Facinating really, how the Facebook Execs knew their practices were questionable if not outright predatory, (friendly fraud), their employees recognized the problem, proposed solutions which were dismissed, and yet, so many posters here apparently see no issue.
Weird.
They see other issues that matter more to them. Like irresponsible parents...
Which admitably does factor into the matter, Even if Facebook did encourage shady one button token purchases.
They are applying their "Fox News Filters" and assuming the issue lies solely with a button pushing root cause like "irresponsible parenting" when in fact it goes much deeper than just this.
Whatever, it's the world we live in now, critical thinking is lost.
I dont agree Kyleran .. it does stop with "Responsible Parenting" and looking after your own financial responsibilities .. If you are doing that .. This ends right there .. ( and im referencing this FB event ) of course even a very responsible and mindful person can be ID fraud .. but that is a different animal ..
This can be avoided and was by Responsible Parents ..
Ive raised 3 kids , none of them would spend a dime without asking me .. My 7 year old played that Angry Birds and many I Pad games and Fortnite .. But he knows and asks me every Single time he wants to purchase something ...
The problem is that the way Facebook set it up, people didn't realize that they were spending money. That's what the entire scandal is about. If it had been clearly displayed as "this will cost you $5; are you sure you want to confirm this purchase?", then there wouldn't be a scandal here.
Facinating really, how the Facebook Execs knew their practices were questionable if not outright predatory, (friendly fraud), their employees recognized the problem, proposed solutions which were dismissed, and yet, so many posters here apparently see no issue.
Weird.
They see other issues that matter more to them. Like irresponsible parents...
Which admitably does factor into the matter, Even if Facebook did encourage shady one button token purchases.
They are applying their "Fox News Filters" and assuming the issue lies solely with a button pushing root cause like "irresponsible parenting" when in fact it goes much deeper than just this.
Whatever, it's the world we live in now, critical thinking is lost.
I dont agree Kyleran .. it does stop with "Responsible Parenting" and looking after your own financial responsibilities .. If you are doing that .. This ends right there .. ( and im referencing this FB event ) of course even a very responsible and mindful person can be ID fraud .. but that is a different animal ..
This can be avoided and was by Responsible Parents ..
Ive raised 3 kids , none of them would spend a dime without asking me .. My 7 year old played that Angry Birds and many I Pad games and Fortnite .. But he knows and asks me every Single time he wants to purchase something ...
The problem is that the way Facebook set it up, people didn't realize that they were spending money. That's what the entire scandal is about. If it had been clearly displayed as "this will cost you $5; are you sure you want to confirm this purchase?", then there wouldn't be a scandal here.
If you didnt realize , that should not get past you for than 1 billing cycle .. Still the parents fault at that point ...The charges still appeared on the Bills
Facinating really, how the Facebook Execs knew their practices were questionable if not outright predatory, (friendly fraud), their employees recognized the problem, proposed solutions which were dismissed, and yet, so many posters here apparently see no issue.
Weird.
They see other issues that matter more to them. Like irresponsible parents...
Which admitably does factor into the matter, Even if Facebook did encourage shady one button token purchases.
They are applying their "Fox News Filters" and assuming the issue lies solely with a button pushing root cause like "irresponsible parenting" when in fact it goes much deeper than just this.
Whatever, it's the world we live in now, critical thinking is lost.
I dont agree Kyleran .. it does stop with "Responsible Parenting" and looking after your own financial responsibilities .. If you are doing that .. This ends right there .. ( and im referencing this FB event ) of course even a very responsible and mindful person can be ID fraud .. but that is a different animal ..
This can be avoided and was by Responsible Parents ..
Ive raised 3 kids , none of them would spend a dime without asking me .. My 7 year old played that Angry Birds and many I Pad games and Fortnite .. But he knows and asks me every Single time he wants to purchase something ...
The problem is that the way Facebook set it up, people didn't realize that they were spending money. That's what the entire scandal is about. If it had been clearly displayed as "this will cost you $5; are you sure you want to confirm this purchase?", then there wouldn't be a scandal here.
If you didnt realize , that should not get past you for than 1 billing cycle .. Still the parents fault at that point ...The charges still appeared on the Bills
Putting fraudulent charges on credit cards is still a scandal even if people can get the charges reversed by disputing them. People shouldn't have to go through that fuss.
Quizzical said: ... If it had been clearly displayed as "this will cost you $5; are you sure you want to confirm this purchase?", then there wouldn't be a scandal here.
You know that's never going to happen, lol
One of the cornerstones of mobile games and Cash Shop design is to disguise the fact that real money is involved, as far as possible !
That's why there's tokens/coins/gems to buy and spend. The LAST thing you want to do is to constantly remind the player that they're spending real cash, because that would put a serious damper on their impulse spending...
That's why the larger bundles of tokens often come with significant "discounts" and "extra value". The fewer times you need to dip into the player's RL wallet, the more they'll forget that those tokens have a real cash value.
There's an example quoted in that article about a 7-year old that racked up a huge CC bill because he kept clicking a button that granted him certain "special powers" on demand.
That button will never carry a warning, because the player isn't spending real money, they're spending tokens !
