Quote:
Originally Posted by Arch0wl
if that's true, we cannot keep accepting complaints at face value, and this whole system of "trust people's complaints first" is a glaring vulnerability that threatens the integrity of information as a whole.
|
I kind of agree with this sentiment -- situationally
For me it boils down to power dynamics: institutions with more power have a disproportionate amount of influence when it comes to... well, a lot of things. YouTube in particular has a similar kind of problem, where content creators get flagged whenever they portray certain IPs in a negative light, regardless of whether or not Fair Use is invoked. The ones that flag the videos (the "complainers" in this case) almost exclusively win these fights because YouTube just automatically sides with the flagging party, regardless of context -- this is, more or less, because the flagging party tends to have more power: they're executives, back by legal teams, etc.
Sure, free market and blah blah, but "with great power comes great responsibility" -- and, obviously, Visa/Mastercard have a lot of power.
With that said.
That doesn't vindicate Horowitz in this kind of case --- I'm pretty sure there's something we're not privy to at the moment, some subtlety that justifies whatever is going on here. Perhaps the complaints were legitimate, perhaps Visa/Mastercard already have performed an investigation, whatever. I have the feeling that something like this doesn't "just happen" arbitrarily, especially at these higher tiers of corporation (compared against the bakery situation, which was rather arbitrary, occurring a low corporate level).