• Ookami38
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.

    Do you think 10% on top of the “refund” is not enough? I think that’s got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over “refund” versus “fine” and “earnings” versus “acquisitions” or whatever terminology bugbear you have.

    • Wooki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      And here in lies the problem.

      You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.

      • Ookami38
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you’re attacking me as if I’m thinking it’s all well and good they’re doing this shit. It’s not. We’re on the same page philosophically, you just really don’t like the specific terminology I’m using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.

        • Wooki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          How delicate do you have to be to believe disagreement as an attack . Comical gold.