And somewhere in a sub-sub menu of the game Settings, there will be a tickbox that says "Automatically top-up tokens ?". Chances are that box is ticked by default at game installation...
It may be manipulative, exploitative, slimy, etc., but it's perfectly legal under current law ! The box is ticked, therefore the customer consented...
Quizzical said: ... If it had been clearly displayed as "this will cost you $5; are you sure you want to confirm this purchase?", then there wouldn't be a scandal here.
You know that's never going to happen, lol
One of the cornerstones of mobile games and Cash Shop design is to disguise the fact that real money is involved, as far as possible !
That's why there's tokens/coins/gems to buy and spend. The LAST thing you want to do is to constantly remind the player that they're spending real cash, because that would put a serious damper on their impulse spending...
That's why the larger bundles of tokens often come with significant "discounts" and "extra value". The fewer times you need to dip into the player's RL wallet, the more they'll forget that those tokens have a real cash value.
Why can't it happen? I can't think of a time that I've ever made an online purchase that didn't give a detailed list of what you were buying and ask for confirmation at the very end. That applies not just to other categories like food, clothing, or computer hardware, but also to games I've bought. It even applies to microtransactions within games.
I'll grant that I've never played any microtransaction-based games on Facebook or a cell phone, but if analogous things on a PC can request confirmation, why can't Facebook?
Quizzical said: ... If it had been clearly displayed as "this will cost you $5; are you sure you want to confirm this purchase?", then there wouldn't be a scandal here.
You know that's never going to happen, lol
One of the cornerstones of mobile games and Cash Shop design is to disguise the fact that real money is involved, as far as possible !
That's why there's tokens/coins/gems to buy and spend. The LAST thing you want to do is to constantly remind the player that they're spending real cash, because that would put a serious damper on their impulse spending...
That's why the larger bundles of tokens often come with significant "discounts" and "extra value". The fewer times you need to dip into the player's RL wallet, the more they'll forget that those tokens have a real cash value.
Why can't it happen? I can't think of a time that I've ever made an online purchase that didn't give a detailed list of what you were buying and ask for confirmation at the very end. That applies not just to other categories like food, clothing, or computer hardware, but also to games I've bought. It even applies to microtransactions within games.
I'll grant that I've never played any microtransaction-based games on Facebook or a cell phone, but if analogous things on a PC can request confirmation, why can't Facebook?
To answer your question succinctly and cynically: simply because they're not required to.
Facinating really, how the Facebook Execs knew their practices were questionable if not outright predatory, (friendly fraud), their employees recognized the problem, proposed solutions which were dismissed, and yet, so many posters here apparently see no issue.
Weird.
They see other issues that matter more to them. Like irresponsible parents...
Which admitably does factor into the matter, Even if Facebook did encourage shady one button token purchases.
They are applying their "Fox News Filters" and assuming the issue lies solely with a button pushing root cause like "irresponsible parenting" when in fact it goes much deeper than just this.
Whatever, it's the world we live in now, critical thinking is lost.
I dont agree Kyleran .. it does stop with "Responsible Parenting" and looking after your own financial responsibilities .. If you are doing that .. This ends right there .. ( and im referencing this FB event ) of course even a very responsible and mindful person can be ID fraud .. but that is a different animal ..
This can be avoided and was by Responsible Parents ..
Ive raised 3 kids , none of them would spend a dime without asking me .. My 7 year old played that Angry Birds and many I Pad games and Fortnite .. But he knows and asks me every Single time he wants to purchase something ...
The problem is that the way Facebook set it up, people didn't realize that they were spending money. That's what the entire scandal is about. If it had been clearly displayed as "this will cost you $5; are you sure you want to confirm this purchase?", then there wouldn't be a scandal here.
If you didnt realize , that should not get past you for than 1 billing cycle .. Still the parents fault at that point ...The charges still appeared on the Bills
Putting fraudulent charges on credit cards is still a scandal even if people can get the charges reversed by disputing them. People shouldn't have to go through that fuss.
I understand completley what went on .. and i dont condone FB actions .. But like i said if it got past 1 billing cycle that person is an idiot .. Simple as that ..
Perfect example in the article of the kid that ran up 19 charges playing Ninja game his Father tryed it in game and saw the charge on his CC.. Simple matter of checking , that is availble to every CC holder ..
Now i will agree that FB refund policy was terrible ..
But again if this got past you for more than 1 billing cycle .. YOU are at fault in my eyes after that ..
Facinating really, how the Facebook Execs knew their practices were questionable if not outright predatory, (friendly fraud), their employees recognized the problem, proposed solutions which were dismissed, and yet, so many posters here apparently see no issue.
Weird.
They see other issues that matter more to them. Like irresponsible parents...
Which admitably does factor into the matter, Even if Facebook did encourage shady one button token purchases.
They are applying their "Fox News Filters" and assuming the issue lies solely with a button pushing root cause like "irresponsible parenting" when in fact it goes much deeper than just this.
Whatever, it's the world we live in now, critical thinking is lost.
