Comment by dwyerm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dwyerm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've argued before, though, that I can't fault companies for using them. When someone hands you a get-out-of-jail-free card, you take that thing and hold on to it. It would be a special kind of lunatic who wouldn't.

The logic is this: "Look, you just need to add this handful of lines to your agreement, and you've instantly got protection against money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing lawyers who would come after you because you misplaced a parenthesis. The cost is nearly zero, because nobody reads those contracts anyway, and anybody who makes a stink about it is probably one of those money-grubbing, sue-happy customers you don't want, anyway."

So, yeah. I get it. I hate it, but I get it. To change it is going to require a consumer backlash large enough to impact congress -- not just the CFPB. But consumers aren't making enough noise, because of course, nobody reads those contracts anyway...

Why can't I fault them for using a decidedly evil clause? These companies are run by people, who are fully capable of knowing right from wrong.

You're a customer, then, and as a customer I completely agree with you.

But as an investor in the same company, I would fault them for not taking a simple step to protect their profits. Just because you include the clause doesn't mean that you're going to do evil and exercise it. Again, I can't fault you for taking the get-out-of-jail-free card that's offered. But I fault you mightily for doing something that would require flashing that card.

The fact that the card exists at all seems like the root problem to be fixed.

Again, I'm not buying it. Investors are also people, who are also capable of knowing right from wrong. I absolutely will fault them for taking evil steps to make profit at the expense of others.

And I disagree. Including the clause indicates your willingness to be evil in exercising it.

The fact that the card exists is absolutely a problem that exists and needs to be fixed. But you had the option to take it or not, and you chose to take it. That in itself is an evil step.

This idea that you can shield companies from any and all morality by crying about investors needs to die. It's absurd.

> I've argued before, though, that I can't fault companies for using them.

You can and should. So should I. If consumers refused to sign they wouldn't put them in.

Unfortunately we don't live in a world that allows us to easily do that (unless you want to live without a phone, internet, a car, etc...). So that's why the government needs to step in. It doesn't make these companies any less scummy for using the clause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com