hitman rides the bus on the way to a hit. These are felonies! But we don't expect UPS to cut open everyone's packages or the bus driver to strip search every passenger to check for a vial of polonium, and punish them if they ever fail, because that isn't their job. They're not the police.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your position at all (and I don't mean this aggressively, I just can't get myself into a position of understanding). From my current perspective you seem to be absolving Google of any responsibility for, literally, their product. My reasoning is: Google have created an advertising platform. It is their raison d'etre; their entire millions per hour profit engine. But they only built the easy, profit…

> Google have created an advertising platform. It is their raison d'etre; their entire millions per hour profit engine. But they only built the easy, profitable half because there were / are no regulations to enforce the responsible, difficult half. Baked into this is the assumption that the "responsible, difficult half" is something that they, rather than law enforcement, should be doing to begin with. Which they ca…

I understand your point a lot better now, thank you. And I like the 'public cars / roads' example and have possibly used it myself in discussions about cryptography and government backdoors etc.

Respectfully, however, I still disagree in this case, although I'm struggling how to articulate why - beyond admitting it could just be my bias against advertising.

My best attempt at articulation is:

Google have built a private road over the top of the public road, that is then spilling sewage and toxic materials onto the public road. Google's private road purely serves to profit Google. There's no public good it is serving, not like a public road or electricity infrastructure.

In writing that, yes, it's a government policy / legislation / regulation failure. But also, Google should be doing better. However, as WorldMaker said above, their brand seems somewhat confusingly, unaffected, so Google has incentive to do better than bottom-of-the-barrel.

As such I can't lay no blame, or anything less than majority blame, at Google's feet. Yes, government's around the world should be doing better at containing the spilling of toxic waste into public spaces that Google both facilitates and turns a blind eye to. Google are too profitable to fail since they can buy the continued regulation vacuum.

I'm not sure how far that went off the rails, I may have just continued ranting a bit there.

Thank you for your replies, though, I do see it from a slightly different angle.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#75
post #21
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many countries where just having a standard-ish license with English is perfectly fine. I think last time we had a thread on this topic someone mentioned a few countries where that wasn't true but most of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, (edit: UK), and a bunch of other countries will just take your local plastic license as long as it has English on it.

I have never driven a car outside of my own country, and I always wondered how they even allow you to drive a car without getting re-trained in a country where the driving system is so different than where you obtained your license (I'm looking at you, Commonwealth countries). Isn't it difficult to adapt to left-side driving while having used to right-side? It surely needs a little bit of adapting as a pedestrian.

Contrary to the sibling commenters, I found this pretty tricky to do; I was always too close to the curb or the lane marker, I lost my natural sense of where my car was positioned on the road. I have the same general surprise that you can just use a US license to drive in Europe --- but you can. The IDP seems pretty silly, especially knowing what little it takes to pick one up.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#76
post #21
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many countries where just having a standard-ish license with English is perfectly fine. I think last time we had a thread on this topic someone mentioned a few countries where that wasn't true but most of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, (edit: UK), and a bunch of other countries will just take your local plastic license as long as it has English on it.

I have never driven a car outside of my own country, and I always wondered how they even allow you to drive a car without getting re-trained in a country where the driving system is so different than where you obtained your license (I'm looking at you, Commonwealth countries). Isn't it difficult to adapt to left-side driving while having used to right-side? It surely needs a little bit of adapting as a pedestrian.

I've driven in many countries including some pretty crazy ones and ones that drive on the wrong side of the road. You adjust/adapt ;) Every now and then though I still turned on the windshield wipers instead of signalling... And when the roads were completely empty you sometimes don't think and almost turn into the wrong lane... And roundabouts are also fun, like driving in Paris with their crazy multi-lane roundabouts.

The funny thing is e.g. in Canada, if you move there from certain countries, you can drive for 6 months on your foreign license, but then you have to take a road test to get a Canadian license!

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#77
post #7
post #5

It's an excessively common scam nowadays that everybody is requiring an eVisa or electronic travel notice. Fun story: Once I was traveling to a country X that I was familiar enough with to know that thir governmental services web sites were awfully designed. We're talking about web design that would easily put Geocities to shame. They had recently introduced an eVisa scheme that I have to complete. Out of tirednes an…

I hear about this repeatedly with South Korea - just googled and sure enough the first result is a sponsored scam site.