I dont agree Kyleran .. it does stop with "Responsible Parenting" and looking after your own financial responsibilities .. If you are doing that .. This ends right there .. ( and im referencing this FB event ) of course even a very responsible and mindful person can be ID fraud .. but that is a different animal ..
This can be avoided and was by Responsible Parents ..
Ive raised 3 kids , none of them would spend a dime without asking me .. My 7 year old played that Angry Birds and many I Pad games and Fortnite .. But he knows and asks me every Single time he wants to purchase something ...
The problem is that the way Facebook set it up, people didn't realize that they were spending money. That's what the entire scandal is about. If it had been clearly displayed as "this will cost you $5; are you sure you want to confirm this purchase?", then there wouldn't be a scandal here.
If you didnt realize , that should not get past you for than 1 billing cycle .. Still the parents fault at that point ...The charges still appeared on the Bills
Putting fraudulent charges on credit cards is still a scandal even if people can get the charges reversed by disputing them. People shouldn't have to go through that fuss.
I understand completley what went on .. and i dont condone FB actions .. But like i said if it got past 1 billing cycle that person is an idiot .. Simple as that ..
Perfect example in the article of the kid that ran up 19 charges playing Ninja game his Father tryed it in game and saw the charge on his CC.. Simple matter of checking , that is availble to every CC holder ..
Now i will agree that FB refund policy was terrible ..
But again if this got past you for more than 1 billing cycle .. YOU are at fault in my eyes after that ..
None of that explains why Facebook or other mobile games employing similar techniques should he allowed to continue doing business this way, though.
As for the larger issue: we have to acknowledge that society has always, always shared responsibility for the well-being and upbringing of children with the community as a whole.
Every age restriction, child neglect law, and advertising law regarding minors is an example of this. But it occurred before even these kinds of laws; it's a moral and evolutionary imperative for a population to protect, nurture, and lead its young into adulthood. You see many animals who react the same way when one of the "tribe's" young is endangered. Female elephants "babysit" each other's young within the herd (and they don't even ask to be paid for it!), and all commonly participate in the protection of said young when the situation warrants it.
Society does have a responsibility to the children that make up their future. Ignoring it is only asking to deteriorate the future of said society, as the children will, in turn as adults, give to society in the same manner that they received from it during their upbringing.
Putting fraudulent charges on credit cards is still a scandal even if people can get the charges reversed by disputing them. People shouldn't have to go through that fuss.
I understand completley what went on .. and i dont condone FB actions .. But like i said if it got past 1 billing cycle that person is an idiot .. Simple as that ..
Perfect example in the article of the kid that ran up 19 charges playing Ninja game his Father tryed it in game and saw the charge on his CC.. Simple matter of checking , that is availble to every CC holder ..
Now i will agree that FB refund policy was terrible ..
But again if this got past you for more than 1 billing cycle .. YOU are at fault in my eyes after that ..
None of that explains why Facebook or other mobile games employing similar techniques should he allowed to continue doing business this way, though.
As for the larger issue: we have to acknowledge that society has always, always shared responsibility for the well-being and upbringing of children with the community as a whole.
Every age restriction, child neglect law, and advertising law regarding minors is an example of this. But it occurred before even these kinds of laws; it's a moral and evolutionary imperative for a population to protect, nurture, and lead its young into adulthood. You see many animals who react the same way when one of the "tribe's" young is endangered. Female elephants "babysit" each other's young within the herd (and they don't even ask to be paid for it!), and all commonly participate in the protection of said young when the situation warrants it.
Society does have a responsibility to the children that make up their future. Ignoring it is only asking to deteriorate the future of said society, as the children will, in turn as adults, give to society in the same manner that they received from it during their upbringing.
If you want to propose a narrowly targeted regulation that whenever spending either real money or microtransaction currencies purchased with real money, there has to be a confirmation window that makes it clear that that's what you're spending, I'd be fine with that, assuming that there isn't already such a regulation on the books and that it doesn't impose considerable compliance costs on companies that already structure their payments that way. What I'm against is responding by piling on hundreds of pages of arcane regulations that add considerable expenses to the more ethical companies that were never the problem in the first place.
Facinating really, how the Facebook Execs knew their practices were questionable if not outright predatory, (friendly fraud), their employees recognized the problem, proposed solutions which were dismissed, and yet, so many posters here apparently see no issue.
Weird.
They see other issues that matter more to them. Like irresponsible parents...
Which admitably does factor into the matter, Even if Facebook did encourage shady one button token purchases.
They are applying their "Fox News Filters" and assuming the issue lies solely with a button pushing root cause like "irresponsible parenting" when in fact it goes much deeper than just this.
Whatever, it's the world we live in now, critical thinking is lost.
I dont agree Kyleran .. it does stop with "Responsible Parenting" and looking after your own financial responsibilities .. If you are doing that .. This ends right there .. ( and im referencing this FB event ) of course even a very responsible and mindful person can be ID fraud .. but that is a different animal ..
This can be avoided and was by Responsible Parents ..
Ive raised 3 kids , none of them would spend a dime without asking me .. My 7 year old played that Angry Birds and many I Pad games and Fortnite .. But he knows and asks me every Single time he wants to purchase something ...
