Hacker News Reader

Comment by girvo | Hacker News Reader

While I understand your point, I think society should treat all of this as a distinction without a difference. Herbalife et al. should not be allowed to prey on the vulnerable, regardless of if they happen to sell a “real” product or not. It’s not a real business selling a real product.

Other countries rightfully have seen it this way for some for the companies under discussion.

View on HN

I'd be fine with a new definition that made them illegal, or at least put such heavy truth-in-advertising laws on them that nobody in their right mind would bite given the real numbers you can expect. They're absolutely exploitative.

I probably made the mistake of speaking a little too specifically for the US situation, though. Here, the criteria are (modulo nuance) roughly what I said for the FTC to care.

I thought some government office made them disclose how many people made how much, but it doesn’t really do much to shut down the scams.

At some point you have to give up.

My heart agrees with you. My brain demands a way to define vulnerable in a legally and Constitutionally acceptable way.

I guess a starting step would be people with psychiatric ailments or learning disabilities. I knew a couple that had both between them and spent all their time trying desperately to survive while falling for every scheme out there. This was America in the early 90s and they were in their late 40s so surely dead by now, because nobody survives to an old age in the U.S with that kind of weakness.

At what point should the government step in and take away the right of a citizen to enter into contracts?

I had an aunt for whom this would have been (and was) the case, but she was 1 in 50K level of mentally incapable.

What about taking away the ability of a corporation to offer them contracts? I hesitate to call that a "right".

When you take away one side’s ability to enter into certain contracts, you take away the other side’s as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com