South Korean internet is dysfunctional enough that it's possible that Google is not showing the correct site at the top because the government site's designer helpfully decided to make the site "secure" by adding to robots.txt:

    User-agent: *
    Disallow: /
Source: Worked at Google Korea years ago. Back then, those things were common, and were commonly accepted as a solution to the problem "All your user's profiles are available in plain text, open to public, and searchable from Google!"

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#78
post #76
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never driven a car outside of my own country, and I always wondered how they even allow you to drive a car without getting re-trained in a country where the driving system is so different than where you obtained your license (I'm looking at you, Commonwealth countries). Isn't it difficult to adapt to left-side driving while having used to right-side? It surely needs a little bit of adapting as a pedestrian.

I've driven in many countries including some pretty crazy ones and ones that drive on the wrong side of the road. You adjust/adapt ;) Every now and then though I still turned on the windshield wipers instead of signalling... And when the roads were completely empty you sometimes don't think and almost turn into the wrong lane... And roundabouts are also fun, like driving in Paris with their crazy multi-lane roundabou…

> The funny thing is e.g. in Canada, if you move there from certain countries, you can drive for 6 months on your foreign license, but then you have to take a road test to get a Canadian license!

That's pretty normal, a lot of countries do something similar. They want to permit tourists and people on temporary work assignments to drive, but if you're actually moving to Canada for the long term they expect you to take a proper test.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#79
post #75
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never driven a car outside of my own country, and I always wondered how they even allow you to drive a car without getting re-trained in a country where the driving system is so different than where you obtained your license (I'm looking at you, Commonwealth countries). Isn't it difficult to adapt to left-side driving while having used to right-side? It surely needs a little bit of adapting as a pedestrian.

Contrary to the sibling commenters, I found this pretty tricky to do; I was always too close to the curb or the lane marker, I lost my natural sense of where my car was positioned on the road. I have the same general surprise that you can just use a US license to drive in Europe --- but you can. The IDP seems pretty silly, especially knowing what little it takes to pick one up.

You could certainly question the wisdom of allowing short-term foreign visitors to drive on their foreign licenses, but taking that policy decision as a given the IDP is a reasonable implementation of it (even if I suspect its main function is to attach a fraud penalty to the "Prawo Jazdy" wheeze). Maybe something akin to the machine-readable passport code would be an improvement, but considering how long the likes of Real ID adoption have taken and that the IDP system isn't particularly broken, I can see why that wouldn't be prioritised.

Re: Calling Their Bluff

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how Google can't be held responsible for this. They're literally advertising scams. They're taking money for putting up an ad for a scam site. I don't know how there is an excuse for this that's acceptable to any authority. It's their own platform that they seem unable to control. Take some responsibility Google, you are profiting by facilitating evil (even moreso than by regular advertising).

> I'm not sure how Google can't be held responsible for this. They're literally advertising scams. They're taking money for putting up an ad for a scam site. The thing I don't understand is why people keep expecting them to. Who even wants Google to be the police? To actually act as a deterrent you need the ability to impose penalties, and for that you need the actual police. All Google can do is close their account,…

Ok, so, let’s reframe this:

How would you feel about your local tv station(as if that was a thing anymore) running an ad for senior citizens to invest in free energy generators to reduce their electricity bills?

There are so many blatant scams on Google’s platform that it is simply inexcusable. They are structurally unable to solve it because they have built a business out of being structurally unable to solve it.

That’s like saying that a wildly unsafe amusement park that allows just anyone to come in and set up whatever they want and charge for it is “structurally unable to protect their customers from harm” should just be allowed to keep throwing kids down a cliff in potato sacks just because someone figured out how to make money doing it.

There is no way for me to legally penalize some company in Croatia trying to trick people into paying 600 dollars for access to “free energy from the ground that they can sell to their neighbors”.

In the age of LLMs there is no way you can tell me that they can’t detect these kinds of scam advertisements , or that they can’t detect that country.gov.it.me isn’t probably not an official government site.

If they can’t, they should be put out of business, because they are a public nuisance at best.

They don’t do anything about it because they make money from having no ethical standards for the businesses they promote. No normal business is allowed to operate with a reckless disregard for the harms that they create.

Post reply on HN