The problem is that the way Facebook set it up, people didn't realize that they were spending money. That's what the entire scandal is about. If it had been clearly displayed as "this will cost you $5; are you sure you want to confirm this purchase?", then there wouldn't be a scandal here.
If you didnt realize , that should not get past you for than 1 billing cycle .. Still the parents fault at that point ...The charges still appeared on the Bills
Putting fraudulent charges on credit cards is still a scandal even if people can get the charges reversed by disputing them. People shouldn't have to go through that fuss.
I understand completley what went on .. and i dont condone FB actions .. But like i said if it got past 1 billing cycle that person is an idiot .. Simple as that ..
Perfect example in the article of the kid that ran up 19 charges playing Ninja game his Father tryed it in game and saw the charge on his CC.. Simple matter of checking , that is availble to every CC holder ..
Now i will agree that FB refund policy was terrible ..
But again if this got past you for more than 1 billing cycle .. YOU are at fault in my eyes after that ..
None of that explains why Facebook or other mobile games employing similar techniques should he allowed to continue doing business this way, though.
As for the larger issue: we have to acknowledge that society has always, always shared responsibility for the well-being and upbringing of children with the community as a whole.
Every age restriction, child neglect law, and advertising law regarding minors is an example of this. But it occurred before even these kinds of laws; it's a moral and evolutionary imperative for a population to protect, nurture, and lead its young into adulthood. You see many animals who react the same way when one of the "tribe's" young is endangered. Female elephants "babysit" each other's young within the herd (and they don't even ask to be paid for it!), and all commonly participate in the protection of said young when the situation warrants it.
Society does have a responsibility to the children that make up their future. Ignoring it is only asking to deteriorate the future of said society, as the children will, in turn as adults, give to society in the same manner that they received from it during their upbringing.
I agree , and it should not be set up as it is ...They shouldnt be allowed , and change will come , but the parent that let this get past 1 billing cycle are as culpable (or more so) of the charges on there CC as FB ...
But again we all know this , hell before any Internet services smart kids check there CC bills ..
Do you check your CC charges when you get the bill ...?
If you saw in one month 19 charges to Facebook it would raise an alarm .. Wouldnt it ?
Hell if i saw 1 charge to FB on my CC i would be calling if had not authorized ..
FB was No Doubt taking advantage ,and some parents No Doubt were irresponsible with there owm finances and have to shoulder any blame after billing cycle 1
I agree , and it should not be set up as it is ...They shouldnt be allowed , and change will come , but the parent that let this get past 1 billing cycle are as culpable (or more so) of the charges on there CC as FB ...
But again we all know this , hell before any Internet services smart kids check there CC bills ..
Do you check your CC charges when you get the bill ...?
If you saw in one month 19 charges to Facebook it would raise an alarm .. Wouldnt it ?
Hell if i saw 1 charge to FB on my CC i would be calling if had not authorized ..
FB was No Doubt taking advantage ,and some parents No Doubt were irresponsible with there owm finances and have to shoulder any blame after billing cycle 1
I agree that someone who allows repeated fraudulent charges across multiple billing cycles without doing anything about it is mismanaging their finances. But that does not absolve the party that placed the fraudulent charges.
The strategy of some scams is to place a small charge on a lot of different credit cards, knowing that while some percentage of them will dispute the charge, others won't find it worth the hassle to dispute a small charge.
Some years ago, I had a credit card with a company that abruptly started employing some shady tactics. The due date for the bill had been consistent for years, and then they abruptly changed it to be much earlier than it had been in the past so that they could hit me with a $39 late fee if I paid at the normal time, and subsequently had the due date bounce around erratically. They opened an additional credit card account for me after misleading me as to what it was; I never used the new account. They tried to talk me into authorizing a recurring $10/month fee for something stupid. When I declined, they'd wait a month and call back, asking again.
The solution was to switch to use a credit card from a different company that wouldn't do that. There's no need to do business with scammers, even if the amounts that they're trying to essentially steal from each of their customers are small. The company got bought out shortly after this, and I'd later conclude that they were trying to artificially make their business look more profitable in the short run in hopes of extracting a larger price for the company.
That's basically the sort of game that Facebook is playing today, except that I don't think it's in hopes of extracting a higher price when selling the company. It's how Facebook has behaved from the very start. Sometimes there is a legitimate place for regulations to crack down on fraudulent behavior, though not everything can be solved in that way. At some point, consumers have to decline to do business with known, shady companies.
The problem wasn't so much that kids were involved as how difficult FB made it to resolve the issue. I doubt this would even be in the news if FB has a clear way to get a refund that worked.
And making that easy is something the card associations have specifically lobbied against. There aren't even regulations saying you have to provide a direct path to getting a refund. Like a phone number or URL on receipts.
How to resolve these issues is well known, the means are there and it's not a big cost to actually implement. It's that anything that could possibly lower revenue is lobbied against and the card associations have huge influence. The industry is almost entirely self regulated due to their power.
I agree , and it should not be set up as it is ...They shouldnt be allowed , and change will come , but the parent that let this get past 1 billing cycle are as culpable (or more so) of the charges on there CC as FB ...
