Hacker News Reader

> back when "milk" that wasn't half chalk still might have a fish in it (see famous Thoreau quote on evidence.)

This also famously happened with bread. You can read about it for example in Bill Bryson's "At Home: A Short History of Private Life"

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/712524-because-bread-was-so...

“Because bread was so important, the laws governing its purity were strict and the punishment severe. A baker who cheated his customers could be fined £10 per loaf sold, or made to do a month's hard labor in prison. For a time, transportation to Australia was seriously considered for malfeasant bakers. This was a matter of real concern for bakers because every loaf of bread loses weight in baking through evaporation, so it is easy to blunder accidentally. For that reason, bakers sometimes provided a little extra- the famous baker's dozen.”

― Bill Bryson, At Home: A Short History of Private Life

"on the beat, and Trump vowing to fire more regulators, that's what's changed. "

I don't really like to defend trumps sayings, but in this case I don't think there are government regulators needed. The company acted shitty and you took the consequences and quit and avoid this company. That's how market works. No need for regulation here.

The "only" problem with this in general today is, that most people do not understand technology at all, that's why big corporation's can get away with the shit they are doing, as there are still people using their consumer unfriendly, but shiny new products.

I doubt more government regulation would help with that.

Smarter people are required. And I do believe this is happening, it just takes some time.

In past this was how I thought, and still is to a large degree and think smarter people is the core, but I do see ways in which regulation can create real positive change. Specifically on the issue of say, how companies are allowed to market. People might be smarter if they are less brainwashed.

hm, I see it more in a way, that people are not so smart because of regulation. Like, if the state allows this to be sold, it can't be fraud. So they don't bother to check further.

And regulation s about brainwashing ... I am not sure how that could really work.

As an exercise, list everything you have bought in the last month or so; food, gas, electronics, whatever. Now list all the ways those products could be adulterated, fraudulently modified, or faked. Now list the specialized knowledge and skills you would need to detect the fraud.

Now try to get some work done while you are caveat emptoring.

why should I know everything?

There are many other experts, hackers, organizations, newspapers, etc. I can google before making a purchase.

Just like it allready is, only with more responsibility for everyone, but therefore hopefully better marketpositions for nice companys.

But google could be cheating you as well. How would you know they don't keep you in an information bubble?

because there are still information sources besides google. And so far google did not cheat on me.

And of course, no one lies on the internet.

Regulation obviously does not work if you have a corrupted and dysfunctional goverment (and law).

In any case, you can not expect individual people to just "take the consequences" of bad actors and move on.

> The company acted shitty and you took the consequences

Historically, "the consequences" have often included "you die horribly".

Sure, we can all avoid Hooker Chemical Company. (Well no, we can't, because it doesn't sell to consumers and we can't find out who consumer companies are supplied by.) But if we could, it wouldn't have saved anyone living in Love Canal. They got leukemia no matter what the market did afterwards.

I'm not being hyperbolic here. Markets work because they're iterated, voluntary transactions which gradually reveal asymmetric information. If the interaction is not iterated (e.g. fly-by-night companies), markets don't protect you. If the interaction is not voluntary (they poison your air), markets don't protect you. If the first asymmetric exchange is a disaster (you buy tainted produce and die), you never benefit from the gradual reveal of hidden information.

I'm generally a pretty staunch libertarian. But it's simply not true that this problem can be solved with a simple "you chose to buy this"; non-government solutions are vastly more complicated than that.

Erm, I think there is a major difference between those two examples.

If a digital company and me don't come along I quit contract and it is not really anybody else business nor harm, only mine if I feel treated unfair. And the companies reputation, as I will share my bad experience.

But if a company is poisoning the real world, than this is clearly a crime. And I did not say, no more police is needed.

Ah - I thought you were addressing the "bad bread" part, not just the ToS change for Hearthstone. Fair enough.

Government regulations exist to fix market failure, usually due to information asymmetry. In the old days it was milk in chalk, in the modern day it's closed source code riddled with spyware and engine firmware that cheats emissions tests. Market failure in my book.

We need more, smarter regulations, not less.

EDIT: I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to educate themselves on every technical advance. That's not possible with the complexity of technology people encounter in their everyday lives. And that's without even talking about the invisible technology we never see directly, like the software controlling our voting machines, hospital equipment, power plants, etc.

" in the modern day it's closed source code riddled with spyware and engine firmware that cheats emissions tests."

Yeah well, so the problem to me is not really missing regulations, but missing the will to use open-source.

And that is what I meant, that most people have no idea about technology.

To them it does not matter if something is open-source or not as they do not know the difference - they understand neither, it is all dark magic to them.

And of course, not everybody needs to have studied IT like we did. But I also do not understand the Linux kernel - yet I trust it. Because it is open-source and I can get in touch with the people developing it and see how it is done.

So I trust them.

And ordinary people could at least understand the same: if something is developed in the open, then other people have the chance to check it. If it is closed - much harder. Very simple. And I have no doubt, that this knowledge will get in the heads of the people. It just takes some time (and action of course) - Computers for everyone is a quite new thing ...

We've become Mexico, we cheerful pass bushel-baskets of regulations and laws we have no intention of enforcing at all; just for show. So we end up penalizing honest businessmen, should any survive.

Koch market-based ethics (see their books) really means - ignore the law, if the market allows you to cut any corner, cut it hard. That's where you end up, with third-world economic rules, and in time results. (Starting with vicious inequality.)

> Blizzard's new policy insists on a credit card and that I owe them for purchases made if they leak the card no!

This can’t hurt you if you use a credit and not a debit card. Any false charge on a credit card is not your fault, and it’s not your money. The CC company will pay for it.

A chargeback (reg E claim) is paid by the vendor not the CC company. The vendor absorbs the risk of fraud.

It depends on how you define "hurt"; while the CC company will take care of it, it's not instant - and it's no fun dealing with someone going over your credit limit on a cross-state shopping spree.

By all means, please - don't use debit cards online - but it's still not a panacea.

Also, sometimes charges are reversed via chargeback requests, and I have beaten chargeback requests because the customer claimed the CC was stolen, but I had the correct billing info.

Blizzard will claim the charge is in no way fraudulent, my proving it is in court would take years.

Can't you turn around against your bank in the case where unapproved payments would be made with your leaked card ? I mean thats a displeasant clause for sure, but I don't see its implications as gigantic as you seem to do.

Why are you blaming Trump when you yourself admit that this has been going on since the 1800s?

1980's more like, this time 'round. Trump's just the last to pile on, I agree.

Because the Trump administration has promised to do what it can to make it even harder for consumers to fight back.

Because, currently the buck stops there.

Those in charge ultimately bear the responsibility.

Not criticising leaders is the road to ruin, and senseless jingoism.

National humility trumps national pride as a useful virtue.