But again we all know this , hell before any Internet services smart kids check there CC bills ..
Do you check your CC charges when you get the bill ...?
If you saw in one month 19 charges to Facebook it would raise an alarm .. Wouldnt it ?
Hell if i saw 1 charge to FB on my CC i would be calling if had not authorized ..
FB was No Doubt taking advantage ,and some parents No Doubt were irresponsible with there owm finances and have to shoulder any blame after billing cycle 1
I agree that someone who allows repeated fraudulent charges across multiple billing cycles without doing anything about it is mismanaging their finances. But that does not absolve the party that placed the fraudulent charges.
I never said it did ..
But in this day and age the way things are ... People need to be smarter ..
And my point has been all along , i do sympathize with anyone that has had hardsship before that first billing cyacle and/or difficulty on refunds , but after that first cycle if you have months of continued CC charges .. you are a Dumbass ( no one in particular)
Putting fraudulent charges on credit cards is still a scandal even if people can get the charges reversed by disputing them. People shouldn't have to go through that fuss.
I understand completley what went on .. and i dont condone FB actions .. But like i said if it got past 1 billing cycle that person is an idiot .. Simple as that ..
Perfect example in the article of the kid that ran up 19 charges playing Ninja game his Father tryed it in game and saw the charge on his CC.. Simple matter of checking , that is availble to every CC holder ..
Now i will agree that FB refund policy was terrible ..
But again if this got past you for more than 1 billing cycle .. YOU are at fault in my eyes after that ..
None of that explains why Facebook or other mobile games employing similar techniques should he allowed to continue doing business this way, though.
As for the larger issue: we have to acknowledge that society has always, always shared responsibility for the well-being and upbringing of children with the community as a whole.
Every age restriction, child neglect law, and advertising law regarding minors is an example of this. But it occurred before even these kinds of laws; it's a moral and evolutionary imperative for a population to protect, nurture, and lead its young into adulthood. You see many animals who react the same way when one of the "tribe's" young is endangered. Female elephants "babysit" each other's young within the herd (and they don't even ask to be paid for it!), and all commonly participate in the protection of said young when the situation warrants it.
Society does have a responsibility to the children that make up their future. Ignoring it is only asking to deteriorate the future of said society, as the children will, in turn as adults, give to society in the same manner that they received from it during their upbringing.
If you want to propose a narrowly targeted regulation that whenever spending either real money or microtransaction currencies purchased with real money, there has to be a confirmation window that makes it clear that that's what you're spending, I'd be fine with that, assuming that there isn't already such a regulation on the books and that it doesn't impose considerable compliance costs on companies that already structure their payments that way. What I'm against is responding by piling on hundreds of pages of arcane regulations that add considerable expenses to the more ethical companies that were never the problem in the first place.
Here's the thing, though: I've yet to see compelling evidence that anyone's goal with regulation is to pile on and cause issues for businesses in the manner you describe.
There's just no need to be so gun-shy. Regulations, like any other form of law, can be iterated and improved upon. There's an idea here that we don't dare entertain any regulations unless we're 100% sure it's going to be absolutely perfect the first time. That's a (quite frankly) ridiculous notion that only creates analysis paralysis within the governing body and population.
If you want to propose a narrowly targeted regulation that whenever spending either real money or microtransaction currencies purchased with real money, there has to be a confirmation window that makes it clear that that's what you're spending, I'd be fine with that, assuming that there isn't already such a regulation on the books and that it doesn't impose considerable compliance costs on companies that already structure their payments that way. What I'm against is responding by piling on hundreds of pages of arcane regulations that add considerable expenses to the more ethical companies that were never the problem in the first place.
Here's the thing, though: I've yet to see compelling evidence that anyone's goal with regulation is to pile on and cause issues for businesses in the manner you describe.
There's just no need to be so gun-shy. Regulations, like any other form of law, can be iterated and improved upon. There's an idea here that we don't dare entertain any regulations unless we're 100% sure it's going to be absolutely perfect the first time. That's a (quite frankly) ridiculous notion that only creates analysis paralysis within the governing body and population.
Intentions behind regulations don't matter. All that matters is the real-world effects. It is estimated that compliance costs with regulations cost about $2 trillion per year in the United States. It's not just a single $2 trillion regulation that does that. It's $10 million per year here, $100 million there, $1 billion on this other thing.
Some of those regulations are good and worth the cost. Over the course of the 70s and 80s, environmental regulations managed to greatly reduce air and water pollution in the United States. Some are botched efforts at doing something that would have been worth the cost if written and implemented better. And some were written to favor one group over another without any colorable argument that it would be good for society as a whole.
That's not to say that all regulations are bad, any more than that all are good. But if you don't ask, how much will this cost, is the good that it will do worth the cost, and is there a more efficient way to get the desired outcome, then you're probably going to endorse a lot of stupid things.
Nearly every bill or regulation to do something or other has laudable goals. So would bills to repeal most of them after they have passed. But it doesn't matter what the goal is. All that matters is the real-world effects.
If you want to propose a narrowly targeted regulation that whenever spending either real money or microtransaction currencies purchased with real money, there has to be a confirmation window that makes it clear that that's what you're spending, I'd be fine with that, assuming that there isn't already such a regulation on the books and that it doesn't impose considerable compliance costs on companies that already structure their payments that way. What I'm against is responding by piling on hundreds of pages of arcane regulations that add considerable expenses to the more ethical companies that were never the problem in the first place.
Here's the thing, though: I've yet to see compelling evidence that anyone's goal with regulation is to pile on and cause issues for businesses in the manner you describe.
There's just no need to be so gun-shy. Regulations, like any other form of law, can be iterated and improved upon. There's an idea here that we don't dare entertain any regulations unless we're 100% sure it's going to be absolutely perfect the first time. That's a (quite frankly) ridiculous notion that only creates analysis paralysis within the governing body and population.
Intentions behind regulations don't matter. All that matters is the real-world effects. It is estimated that compliance costs with regulations cost about $2 trillion per year in the United States. It's not just a single $2 trillion regulation that does that. It's $10 million per year here, $100 million there, $1 billion on this other thing.
Some of those regulations are good and worth the cost. Over the course of the 70s and 80s, environmental regulations managed to greatly reduce air and water pollution in the United States. Some are botched efforts at doing something that would have been worth the cost if written and implemented better. And some were written to favor one group over another without any colorable argument that it would be good for society as a whole.
That's not to say that all regulations are bad, any more than that all are good. But if you don't ask, how much will this cost, is the good that it will do worth the cost, and is there a more efficient way to get the desired outcome, then you're probably going to endorse a lot of stupid things.
Nearly every bill or regulation to do something or other has laudable goals. So would bills to repeal most of them after they have passed. But it doesn't matter what the goal is. All that matters is the real-world effects.
I agree completely, but I see that merely as support for the point: the idea we should avoid regulating or correcting undesirable behavior merely because we're scared we won't get it right immediately is self-defeating.
But that's exactly what we see happening. And it's exacerbated by the very conscious attempts by some businesses to fear-monger around that anxiety.
The idea that one should be "pro" or "anti" regulation is elementary-level thinking. It's the easy way to avoid examining these things critically.
In no way would I support blindly walking into terribly-planned regulatory action. But if we're going to discuss the climate instead of the weather, so to speak, I don't think many industries are suffering from this here in the U.S., specifically with regards to digital industries. There are much more regulatory holes than over-regulation.
So to all the people doing the "good parenting" deal (which I agree with to some degree), do you believe that tobacco companies should have been able to target children with their advertising back in the day?
IMO corporations should not be able to freely conduct nefarious business just based on "well it's the consumer's responsibility to know or do better". That's being a little obtuse about society and reality.
Good guardianship isn't a 1:1 ratio. Society shouldn't have to suffer long term for an environment with consumer ignorance + corporate immoral opportunism.
Going down that road, many stupid arguments can be made in favor of corporate behavior a lot of of you take exception to.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
So to all the people doing the "good parenting" deal (which I agree with to some degree), do you believe that tobacco companies should have been able to target children with their advertising back in the day?
IMO corporations should not be able to freely conduct nefarious business just based on "well it's the consumer's responsibility to know or do better". That's being a little obtuse about society and reality.
Good guardianship isn't a 1:1 ratio. Society shouldn't have to suffer long term for an environment with consumer ignorance + corporate immoral opportunism.
Going down that road, many stupid arguments can be made in favor of corporate behavior a lot of of you take exception to.
Where did tobacco companies target children ...?
And if they did , it would have been because they did not know it was harmful , much like cocaine was used widley medicinally ..
Its a different talkin of harmful products that noone knew were harmful ..
Much like asbestos and lead paint .. everyone used and exposed there kids to it , Because they thought it was safe ..
Not the same thing , FB is not harming kids , charging them to play Angry Birds , it only harms ignorant parents who dont check there CC bills ...( and again i do not condone or approve of FB actions , but much can be avoided by being responsible)
There really is a very very simple fix for this (until laws catchup) ..
Take the 45 seconds to scan page 2 of your CC bill ..
If a person is to lazy to do that and is getting exploited , they got what they deserve
So to all the people doing the "good parenting" deal (which I agree with to some degree), do you believe that tobacco companies should have been able to target children with their advertising back in the day?
IMO corporations should not be able to freely conduct nefarious business just based on "well it's the consumer's responsibility to know or do better". That's being a little obtuse about society and reality.
Good guardianship isn't a 1:1 ratio. Society shouldn't have to suffer long term for an environment with consumer ignorance + corporate immoral opportunism.
Going down that road, many stupid arguments can be made in favor of corporate behavior a lot of of you take exception to.
Where did tobacco companies target children ...?
And if they did , it would have been because they did not know it was harmful , much like cocaine was used widley medicinally ..
Its a different talkin of harmful products that noone knew were harmful ..
Much like asbestos and lead paint .. everyone used and exposed there kids to it , Because they thought it was safe ..
Not the same thing
There really is a very very simple fix for this (until laws catchup) ..
Take the 45 seconds to scan page 2 of your CC bill ..
If a person is to lazy to do that and is getting exploited , they got what they deserve
I'm not about to go revisit the entire 60s to now and tobacco corporations marketing. I'm not about to debate the information tobacco companies had and withheld from the 60s to now.
Everything after that I absolutely disagree with you.
Willfully and purposefully targeting/exploiting vulnerabilities in society is wrong and "they got what they deserved" is not an acceptable reason for it not to be regulated. Not for a human in a shared space society at least. That's just my POV though. What others choose to believe, in their wild west/Swiss Family Robinson utopia bubble is their business.
Asking millions of people "well why didn't you" seems like a much bigger undertaking than holding a couple hundred people who are responsible for the exploitation.
Beyond that, just keep that same energy as all of our identity data is being breached, sold, and exploited repeatedly with no culpability to the corporations/institutions involved.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
If people got outraged about this like they do about a kid standing by a guy with a drum, we'd probably live in a somewhat better world.
I'm closer to amused to be honest.
If you consider kids as "mentally handicap" or at least more vulnerable than an adult, this adds a nice warm and fuzzy to a F2P hater that F2P survives on the vulnerable.
Anything that does more to show Facebook having weaker morals than a hyena is a good thing for the world as well.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Facinating really, how the Facebook Execs knew their practices were questionable if not outright predatory, (friendly fraud), their employees recognized the problem, proposed solutions which were dismissed, and yet, so many posters here apparently see no issue.
Weird.
They see other issues that matter more to them. Like irresponsible parents...
Which admitably does factor into the matter, Even if Facebook did encourage shady one button token purchases.
They are applying their "Fox News Filters" and assuming the issue lies solely with a button pushing root cause like "irresponsible parenting" when in fact it goes much deeper than just this.
Whatever, it's the world we live in now, critical thinking is lost.
I dont agree Kyleran .. it does stop with "Responsible Parenting" and looking after your own financial responsibilities .. If you are doing that .. This ends right there .. ( and im referencing this FB event ) of course even a very responsible and mindful person can be ID fraud .. but that is a different animal ..
This can be avoided and was by Responsible Parents ..
Ive raised 3 kids , none of them would spend a dime without asking me .. My 7 year old played that Angry Birds and many I Pad games and Fortnite .. But he knows and asks me every Single time he wants to purchase something ...
I see both sides having merit. Yes, responsible parenting will help curb this to a large degree, but at what point does the responsibility shift? What I mean is, what if these companies can cleverly disguise predatory practices as normal? If even having a cash shop with loot boxes is considered predatory, but people still enjoy and use it, is the company still unethical for allowing kids to gamble for pixels? If the government condones shady practices, companies will too, and eventually their employees may, then their children as well. Who do we blame then? God, for making humans so suceptable to greed?
Post edited by Palebane on
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Think that's something that gets overlooked. The more responsible a community or the parents are, the more predatory some of these practices will get as a result in their bid for profit.
I know that sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, but it's just more simply, some people and companies will seek out the "best" method of making a profit, and analytics-driven monetization favors exploitative practices. It's been a problem with some companies for a while now that they will rely on analytics and not pause to regard the ethics because they are too busy staring at the numbers.
Think that's something that gets overlooked. The more responsible a community or the parents are, the more predatory some of these practices will get as a result in their bid for profit.
I really like this comment.
When my grandmother was suffering from dementia different drug prescription insurance companies would call her up and offer do-nothing insurance. She signed up several times. Once we caught onto what was happening we called the companies to complain and they played the voice of my grandmother agreeing to the charges.
They had actually kept copies of the phone conversation on file because they knew once the family found out there would be issues.
So I understand the idea of parents being responsible and of kids being responsible but I also like the idea of crappy business practices getting blasted hard. I won't be crying for FB anytime soon.
Comments
One of the cornerstones of mobile games and Cash Shop design is to disguise the fact that real money is involved, as far as possible !
That's why there's tokens/coins/gems to buy and spend. The LAST thing you want to do is to constantly remind the player that they're spending real cash, because that would put a serious damper on their impulse spending...
That's why the larger bundles of tokens often come with significant "discounts" and "extra value". The fewer times you need to dip into the player's RL wallet, the more they'll forget that those tokens have a real cash value.
There's an example quoted in that article about a 7-year old that racked up a huge CC bill because he kept clicking a button that granted him certain "special powers" on demand.
That button will never carry a warning, because the player isn't spending real money, they're spending tokens !
And somewhere in a sub-sub menu of the game Settings, there will be a tickbox that says "Automatically top-up tokens ?". Chances are that box is ticked by default at game installation...
It may be manipulative, exploitative, slimy, etc., but it's perfectly legal under current law ! The box is ticked, therefore the customer consented...
I'll grant that I've never played any microtransaction-based games on Facebook or a cell phone, but if analogous things on a PC can request confirmation, why can't Facebook?
As for the larger issue: we have to acknowledge that society has always, always shared responsibility for the well-being and upbringing of children with the community as a whole.
Every age restriction, child neglect law, and advertising law regarding minors is an example of this. But it occurred before even these kinds of laws; it's a moral and evolutionary imperative for a population to protect, nurture, and lead its young into adulthood. You see many animals who react the same way when one of the "tribe's" young is endangered. Female elephants "babysit" each other's young within the herd (and they don't even ask to be paid for it!), and all commonly participate in the protection of said young when the situation warrants it.
Society does have a responsibility to the children that make up their future. Ignoring it is only asking to deteriorate the future of said society, as the children will, in turn as adults, give to society in the same manner that they received from it during their upbringing.
Some years ago, I had a credit card with a company that abruptly started employing some shady tactics. The due date for the bill had been consistent for years, and then they abruptly changed it to be much earlier than it had been in the past so that they could hit me with a $39 late fee if I paid at the normal time, and subsequently had the due date bounce around erratically. They opened an additional credit card account for me after misleading me as to what it was; I never used the new account. They tried to talk me into authorizing a recurring $10/month fee for something stupid. When I declined, they'd wait a month and call back, asking again.
The solution was to switch to use a credit card from a different company that wouldn't do that. There's no need to do business with scammers, even if the amounts that they're trying to essentially steal from each of their customers are small. The company got bought out shortly after this, and I'd later conclude that they were trying to artificially make their business look more profitable in the short run in hopes of extracting a larger price for the company.
That's basically the sort of game that Facebook is playing today, except that I don't think it's in hopes of extracting a higher price when selling the company. It's how Facebook has behaved from the very start. Sometimes there is a legitimate place for regulations to crack down on fraudulent behavior, though not everything can be solved in that way. At some point, consumers have to decline to do business with known, shady companies.
And making that easy is something the card associations have specifically lobbied against. There aren't even regulations saying you have to provide a direct path to getting a refund. Like a phone number or URL on receipts.
How to resolve these issues is well known, the means are there and it's not a big cost to actually implement. It's that anything that could possibly lower revenue is lobbied against and the card associations have huge influence. The industry is almost entirely self regulated due to their power.
There's just no need to be so gun-shy. Regulations, like any other form of law, can be iterated and improved upon. There's an idea here that we don't dare entertain any regulations unless we're 100% sure it's going to be absolutely perfect the first time. That's a (quite frankly) ridiculous notion that only creates analysis paralysis within the governing body and population.
Some of those regulations are good and worth the cost. Over the course of the 70s and 80s, environmental regulations managed to greatly reduce air and water pollution in the United States. Some are botched efforts at doing something that would have been worth the cost if written and implemented better. And some were written to favor one group over another without any colorable argument that it would be good for society as a whole.
That's not to say that all regulations are bad, any more than that all are good. But if you don't ask, how much will this cost, is the good that it will do worth the cost, and is there a more efficient way to get the desired outcome, then you're probably going to endorse a lot of stupid things.
Nearly every bill or regulation to do something or other has laudable goals. So would bills to repeal most of them after they have passed. But it doesn't matter what the goal is. All that matters is the real-world effects.
But that's exactly what we see happening. And it's exacerbated by the very conscious attempts by some businesses to fear-monger around that anxiety.
The idea that one should be "pro" or "anti" regulation is elementary-level thinking. It's the easy way to avoid examining these things critically.
In no way would I support blindly walking into terribly-planned regulatory action. But if we're going to discuss the climate instead of the weather, so to speak, I don't think many industries are suffering from this here in the U.S., specifically with regards to digital industries. There are much more regulatory holes than over-regulation.
IMO corporations should not be able to freely conduct nefarious business just based on "well it's the consumer's responsibility to know or do better". That's being a little obtuse about society and reality.
Good guardianship isn't a 1:1 ratio. Society shouldn't have to suffer long term for an environment with consumer ignorance + corporate immoral opportunism.
Going down that road, many stupid arguments can be made in favor of corporate behavior a lot of of you take exception to.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Everything after that I absolutely disagree with you.
Willfully and purposefully targeting/exploiting vulnerabilities in society is wrong and "they got what they deserved" is not an acceptable reason for it not to be regulated. Not for a human in a shared space society at least. That's just my POV though. What others choose to believe, in their wild west/Swiss Family Robinson utopia bubble is their business.
Asking millions of people "well why didn't you" seems like a much bigger undertaking than holding a couple hundred people who are responsible for the exploitation.
Beyond that, just keep that same energy as all of our identity data is being breached, sold, and exploited repeatedly with no culpability to the corporations/institutions involved.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I know that sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, but it's just more simply, some people and companies will seek out the "best" method of making a profit, and analytics-driven monetization favors exploitative practices. It's been a problem with some companies for a while now that they will rely on analytics and not pause to regard the ethics because they are too busy staring at the numbers.
When my grandmother was suffering from dementia different drug prescription insurance companies would call her up and offer do-nothing insurance. She signed up several times. Once we caught onto what was happening we called the companies to complain and they played the voice of my grandmother agreeing to the charges.
They had actually kept copies of the phone conversation on file because they knew once the family found out there would be issues.
So I understand the idea of parents being responsible and of kids being responsible but I also like the idea of crappy business practices getting blasted hard. I won't be crying for FB anytime soon.